Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-05-21
fFor the 1nteIIigenoer.l
SECTIONAL sTR1FE--No. 1s.
THE DRIED SCOTT DECISION.
[coxcLUDED 4.


CONCLUDED I
Tho Court in this case decided that Dret
Scott, being of African descent, his auccs.
tors of pure African blood brought init
the country and sold as slaves, was not .
citizen of any state within the meaning o
ofthe Constitution ofthe United States
Tint he had no standing room in an,
Court in the United States; that he coulC
not be heard there, and was incompetent
to sue, and that the Circuit Court had nc
jurisdiction over his case. Now this ques-
ton ofjurisdiction laid Mt the very thresh.
hold of the case, the Supreme Court was
in duty bound to decide it. They could moi
otherwise meet the exigency of the case.
They could not otherwise determine the
right of the parties. How could they proceed
with the snit while the Jurisdiction, that is
the. right to decide on the case at all. was
left in doubt. But having decided,
whether correctly or incorrectly, that IL ne
| gro is incapable eUfmaintNining suit in
the Courts of the Union, the Circuit and
Dirtrict Courts are bound to respect and
follow the decision. They are bound to
'shut their doors in the face of every Afri-
can. They are hound to say to him "You
have no standing room in this Court. You
cannot be heard here. IF you have any
rights you must assert them in some other
| forum as you may be advised. If on the
docket, your case must be stricken from
it" Did not such n sweeping decision rs
this fully meet the exigency of the case?-
What more could John +. 4. Sandford de-
mnnd? What more could the Court do for
him? What could Dred Scott do more?-
He was pronounced a slave, thing,
chattcl. not entitled to standing room
in Court, not entitled to be heard therein.
passiom IT IS 5nH tse Gearh the hfFd dRe thus dis
master had obtained against him TOR
costslll A great relief to Drcds. mind no
doubt!!! Though Chief Justice Taney thinks
it will make but little difference to the
partics, either in n personal or pecuniary
inoint of view A conclusion, perhaps, the
| best sustained by reason of any i'll the
whole case, as decided by the majority
a plain understanding may be puzzled TO
determine why it was necessary to reverse
in form judgement rendered by the Cir
| cult Court without jurisdiction that Is
without power to adjudicate or determine
anything concerning the matter. Such
| judgement is, in law, mere nulllty,
the paper on which it is written is mere
waste paper. Can it be rendered by re-
ycrsal less than nullity, less than moth
ing? Chief Justice Tauey says that "Thc
princiule of law is too well settled
! to be disputed that Court, can give no
judgement for either party where
it has no Jurisdiction" See 18th Howard,
mage 427. We assent to this readily: INT
Chief Justice Tnney is probably the only
LAWYER, who for long centuries, haS
thought it necessary to assert such legal
truism. Ifn natural historian in describing
the 0cnus homo were to say, sit is now
we'll asccrtained and in fact denied by
none. and cannot he successfully denied
that men have red fluid i'll their veins
called blood, that they have two nostrlls
two ewes and two ears" We should be
ant to reply "my dear sir, we agree with
YOU entirely, we have no disposition tc
fo disDute with you about the matter
But why you should employ suck strength
of Language in asserting SO plain propose
tion, VIC are at n loss to understand. W.
agree here with the Chief Justice. 1t th'
Honorable John Mclean and the Honora
ble Humphrey II. Lenvitt meet in Clrcul
EConrt i'm the Southern District of Ohio
and formally pronounce Judgement ue
tween two individuals, without jurisdic
zion. the paper on which their clerk re
cords the Judgment will be mere vast
noner the Judgment will not be the Judg
ment of the Circuit Court of the Unlte'
: states Int of John Mclean and Humphre
n Lenyitt. two unauthorized individuals
without commission rs to that; IN on
word, it will be a nullity. Snch q judG
ment would be Just as good as that
tBiI, the baker, and Tom, the tinker
neither better nor worse. No rights ar
derived from it, no change of propert
takes plRce in consequence OF II, ana II
to he treated in all courts and places
inefFectual. null and void. But the Che
Jnstice SAYS that he sis at n loss to uudel
: stand by what process of reasoning it ca
I be made out that the error of an interic
= court in actually pronouncing Judgme'
. for one of the parties in case; IN "nlc ,e
g it had no Jurisdiction, cannot be locke
> into or corrected by this court, becau!
the court had decided similar questIc
presented in the pleadings." 1t can
looked into and corrected. But sure
this is effectually done, when the appeila
tribunal ascertains that the interior cou
7" had no Jurisdiction. A formal rSvers
would simply be thrice staying the SIAM
Thc Supreme Court might as well emPI'
8 itself in reversing the judgments ot
lynch Court; for court passing judgme
n, between parties without Jurisdiction is
n n Lynch court. It's judgments are Just
valid and cffcctual in the eye OF the Ia
Vi as those OF Lynch Court, neither mo
10 nor less. An erroneous judgment:
merely erroneous, is valid and enectu
between the parties until regularly rev'
sc,l by some legal and appropriate Pi
cecding in a superior court, clothed
~ SS,,.o,ro;r,y nower with authority