T II E ANTI-S L A V H R Y DUG L E
From the New York Evening Post.
ONE OR TWO RESULTS OF THE LATE
CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution of Khodo Island limits the
tight of suffrage to the citizora of the United
(States, and, under this provision, colored per
sona have been allowed to vote in the elections
held In that state, ltut this win under the M
tat of tilings under llio federal isontitutioti
Which nit in forco '.ill lint week. It is, however,
an indication id ilm manner in which that ennsti
tuth u has boen all along interpreted. Nobody in
Ilhude Island has till tio.v vuttiel thnt n colored
mnn, uorn wiuiin l ie state, wn i ti me juiisuiciion
f . renublio the founders of which declared that
"all men re created equal," wus not a citizen,
Rot entitled as such to vole in the tleetiutu, and
Tirosocute his civil riithts in the courts of lh
United States, was no moro a member of civil so
ciety, in tho view of tho federal constitution, than
t horse or a dog. but was lull ptocisely where
Judge Taney in his Into decision of tho Died S ntt
case affirms him to l.ve been found by tln.se who
framed the constitution that is to say, in the con
dition of ono who has "no riithts which, the while
man is bound to respect," no claim to protection,
BO power to demand justice from the federal tribu
nal in any possible cue of w rong or oppression.
Nobody in Untitle l.-dard, until the new constitution
wa promulgated tiy Jtidgo Tuncy and his nssoci
.tea, looked upon tlie uolored man as literally an
outcast, simply on ca unit f his race, disowned
Vy the government under which he was born, and
without a country.
Something, of ojursfl will bo done in his favor,
Bow that tho federal constitution is amended itu
cording to the new reading of the sl'ivelmldiug
judges. The Providence Jvurnal of yesterday
ays :
"The subject should recievo the immediate at
tention of the General Assembly, so that the
amendment (of the statu constitution securing the
tight of suffrage to colored men) if it is necessary,
may be submitted to the people iu tho coining po
litical year,"
W shall hare plenty of ncitatinn of matters
like these, in addition to a spirited discussion of
the grounds of tho conclusions assumed by .Judge
Tanev and his fellows. In nil the f'reo states, the
legislatures will bo occupied wit'i locking over
their stato constitutions, to see whether tiny
amendment be necessary to meet the exigency
Which has so suddenly arisen, and supply, if the
Occasion should require it, tho want of iirnteutiou
to the colored man so unexpectedly created.
Plans of amendment to the state constitutions
rill be prepared ; plans of legislation to counter
vail tho effect of the decision will be brought for
ward, and whether anything be done or not, we
ihall have plenty of agitation, Whero wo sinnd
iince this judicial innovation what part of the
Opinions of tho majority of the court will, accord
ing to the usages and principles nf administering
law, govern in future cases what part of them
Bay be explained awav- the effect id' w hat part
nay be avoided by the ingenuity of stato legisla
tion, will be fruitful sources of earnest and ani
mated discussion.
Mure earnest than this, and more universally
interesting, will he the discussion of the means
by which we may defeat and break in pieces the
political party formed to diffuse nnd propagate
lavery a party the doctrines and practices of
which havo so infected our judioary as to mako it
the instrument of a local oligarchy in wresting
the constitution to bear a meaning which nothing
but a porverted ingenuity colli find in it, and
whieh contradicts the iudirement of the wisest
and purest men of the tirst half century of our
TAUHblie. Now that this party has brought over
the judiciary to be its accomplice in nationalizing
slavery, the necessity ot tnrusun
is more manifest than ever. The more w ide-spread
is the conspiracy the greater necessity ot an ener
getic concert ot action anung ourselves. These
mssaulw, nvtde one after another, from Congress,
from the Executive, and now from the judiciary,
on the rights of the free States, should drivo
nitizens of those Statos into a closer union, as
ram nest drives ft scattered crowd under a commun
shelter.
it out of power
Correspondence.
For the Bugle.
FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
SCHUYLKILL., Chester Co., Pa.,
March 9th, 1857.
Mr Dear Friend: Since my return to my na
tive State I have observed here the same redoub
ling of exertions on the pnrt of tho friends of del
potism in America whith is visible in your own
State of Ohio: in proportion to the multiplication
. of the trenchant and inexorable strokes of the ab
olitionists is tho tel-like squirming of thoso thoy
'are flaying alive. Nothing, it seems to me,
more imperatively demanded, on the pari of those
who are conducting this enterprise of enterprises,
than that keen discrimination, which cannot
deeeived or misled, not even that integrity which
cannot be bribed.
