Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1860-03-24

provision that deprived the States utterly
q the power to protect their own citizens ?
NO. sir But it is frequently said that the
constitution would not have been framed
II this had not been provided for. But so
lar from this being the case, it was mere
after thought. -
Inc constitution was formed in all its
important particulars before any man
tnougnt OF this provision, and it was pIac.
ed there with no idea that State should
surrender any power to protect her own
citizens. If that Convention was iealous
, of any one thing more than another, it was
OF tne rights OF the States and they bat
tied inch oy inch, against every principle
that looked to the surrender Of any State
power. They never intended to give any
power to any person to claim anybody they
choose. 1t was only to claim the fugitive
from labor and when that has been aseer
tanned, no State has resisted the law. But
the Senator says that Ohio, among the rest
has committed kind of perjury, by pass.
ing Personal Liberty bills Mr.. Wade re.
ferred to the law Of Ohio, to prevent slave.
holding, and read the last section, as fol-
lows
Nothing in the preceding section of this act
shall apply to any act done by any person un-
der the authority of the Constitution Of the
United States; or any law Of the United States
made in pursuance thereof
And, continued Mr.. Wade, now. I ask
the senator, If he was upon the bench, and
If fugitive was brought before him under
this law, if he would have any difficulty in
surrendering him Let me say to YOU
who bold the doctrine of state rights You
endanger the liberty of your own states
when you contend against the power of the
states to pass laws protecting their own citi-
zens No asperity Of language no frowniUg
countenance nor denuncation shall ever
induce Ohio to forget what is due to her
sovereignty and to the protection of her
own cltizens-never, never, sir And she
takes no prouder stand on this subject than
hope in God every other state in this I'm.
ion takes. Then, the senator was wrong
and uncandid to say our constituents were
perjured when they have taken every pre-
caution to protect the citizens of states
holding species of r"perty we utterly
repudiate. Ohio is never forgetful Of her
rights. She sends no senators here to dc.
nounce the sovereignities of other states.
|
basSadorS would be unfathful to their trust
if they did not hurl back any such imputa-
tion. The third count of this indictment
was that we intended to prohibit and to
limit slavery in the vast territories of the
| United States. Sir, to that charge | con-
fess it is true. We do intend it, sir. If
understand the objects and purposes of the
Republican party, it was brought into pow
ew on this very subject. When the gener-
al government had broken all the pledges
to freedom in our territories, the Republi-
can party rose to oppose this unconstitu-
tional aggression, had there been no viola
tion of the Missouri Compromise very pro-
badly there would have been no Republican
party here. We intend 10 defend the ter
ritories of this country against the pollu
sion of Slavery There we stand, and
there is our platform, and there we shall
stand forever. But the senator claims the
right to carry slaves into the territories be-
cause the decision of the Court gives him
that right. Now, no man has more respect
for the decisions of the Courts, when with
in their proper judicial limits than / have,
and no one knows better how essential it is
that these should be lived up to. But just
as much as | revere an honest Court, keep
ing within its jurisdiction and restraining
itself from any political connection, so, Sir,
in exact proportion do l abhor and scout
one from the corrupt Judge whS, for any
purpose, will reach over the case before
him, and endeavor to advance a political
cause by suy decisions he may pretend to
make. The moment the Court trauscends
its authority for the purpose of affecting
any political cause, its decision is imperti-
uent, and with the Courts of Georgia, /
say hold it in bitter contempt. and if
there ever was decision on Gods earth
that would warrant any private man or
Senator saying, "I hold it in contempt" it
is that Dred Scott decision.
What was the case An old negro
prosecutes for his liberty in the Federal
Courts. Old Dred Scott sued for his free
dom, and the plea was put in that being
the,descendant of Africa, he could not sue
in that Court. The Court decided that a
man may be so moustrous low that he eau
not sue for his life, and | believe this is the
first nation on Gods earth that ever put
being in human form upon so low a level as
that But a majority Of the Court said
that Dred Scott being negro, a descendant
OF African ancestors, who having been
slaves, he could not maintain a suit in that
Court, because he was not a citizen. ask
if that was not the end of that case. Then,
in the name of God, Judge Taney, why did
you retain it any longer? 1t was settled
npon every principle of adjudication, and
no Court has held to it more solemnly than
that one.
All, then, the Court may say beyond the
case was mere talk, and might just as well
have been uttered in bar-room as in a
Court. The majority Of that Court are
interested in that decision, and, strange as
it may appear, those who complain of north
ern aggression, have had majority of that
Court on their side. l will not say that is
the reason why the decisions are magnfed
to such Importance. The very men of the
very party who, few years ago, held these
decisions of no effect, have turned around
of late and have found virtue in that
Court that can ride trumphantly over every
ether part of this Government. Such a
hereSy, if persisted in, can result in moth