The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1875-04-22

uSClu0 Oy tne1f votes WUolnef IL SnOulu
be free or slave, made this judicial deci
sion a part OF his original contrivance
for in the debates on his bill he could
not be brought to say that under it the
peonle of a territory would have power
to prohibit slavery; but in answer to the
direct inquiry he said this would be q
question for judicial decision. With this
foreshadowing and the fulfillment OF the
Dred Scott decision made to order, the
Douglas popular sovereignty contrivance
was nothing less than a conspiracy
against Constitution, free Government
and human liberty. A purpose OF seces
sion, openly advocated and boldly under
taken, becomes of noble character by
contrast with this villainous conspiracy
to destroy the Constitution of the gov
ernment in order to secure forever the
ascendency of the slave lords.
Not lew are so ignorant as to think
that Douglas adhered to the principle ot
squatter sovereignty in directing his sup
porters in the Charleston Convention
and that to this he sacrificed his certain
ty of a nomination in that convention.
But this is as false as the Dred Scott de
cision, and as all his course in this mat
ter. The sole question on his part was
one of electioneering policy. The South
ern representatives now demand a
straig Oh forward course; Douglas insisted
on the policy of deceit As the Dred
Scott decision had declared that proper
ty in slaves was of the same nature as
property in other things, and that neither
Congress nor Territorial government
had power to prohibit or destroy it, but
that both had the right and duty to pro-
tect it, the South now demanded that
this should be put into the Democratic
platform. Although the dough faced
Northern Democrats did not dare to dis
pute this decision, and although some ot
their local platforms had affirmed in a
general way the binding nature of judi
cial decisions, yet Douglas knew that the
honest affirmation of the doctrine of the
bred Scott decision would be fatal to
Democratic chances in the Northern
States. Therefore he proposed to his
strikers in the Charleston Convention a
repetition of the trick, by a declaration
in the platform that the question OF Con
gressional protection to slavery in the
Territories was question for judicial de-
cision.
Inasmuch as the original trick of pop
ular sovereignty, subject to a judicial de-
cision, had already been played accord
ing to the plot, this proposal seemed con-
temptible to the Southern leaders, as
well as unfaithiul to the original agree
ment. They insisted on an honest dec
laration of that which the judicial deci-
sion had settled Douglas insisted on a
repetition of a trick that had already
been played On this difference the con-
vention split, and the Democratic party
went to pieces. Clearly, the position
taken by the Southern leaders was the
honest one, and that of Douglas was as
low and dishonest as any trick of the
Artful Dodger. Yet, after all this. he
had the hardihood to assume to repre-
sent the principle of popular sovereignty
in the three-cornered Presidential can
vass
The American people have great rev
erence for judicial decisions. This is a
tradition OF the Anglo Saxon people, and
is rather remarkable in view of the many
acts of judicial tyranny and usurpation
in their history. In our country, the
fnality Of judicial decisions became a
main doctrine OF the party led by Jetfer-
son. The Whig party inherited this rev
erence for judicial decisions. The char
acter of the Supreme Court while the
bench was occupied by the Judges ap
pointed by Washington and Adams made
good foundation for this Not till the
Supreme Court, through Democratic de-
tool for extending slavery, did the Dem
ocratic party profess respect for judicial
decisions.
The complete failure of the Dred Scott
decision to do the work for which it was
conspired, and to become part OF the
law of the land, is a remarkable TACT in
our history, when We consider the force
of this traditional respect for judicial de-
cisions, in one of the great parties. and
this adoption of the doctrine of their
tinality by the other. The plot was cum
ningly devised; it was baited with the
taking name OF popular sovereignty. and
the conspirators embraced the Admins
tration, the Supreme Court, the Repre-
sentatives OF the till then dominant slave
power and the leaders of the dough
faced Northern Democratic party. And
when the decision was made, which was
to prepare the way for direct Congress
ional and judicial interventions to pro-
tect slavery in the Territories, and
whose doctrine would alike extend it in
to every State, the Northern Democratic
press began with almost one accord to
declare the sanctity OF judicial decisions.
Y ct this famous decision failed to i'm
press itself on the popular mind or to Sc
cure popular respect 1t was found that
the traditions and convictions of the
people could not be overthruwn by iu.
dicial declaration. 1t injured the char
acter OF the Court in the estimation oil
| the people, rather than changed their
convictions. The general conscience af.
frmed that thing SO monstrous could
not be law, and the intelligent Republic
can press freely challenged the historical
assumptions of the opinion, and abun
dainty proved them bundle OF lies.
. g.
who, upon this opinion on the l4th
amendment, set up the claim that wo
men are now legally voters, made plau
sble argument, but it had the defect
that one OF its legs was on this infamous
decision. which had been generally re
pudiated The suffrage movement has
gained no headway by planting itself on
the Dred Scott decision. That piece oi
judicial villainy would taint any cause
that hitched itself thereto. The doctrine
of that decision was repudiated by the
| public conscience. 1t made the Supreme
Bench disreputable. Its results to the
personal ambition of its contriver ended
his life in disappointment and remorse
The South abandoned all expectation:
from it. The Administration ignored the
dicta of the decision. But we do not re
member that the Supreme Court has haC
this main historical assumption, on which
the decision was based. under direct re
view until it was brought up as thu
ground OF the claim that the 18th amend
ment, by declaring all native and natu
rallied persons citizens, makes them vi
ters. The Court has now pronounced
the historical basis of the Dred Scott de
cision false, as every intelligent persoi
knew it was at the time. and so has tel
: minated the effort to make women an,
children voters through the Dred Scot