Here one of the most plausible of the Protean
gnises which slavery assumes is that of patriotism,
its means are eulogy of the "fathers of tho rev-
lution" mid fulsome flattery of muioLal vanity.
The Philadelphia newspapers, even those which
did lift ostensibly support tho election of
head-demagogue who now occupies the presiden
tial chair, and what is worse, those which openly
opposed his election, are filled, now that the inau
guration is over, with nauseating eulogies of
"dignity" and the "grandeur of tho occasion,"
of the dignity of the man who drove round through
Lancaster county, depositing fivo dollars here
ten lliere at the country taverns for tho conven
ience of those numerous "fi lends" of his who were
kddicted to drinking; who invited tho bullies
rowdies of Lancaster to Wheatland to a drunken
carousel which endujtd till near morning;
formally lisited the Catholic Chapel to hear Bar-j
Bey Keenao'ii choice brogue iu tho holy mass,
all for the sake of securing bis "elevation" to
"dignity" be now enjoys; and of the "grandeur
Cf tbe occasion" on wbith this low demagogue
jardTtra1 into bis contemptible office !
So proof could be more satisfactory of the ovcr
wfeelauicg eo&trol which slavery exercises over
fi State" bo called, than the fact that every
where, more or less, even tbe children of families
which are traditionally ntiti-slavery Are drawn
into the pro-slavery eurntit and hurried
on into tbe abyss in vhich are mingled indiscrimi
nately, parish p -pes an J pettifoggers, military
and moral esrdj, oensenper editors
ami all the oarsrlene nondescripts, who either
Wtariiy or trnlzr ettripuUion, are arrayed on
.aiaW ef slavery. Tbe n ot lurid I 'jo I Brown
b tiad slat -etiier ia Philadelphia at this
eat, and Mr. Brown, himself, has lately dicov
red that hie luve of "constitutional freedom"
"second" to his attachment to our "glorious union."
What an intense love of freedom that mist
- which is second tl one's love of auch "contiilntional
freedom" as is allowed in these blessed United
Elates 1 It is revolting to witness these palurers
sMaaasing the name and character of men. John
Sargeant acquired an honorable and lasting
through hi speech on the Missouri Compromise,
bU eon supported thu Jeader of the fillibusteis
(it would he better to say their tool,) for the Pre
fetenef . at the last election. Thus ia the cringing
Nertb swerved and controlled by hot master
, Jordly South.
. One of tbe most striking features in the Ameri
, k.ra.ir ia it eoul iumudence. In the
n i
Independence 1111 in Philadelphia, they Uav
rec'id oltJ MoeejveJ nd eaeeuted in
must execrable taste, the (tuiioui Liberty Bail, ta
ken trum the bcllry lor that purpose it lew years
ago, mutid the rim of which is seen in raised let
ters the injunction "Proclaim liberty throughout
ull the land, unto ull the inhabitants thereof.'
Some peculiarly asinine individual has lately pro
cured n stuffed specimen of the bald eaglo end
perched it on the top of the bell; nothing is now
wanting to complete the effect but to wrap tho
"star-spangled banner" round that precious relic
of colonial times, when the apparent design of
these tmtriotiu Ltcnllcmon. viz i its entire conecal-
- ... . , , , T. ,.n. ,
mwt.wuuM be completely compassed. 1 hew alls of
tho Hall aro covered with historical portraits,
i aniunii which are conspicuous those of such men
as William IV mi, Lafayette, (who declined thntif
he had known the somewhat peculiar use the
Americans were euinn to mako of their "liberty"
ho would never havo drawn his sword in their be'
half,) of Dr. Uush and Dr. Franklin, (both ptosi
dents of the old Society for the Abolition of Slu
very.) Gov. Mifllin, Count Hoebtiuibcnu, etc., etc
Just round the corner, in Fifth street, you enter
another apartment of tho same building in w hich
Mr. Brown the L'nilcd States Commissioner recent
ly gave up to tho tender mercies of southern des
potism, a fugitive bondman, captured on the soil
of this State, the fust of ull tin colonies to abolinh
slavery I Could assurance go further?
Utter disgust with this statu of affairs induced
some of our non-juring abolitionists to abandon
their principles during tho excitement of tho last
election, in tho hope that tho election of Col. Fre
mont would inaugurate 11 better era. Some of
them njw regret their defection they ought to
havo seen that the election of their candidate
would not have brought about a reform, Pennsyl
vania would still have teinainud an open hunting
ground for the suutbern slave-catcher and his
northern
"Mongrel, puppy, whelp and hound
And cur of low degree;"
and that nothing short of severing our political
uuLn with tlnse Southern miscreants, --the scorn
of the civilized wurld, woold freo u a from com
plicity ia their conspiracy tigniust lit.erty and hu
manity. Let us hope thoy will bo wiser in future.
