Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-01-24

no issue with the Supreme Court, on that
subject We acknowledge tho supreme
Court decision to be the supreme law OF
tine land, and deny the allegation that we
intend Illegally and factiously to resist the
decision of that Court, andsfOrce kind OF
citizenship upon the country with which
| we have nothing to do. So far, then for
the bred Scott decision.
/ oBTTER DlcrA.
Gentlemen, time passes quickly, aud of
| course I cannot go deliberately into the ar
gament upon the other part of that which
| Is claimed to be the decision in the bred
Scott case, that is, that the law of 1877 hrst
| passed by the Confederation of States, and
re-enacted by the House of Representa-
tives at its very first session under the Con-
stitution in 1889 was unconstitutional
That is the dicta of these five Judges
Well, now gentlemen, just let me state one
or two strong points that every man of
common sense can understand. 1t is the
| practice of all courts-coUrts of common
law and courts of equity of the United
States, and of all courts of reasonable JUS
! tice and common sense, on Gods earth,
| from the earliest time to the latest day,
that when questions come up for decision,
they decide the main question, and that
obiter dicta, that is, words spoken inciden-
1 tally, and not to the main question, are not
1
hear me tonight, and they will bear me
out in this statement, and il is right. There
are lust reasons for it, because the ntten-
ton of the judges being bound to the main
| issue, they must not be held responsible
| for the incidental questions of the case
Now, that is what Justice Mclean and
| Curtis tell us, and they were in my opinion,
the ablest judges upon the bench think
| Justice Curtis the ablest judge ever read
/ I,n all that when the SIl-
preme Court decided in the case that it
had no jurisdiction there, their whole pow
er ceased. That is what this judge tells
| us, that is what the Republicans say. l
say it, gentlemen, that in my humblejudg-
ment, the rest of the opinion is not law,
and in this am supported by some of the
very ablest judicial minds of the United
| States. Not only so, but Justice Curtis
shows that the Supreme Court has decided
again and again that obiter dicta is not
! law, and is not so to be considered. There
are decisions in that report quoted, hbso-
| lutely made to the effect that these Incl
dental decisions that come in are not part
of the law of the land. Therefore, we say
in denial of what the Democratic party
has said to-day, that it is not the law of
the land. Therefore, we go upon that
subject for not changing, rather We deny
that it is law, and we appeal to the country
| to decide between U.s. hG OhC nv
\ glance to it as to a law of the United
states, but it is yet open for free discussion
by the people of the United States, that
| they may determine it under the COnstitn-
ton of the United States. To so much we
plead guilty.
TIE WORD REGULATE.
Now, as that is an important question,
| let us dwell yet while longer upon it
l T. A. Iak yrhuf thu
terms of the old Confederation in connec-
ton with it. They declared, gentlemen,
before they coded these lands to the United
States, that these Territories should belong
to the United States, and that the United
States should have complete control, both
political and practical over them, that is to
say that they yielded the entire jurisdic-
ton of the Territory, and the United
States under the act yielding these terri
tories to the United States, achieved as
they were by the common blood and
treasure, it was the determination of all
the States themselves to yield up the en-
tire control of them, and therefore when
the Supreme Court undertook to say that
that clause of the Constitution which says,
1.-THE Congress shall have power to dis
pose of and make all needful rules aud
regulations respecting the territory or 9TH
or property of the United States" does
uoL LuShl W ubt ~ my ~ ASASSN ~
the absurd conclusion, Notwithstanding
the object had in view in making the ces-
sion that when the land was given, the
States giving did not mean what they
said look to what forced construction
they are driven. They deny this positive
grant of power to pass laws by Congress
to prohibit Slavery in the Territories. and
the assertion that the word regulation"
is not n common term used by legal men
| nj hon fhav intend tn confer n mower. That
is the argument of the Supreme Court.
| Let us look at that. Four times is the
word CIRCULATION" used in the Constitution
with regard to grants of power, and thus,
so far from being an unusual term, 1t was
a usual one in the disposition of power in
the United States. Another clause says
that Congress shall have power to ''regu-
late commerce" Does any Democrat deny
that that is Legislative power? What, I'M
der it, have they done? They not only
regulate commerce" under it, between
foreign countries and this, regulating for
eign and domestic trade, but they passed
the embargo. Why? Because they had
the power to make all needful rules and
regulations appertaining thereto In the
Territories they have similar power dele
gated in somewhat the same words. Not
ouly had they the power to cherish COM
merce, but they had a right to prohibit and
destroy commerce itself. Certainly that is
legislative power; and it was exercised
under this very term 'regulate;" therefore
it is absolutely absurd when the Supreme
Court and the Democratic party undertake
to say that when it was enactcdtha Con-
gress should have the power to make all
needful rules and regulations for the Ter
ritory, did not delegate legislative power.
So that the very language that they claim
would debar a grant of power, is shown,
by four clauses of the Constitution, to