Year: 1860

| In preparing avolume of reports of cases de-
cided IN Il court it is part of the work of the
! reporter to make notes cOndenSng into a small
! space the decisions made in the case and to
| prefix them as head-notes When the cases are
| reported by the Judges of the court, the head


notes may be relied on true indications of the


decisions. When the reporter is not one of the
Judges of the court whose cases are reported


his head-notes have no more authority than the


unofficial statements of any other lawyer They
are never read by counsel nor listened to bv


Judges, as Judicial declarations of the law II


u head-note do not correctly exhibit the decs-
/ ion of the court the conflict can raise no doubt
{ the head-note is condemned without hesitation


and the decision stands unimpeachcd The on
/ ly use of headnotes is to aid lawyers in hunt
! ing for decisions on 4 principle which they arc
/ investigating.
| Every man at all convcrsant with public af


fairs knows that Howard, who reports cases de-
clded by the Supreme Court of the United
States, is not one OF the Judges of that court
\ large part Of his head notes to the Dred Scott


case are a synopsis of the extended argument
of the Chief Justice rather than schedule OF


the decisions made by the court. Several OF


them are erroneous; but ask my fellow-cit


Zens 10 examine with me the head-note mum
bcred T. under the fourth division of the decfs-
! ions III that case, in the 19th volume Of How
ard Reports. 1t is in the following words:
The constitution of the United States recogni-
ZeS slaves property and pledges the fed raj
government to protect it. And Congress cannot ex-
ercISe more authority over property of that des-
criptGn than it may cOnsttntionally exercise over
property of any other kind:''


According to this head-note the decision of
the Supreme Court asserts a general PROPOSE
ton, Without qualification limitation that
the federal government is pledged by the con
stltutlon to protect property III slaves. OF
course this must be considered as referring to
the Territories. The plain meaning of the
hcad-nctc is, that the Supreme Court has deci-
ded that if the owner of slaves shall carry them
into a Territory, Congress, a department Of the
Federal Government, is bound by the Constitu-
ton to protect his right as owner III the Ter
rlt0rY


The part in the opinion Of the Chief Justice
for which the foregoing note was made, is in the
following words:


''And the government III express terms is bound
TO protect it property i'll saves) IN all future time


9hc sLaces escape from tic Orner This is done
i'll plain wordS-tuo nlain 10 be misunderstood. And


no word can be found i'll the Constitution which
gives Congress greater power over slave property,


which entities property of that kind to less pro-
lection than property OF any other description


The onty p0,rer conferred is the power coupled


with the duty of protecting the i'll his
rights.


According to the opinion of the Chief JUS
ticc, as expressed by himself in these words,
the federal government is pledged to protect
property i'll slaves i'll the single case of slaves
escaping from the State of his owner into that
of Il Tcrrtory--in his words, IF the slave cs-
capcs from the owner This pledge to pro
tcct, in the single case of fugitive slaves, does
not extend to the case of slaves carried by their
owners into Il Territory.


The last sentence in the paragraph quoted
from the opinion of the Chief Justice is limited


with like certainty to the delivery of fugitive
slaves to their owner. The Chief Justice uses
the EXPRESSION "thc emily po~er confelred' "


He understands that the Constitution gives to
the Federal Government but one p0lrer i'll rela
ton to slavery and therefore he calls it the only
power" Now a power over slavery is given to
Congress in the third clause of the second section
of the fourth article Of the Constitution, which
is in the following words: No person held to
labor or service in one State under the laws
thereof escaping into another shall, in consc-
qucucc of any law or regulation therein, be dis
charged from such service or labor but shall
be delivered up on claim of the party to whom
such service or labor may be due"


All Southern men of every party, and all
Democrats agree in maintaining, that this clause
in the Constitution gircs 1I01ccr to C0ngress to
enact law for the delivery of fugitive slaves
who may escape from one State into another
State or Territory and that it also makes it
the duty of Congress to enact such law. If you
hunt through every clause of the Constitution
for the powers which it confers, if you scruti-
nize every line of that instrument you will not
find another grant to Congress of power in re-
lation to slaves. This in the language of the
Chief Justice, is the only power con nterred, and
it is coupIed ecith tie duty of protecting the
owner in his rights. In this paragraph the
Chief Justice is exposing the fallacy of posi-
ton taken by the counsel of Dred Scott, stated
on the preceding page Of the report; that there
is such difference between slave property and
other kinds of property, that different rules
may be applied to it in eXpounding the Consti-
tuition of the United States. The Chief Justice
affir1ns that the Constitution does not make such
discrimination; and that the only power over
slavery that the Constitution has given to Con-
gress, is the power coupled with the duty of
restoring slaves to their owner, when they es-
capped into another State or Territory.


There can be no man so stupid as not to I'M
dcrstand, or so prejudiccd as not to see that
head-note asserting the general proposition that
the Constitution pledges the federal govern
ment to protect property in slaves, is a false
exponent of the opinion of the Court; that the
Constitution pledges the federal government to
protect the owner in his right of property when
his stare escapes into another State or Territory
and that this is the only power in relation to
slaves conferred by the Constitution on the
1cuefal governments.


The head-notc which | have quoted as the
4th, under the fourth division of decisions in
the Dred Scott case in the 10th volume of
Rewards Reports, is kept as standing motto,
in precisely the same language, word for word,
by many of the papers of the Breckenridge par
ty, quoted the fourth decision of the Su
preme Court in the Dred Scott case. | do not
charge those editors who thus in the most con-
spicuous part of their papers, daily proclaim
Il 4 T - J,I;I
deceive their readers great constitutional
question: but this charge cannot be avoided
without the confession that they have not I'M
derstood the difference between a note made by
reporter, and a decision made by court. If
men who undertake to enlghten the public
mind will acknowledge themselves SO profound
ly ignorant in matter which they have at
tempted to handle let them so acquitted of the
charge of criminal intent to deceive. And if
this be their defence, they are bound to prove
their sincerity by Withdrawing the fragrant
fasehood from their journals.


But these editors have associates in this of
fence who cannot so easily escape from the
CHARGE of a criminal conspiracy to deceive their