Middletown transcript., 1874-07-18
A Falsehood that Ought to have
had Its Day.

1t is singular how a falsehood once started is
some times persisted in-especially if it is sup
posed to favor good cause, or in any way to
promote it. We see this illustrated every day in
the reiteratou Of fasehoods about current events,
which an INSCRIPTIONS opposition press design
edly puts forth to lead the public mind astray,
and prejudice public sentiment. We have in
our mind now a popular falsehood circulated to
prejudice the people against Chief-Justice Taney.
who gave the famous Dred Scott decision. 1t
was repeated, the other day, by the colored ora
tor, Robert B. Elliott, in his eulogy on Sumner.
Among other things, the orator said the senator
heard Taney declare that, the black man has
no rights which the white man is hound to re-
spect." Thousands think the chief justice not
only uttered this sentiment, but used these
words. But truth demands it to be said that
this is an unfair perversion of language will
full or accidental fraud, which has been kept up
by the sheer force of demagoguism and popular
prejudice. Now that the occasion for it and all
Its consequences have passed, no one need be ac-
cnsed of evil intentions in correcting the false
hood. History ought to utter the truth. Who
ever reads the Dred Scott decision will fail TO
find the words quoted by Mr.. Elliott and so often
quoted by others. The nearest approach to
them will be found in the following !" The
question before us s whether the class of persons
described in the plea of abatement compose
portion Of this people, and are constituent mem
bers of this sovereignty? We think they are
not included, and were not intended to be in
cluded under the word citizen in the consti-
tuition, and can therefore claim none of the rights
and privileges which that instrument provides
for and secures to citizens of the United States
On the contrary, they were, at that time, consid-
cred as subordinate and inferior class Of beings,
who had been subjugated by the dominant race,
and, whether emancipated or not yet remained
subject to their authority, and had no rights or
privileges but such as those vho held the poWer and
the government might choose to grant them" Now,
this was not ChlefJustice Taney's opinion, and
is not given as sentiment endorsed by him. 1t
is mere statement of fact, or historical truth.
In the next sentence he qualities itby saying "it
is not the province of the court TO decide upon
the justice or injustice the policy or impolicy of
these laws. The decision of that question be-
longed 10 the political or law-making power-to
those who formed the sovereignty or framed the
constitution - Farther on be says: "We refer
to these historical facts for the purpose of show
ing the fixed opinions concerning that the
negro race upon which the statesmen of that day
spoke and acted" After making numerous
quotations and references, he says: "To all
this mass of proof we have still to add, that con-
gress has repeatedly legislated upon the same
construction of the constitution that we have
given" The duty of the court was 10 be gov
srned by the law and the facts, and to render a
decision accordingly. 1t might not be ia har-
mony with the dictates of justice and humanity,
but for this the people who adopted and main
tained the constitution and not the court, were
to blame. Yet the effort has been persistently
made to make scapegoat OF Chief-Justice
fancy and for the purpose, language which he
did not utter has been imputed to him, and what
he gave as historical fact, has been represented
as his own opinion. Intelligent men continue to
misqnot, him for the sake of using an epgra-
matte phrase which appeals to popular sentiment
in favor of equal rights. But time sets all
things even, and we suppose the devil himself
will yet get his due Then why not begin 10 do
justice 10 the memory of Taney, by ceasing to
misquote and misrepresent him ?-Syrdcuse San
sard.