Very truly yours, II. W. 0.
March 9th, 1857. The Anti-Slavery Bugle.
March 9th, 1857. The Anti-Slavery Bugle. SALEM, OHIO, MARCH 20, 1857.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
the
n
The late decision of the Supremo Coutt, is one
of great intereet in any view of the ease. One
important iiifloen'ce will bo to aid in dispelling tho
I'alacy, that slavery is not a national institution.
Practically it has always been recognized as such.
Slaves havo been treated ns property by the na
tional government, in all its departments, and yet
the anti-slavery-inclined suppoiters of the govern
ment have flittered themselves that "liberty was
national nnd slavery only sectional." Now it is
officially auuounced that this is a mistake; that
slaves are property in the eye of the Constitution
I Dnjjgut to ttio laws, nnd only to the laws of
is
he
tho
his
and
and
and ;
the
is
the
ir
resistibly nd
estarers vol'
the
is
be
fume
tbe
old
propeny. 1 bat the rights of persons do not ap
pertain to them; th ut they ie nut of the pale
citizenship. Whether tho seven judges of the
Supreme Court are right and the two wrong,
whether Judges McLean and Curtis are right, and
Judgo Taney and his cssocititos wrung, tho caso
is bad enough. In either case we ought to have
better constitution than we seem tu have when
our Judge make the very best of our very bad
bargain with the slaveholder!. In either, caae
there exists a clear and string necessity tu repu
diato the contract as dishonorable and minions.
From tho facts presented in our columns thii
week our readers will bo able to understand the
whole state of the question. On our first pugo
will bo found the opinion of tho majority of tho
court as presented by vJi iel Justice lany. tins
sanctions and endorses all tho extreincst claims
tho most ultra slaveholders under the constitution
It makes al ivory tho primary law of the Union,
tho sustaining and defending of human chatteiism
the m iiu objeot of tho constitution. It makes
slavery lawful and constitutional ns well in 'Ohio
and Massachusetts, as in Oregon and Kansas.
has froe scope cvorywhsro, and is evory where to
deientlcd.
For if Scott and his family can be taken to Iili
nois, made a (rev State by virtuo of the ordinance
of 1787, there held as slaves for more thnn two
years and then returned to chatteiism in Missouri,
und this too, in spite of the principles of tho com
mon law wtiicn tno Missouri Courts nave into
erto regarded us law, then surely there is nt; place
in the nation whero slaves may not be taken and
held and bought and sold.
Mr. Buchanan, in his inaugural speaks of
suppression of tho anti slavery ngitation ns
event already secured. We have no doubt,
zealous Republicans smiled incredulously when
they read this; and we ouiself, still cherish
hope that he is mistaken: nevertheless the means
the President has taken to secure this result,
by no means contemptible, aid are full of promise
of success. In the first place, this decision is
lesult of a conspiracy between the executive and
judicial branches of the government to cut off
j Legislative department from nil right and ability
iscuss and agitate the question. It has lor
mally dissolved all the action, recent an 1 remote,
which the Cungress has ever taken against slavery.
It has taken the question away from the people
and placed it where thoir voice cannot he heard
petition or remonstrance. Its action will compel
evey judicial organization nnd every judicial
cer in tho laud f rom the mayor of a petty village
to the Chief Justice himself, to rega.d all slaves
as property, and only property, every where;
submission will inevitably be the order of the
For we have learned frum the effects of the fugi
tive slave act, t'at our people pi dor submission
anything, however odious, rather than risk tho
fliction of pains and pet. allies incident to a con
flict with the Fcdo.-al judiciary. And then
every lawyer in the land will be counselling sub
mission, unless when there is a chance tu escape
through Some loop-hole of the law some quirk
technicality. The time chosen too, is of all oth
ers most favorable to the accomplishment of
result. Mr. Buchanan is just now dispensing
liberal patronage to all parts of the nation,
unquestionably be and his advisers will see to
that it is dispensed in such a manner a to
reconcile the people to this act of Judicial despo
tism. The people must submit, or they must
uluiiunize and overturn the Supremo Court.
ibis last, they have not the courage or the
though for the present at least we will hope
ihis last act of tyranny will do something toward
educating them in the riiiht direction.
To plate the wliole question before ear readers
we append a synopsis of the opinions of some
tbe other judges.
Jcdub Nelson of New York argued that
the
Scott was not exempt from slavery in Missouri
ter being returned thither from Illinois, whither
he had been carried by his master. The State had
the right to determine for itself the status of the
inhabitants, Scott was free in Illinois, but Mis
souri was not bound by the laws of illinoia nnd
might declare him a slave on his return. The
Supreme Court of Missouri having decided him a
slave, tho Foderul Court was bound by that de
cision.
