Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1873-10-09

the action of the others, and so destroy
the equilibrium of the whole. To ap.
preciate the obligations of Ills office, q
Judge of this court must be states
man, he must comprehend the relation
in which the States stand to each 9th.
er, and To the Union and he must al.
so, in the administration of justice be.
tween man and man, mingle or inter
pret the rules of law with good sense
and sound reason.
| shall not dwell upon, or even
enumerate tue important public ques-
tions that came before the court while
Judge Taney held seat upon the
bench. They were met as they arose,
with candor and fairness.
But there is one novel case. of no
sort of public interest, tried before
him at the circuit in Baltimore, which
| must mention. 1t involved a ques-
ton of copyright. Reed, of Boston.
had copyrighted the air to the song
known as the Old 1ym Chair; and as
the piece was popular, Carusi, Of Balti-
ahphSe ea1pttt tbt Notus W "a ltsAi
air, aud was selling the song in this,
its new form; and the action was
brought by Reed for an infringement
OF his copyright. The question for
trial was one of fact, viz: whether
the defendants new air was really a
new and original composition, or a
mere evasiye imitation of the old one.
Ii was question relating to the fine
art of music, and it could only be de-
termined by experts. SO witness after
witness was called on the question, and
their testimony. like that of their fell
lows everywhere. was not very harmo-
nions; finally the plaintiffs counsel
proposed that Mr.. John Cole, a pro-
iesslonal singer, shoGld he sworn and
required To sing the two songs To the
jury. so that they might Judge whether
the two airs were similar or not. At
ter a long debate the motion was
agreed 10 by the court, aud Mr.. Cole.
under oath. proceeded 10 sing TO the
judge and jury:
Il love Il. love il. and wh, shall dare
To chide me for loving that old arm chair
After hearing both songs. the Jury,
solid men Of Baltimore, were unable
to distinguish between the two, and
therefore gave their verdict for the
plaintiff. We see no fault 10 find with
the ruling; the plaintiff was only al
lowed To read the two compositions 10
the jury. and surely it was their bust
ness 10 decide on this question of fact.
The Chief Justice possessed many
elements of greatness a mind of sin.
gnlar grasp and subtle discrimination.
He had been distinguished at the bar
Tor ms rare capacity as a special plead
er He was equally distinguished on
Le"hRReh,fg his.rAfdipess. nd. faciu.
and practice, presented in cases com
ng up from so many different States.
Ills intelligence and intellectual actiyi-
IS were Of a high order and he was a
wise man after his type of character.
lie was a good presiding officer; his
opinions were well considered, and
written in the clear judicial style, be-
coming high court of justice. He
vas man OF pure life; the desires
and pursuits of his mind were hot cor.
rupted By that reasonable alloy of am.
bitlon which entered into the pure gold
Of his character. Through all the ear
.ier years of hs administration, he
bore himself calmly in his high office,
with dignity and discretion. lie had
gained the confidence of the country
he was respected and trusted rs Il ca
pable and worthy administrator Of JUS
lice anS law.
Without much personal or aiiirma-
live power. he possessed the influence
accruing 10 him from his high position.
and an immense power as a check on
the action of Congress. 1t may be
that, as lie advanced in years, his pride
was tiattered by the unassailable posi-
ton he held, and by the exercise of
such high prerogatives. One does not
like 20 assert an ungracious thing; but
We must all admit that, had this been
the truth, it would have been only nat
ural.
1t was his fortune to come upon Il
great duty, in the ordinary course of
judicial administration. Oddly enough
it came in the form of a civil suit for
an assault. The action was brought
in the United States Circuit Court, by
Dred Scott, a resident of Missouri,
against John +. A. Sanford. of New
York, for the act of arrestng and i'm
prisoning the plaintiff and his wife,
anf their two children, Eliza and Liz.
zie, one of them seven, and the other
fourteen years of age. The defendant
interposed a plea to the jurisdiction of
the court, on the ground that Scott was
not citizen of Missouri, but Il negro
whose ancestors were brought into the
country and sold as slaves. Scott adj
mitted the fact alleged against his an
cestors, by demurrer and the court
held that these facts were not suffici-
ent to call for a dismissal of the suit.
The defendant then pleaded to the
merits of the action, and averred that
Scott and his family were his slaves,
his lawful property.
The answer of Scott presented his
claim to freedom on these grounds
that in 1884 lie was the slave of DIR.
Emerson, a surgeon in the army, and
was taken by him first to the military
post of Rock Island, in Illinois, free
State, and from there to Fort Smelling,
on the west bank of the Mississippi riv-
er, in the territory of Louisiana, north
of thirty-six degrees and thirty min
utes Of north latitude, where he re-
mained two years, and where he was
married to his wife, who had also been
taken there as a slave of a major in
the army; their Oldest child being
born on the river, north of Missouri,
and the younger after they were bro't
back into the State of Missouri. On
these facts verdict was rendered af-
firming the defendants right to Scott
and his family, as his slaves.
This was the celebrated case that
came up before the Supreme Court at