The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-07-17
THE DRIED SCOTT DECISION.

Editors Of the Exchange:
UENrLEMEN will you receive this from a sick :
ped with few ounces of indulgence.
l have read carefully the extract published bv
you this morning from the bred Scott decision
1t is plainly declared hat the citizens of the United
States @ho migrate TO Territory cannot be ruled
as mere coonists dependenton the riU of the general
gorernment, and to be governed by any laos 1t may
think proper to impose"
sence of legislative power in Congress over the
Territories after the establishment of their govern
ments, as they illustrate and state the distinction
between the English powers of colonial, and the
American powers of territorial government. Every
lawyer and well informed man knows that Parlia-
ment egisates for the Colonies, subject to the Con-
stitution of England; and if Congress could legis-
late for the Territories subject only to the Consti-
tuition, the colonial and territorial condition would
be precisely the same. But the opinion of the
Court speaks of wide and marked distinction
This can only be that Parliament have the right
of legislation for the Colonies; but Congress have
no such right with respect. to the Territories. A
mind of legal acumen will discover this view sus-
tanned in other parts of Judge Taney's opinions and
as conspicuously marked in the opinions of Judges
Nelson and Campbell.
The idea of a slave code by Congress is therefore
untenabe, according to that authority. have be.
slowed the greatest care upon the reading of your
whole extract and cannot find word on the sub
ect of the general power of the Territorial Lepisla
ture over the subject of slavery. The following
words in italics are, / suppose, regarded as the
words of peculiar significance on this subject:
And if Congress itself cannot do is-if it beyond The
mitted, presume that could not authorize terrific
rial government to exercise them could confer POM
err on any local government established by its authority
violate the provisions fthe Constitution"
Any who will read attentivey the preceding
parts of the extract must see plainly that the
Court here refers to the powers that are forbidden
by the Constitution, alike to the General Govern
ment and the States, and not to the million of sub
jects of general Legislation, which from the pecu-
liar structure and purpose of the United States
Government, it can have nothing to do with
A few sentences preceding the above quotation
the Court says
For example, no one. we presume, will contend that
of religion, the exercise thereof or
abrdging the freedom of speech of the press or tho
right Of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble
and to petition the government for the redress of r;av
ances. o' siieF-
NOT can Congress deny to the people the right to keen
anu oar arms nor the right to trial by jury nor compel
nroceeS; 70 De witness against himself in criminal
n powers and others in relation to the rights If
n a l. Is not necessary here TO enumerate are
IN express ana positive terms denied tn the
gnarded with enna OF private property have been
These words, and the last vordo Of a.,
ton, In 'tdtcs thlnk, must clearly show that The
Court could only refer to the powers nroh;h;tad
"the prouisions Of the Constitution. D'eu W
Perhaps am asking too much from vonr liza
ness, but allow me to say few words on a suh;act
which has deeply grieyed me--the breaking np, or