The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1884-05-15

Scott Decision, in The Independent
of April Sd, surprises me not little,
and seems to call for criticism and re-
monstrance. | cannot believe it was
so intended, and yet it reads like an
apology for a judicial act which re-
vealed the full infamy Of the con-
spiracy to perpetuate slavery in the
United States by an Interpretation Of
the Constitution which doomed the
Negro to eternal and remediless chat
telhood, with no more standing in
the Supreme Court than dog or a
pole-cat. | have not taken the trouble
to consult the files, but | am conf
dent that The Independent in 1856
spoke of Chief-Justice Taney's opinion
in far different strain. The judg-
ment Of the court having failed of its
object and involved its authors in dis
grace and infamy, the descendants Of
the judges who took part therein, are,
naturally, anxious to find some excuse
for them that may at least relieve the
blackness af the smirch which they so
unfortunately and gratuitouslv affixed
to their own regulations. The colors,
however, are fast, and the stain is in
effaceable. The tears Of angels, if we
could imagine them to flow in such a
cause, would not suffice to blot it..
But the crying angels never obliterate
the work Of their recording brothers.
The record, once made, will stand for
ever. The god slavery, which the
Supreme Court worshiped and obeyed,
is dead; but the infamy of such wor-
ship and obedience survives, defying
all excuses and apologies.
The plea that the phrase, ''the Ne
gro has no rights which the white
man was bound to respect" occurs
only in the historical part of Judge
Taney's opinion, and refers primarily
to the state Of opinion one hundred
years before the Revolution, is purely
technical and amounts to nothing:
for, the Infamous sentiment, instead
Of being repudiated by the judge for
its inhumanity, is accepted by him as
legally sound, and made the basis OF
his entire JUDI gment His argument,
drawn out at an almost interminable
length of wordiness, runs back for its
foundation to a postulate as false his
torically as it is outrageous in point
Of morality. Strike out that lie from
the opinion, and Judge Taney's judi
cial structure has not leg to stand
upon. He takes that lie to his breast,
hugs it and coddles it as If it were
precious truth, and thus finds it an
easy as we'll as a congenial task to
grind whole race of men under his
judicial heel. The false assumption
that, one hundred years before the
Revolution, it was 1.-The fixed and uni
versal opinion in the civilized portion
of the white race that the Negro had
no rights which the white man was
bound to respect" he makes his guide
in constructing the Declaration Of In
dependence and the Constitution of
the United States. He insists that
the legal status Of the Negro in 1875
was exactly what it was hundred
years before; that it was in no wise
changed by the war or by subsequent
events, and remained, in 1856, so far
as the United States Government was
concerned, exactly what it was cen
tury and half earlier. Therefore,
such is the argument-the Negro is
incapacitated for being a citizen Of
the United States, and has no more
standing in it's courts than a wild
beast.
Such is the Dred Scott decision.
Its whole meaning and spirit is accu-
rately summed up in the words 'the
Negro has no rights which white
man is bound to respect" Originally
used as descriptive of ancient opinion,
they are taken up, if not formerly yet
really and truly, and made the inform
ing vitalizing breath of the judgment
of the court. But the conspirators
left God out Of their calculations, and
SO their counsel came to naught. lie
they had succeeded, and slavery, by
the consent Of the people, were now
fastened to the neck Of this Republic,
would the descendants Of the judges
be to-day running about to explain
that they did not mean what they
said, that they acted under constraint
of legal principles and precedents,
which they did not indorse and which
were as odious to them as to others?
trow not. In that case what is now
so anxiously sought to be explained
away. as at the worst only an excusa-
BILE mistake Of Judgment, would have
been boldly defended as aeritorious:
He that sitteth in the heavens shall
laugh; The Almighty shall have them
IN derision." OLIVER JOHNSON,
L.