For tho following synopsis of the opinions of
Judges Catron nnd McLean we are indebted to
the Nntiynul Era.
JlDtil Catron, examined the question, did Dred
Scott, his wilu and ulnU, acquire their freedom
by sojourn m the territory norili id M dU , in
virtue of tho Missouri Compromise? 11a argued
tho nogative, discussing in the course of his ar
gument the whole question of the power oliVoti
giessover Teriitory. Hu held that the Ordinance
of 17S7 , prohibiting Slavery, Was within the pow
er of the Slates enacting it that, by tho Federal
Constitution, it become binding on tho new Gov
ernment, like tho other engagurjienienta of the Con
lederaiion that tho third seciii.n of the fourth ar
ticle of the Constitution, grantirg power to Con
gress to uiuke all needlul rules unit regulations
respecting territory, &c, .lid not apply ulooe to
the teriitory northwest of tho Ohio, Out invests
CotigiesR with power to govern the Territories ul
the L tiited Status,
The Judge proceeded to say that the only ques
tion then was, us to the limit of tho power to gov
ern Territories. The Oniinnnce restrained H in
relation to the Northwest Teriitory, so that Con
gress could not force Slavery therein, Tho deeds
of cession of North Carolija and Georgia, iu 17'JU
and lij02, providing against the prohibition of Sla
very in thu Territories ceded by them, restrained
Congress from attempting to forco SI ivery out of
them. Tho Treaty of lMJ with France, wlicruhy
we acquired Louisiana Territory binding the Uni
ted States to protect the liberty, property, and re
ligion of the inhabitants -some of their most val
uable property being slaves limited the power of
Congress, precluding it I rum the right to aboln
a
of
It
bo
the
an
our
the
tire
the
the
iu
offi
anti
to
in
too
or
the
his
and
it
best
rev
For
that
of
Dred
Slavery iinywhcie in said 'ler'llory. lor this
reason, tho act of Congress prohibiting Slavery in
that part of tho Territory lying north of :iC 30"
was in violation of treaty obligation, nnd therefore
null and void. But, not confining himself to this
view, ho went on to nrguo that, by the Constitution
the slaveholder has the right to carry Ins slaws
into any Teriitory of the United States, and to be
protected therein, llo suin-i up as follows :
My iipiui.ni is that tho third article of the trea
ty of Ih03, ceding Louisiana to tiio United Slates,
stands protected by tha Constitution, and cannot
bo reneuls 1 by Cuiicrcss
And secondly, that tho net of 1820, known as
the Missouri Compromise, violates the most lead
ing feature of the Constitution a feature on
which the Union depends, nnd which socurei In
the respective States and their citizens an entire
equality of rights, privileges, and immunities.
For these reasons, I hold tho compromise act to
have been void ; and, consequently, that the plain
tiff. Scott, ecu claim no beuctu undor it.
Judqe McLean, discussed the question under
several heals.
1. Tho locality of Slavery as field In the Su
preme Court, and in the Courts of tho Statos.
Under this head, by a reference to the civil law.
ho showed that throughout Lorope Slavery was
limited to tho locality where it was established by
law; and that with iut an express compact, one
nation would not deliver up an absconding slave
to the citizen of another country.
Ho also showed that, by decision in the cao of
Prigg vs tho State of Pennsylvania, the Court
btld that Slavery wus local, nnd could exist only
by virtuo of tha local law. That if tho Cuiistttti
tiou bad not required the rendition of fugitives
from labor, every Stuta might have manumitted ev
ery slave that entered a non-slaveholding State
with impunity, as there was no principle iu the
law of nations which required the return of the
slave.
2. The relation which tho Federal Government
be.irs to Slavery in tho States.
Under this head he showed that Slavery was lo
cal, nnd under the control of state sovereignty,
that tho Federal Government had no action over
it, except :in regard to a surrender of fugitives
from servn tir labor, that slaves were spoken
of in the Constitution as persons, and not as prop
erty. That Congress could not regulate the slave
trade among the Statos, and that the continuance
of the slave trade twenty years after the adoption
of the Constitution, was not a general measure,
but in favor of such States us should think proper
to encourage it.
And ho referred to tho remark of Mr. Madison,
who was desirous that no word should be used
the Constitution which indiuutud there could
property in man.
3. The power of Congrsss to establish Territo
rial Governments, and to prohibit the introduction
of Slavery therein.
Under this head ho showed, by tho proceedings
of the Convention whioh framed the Constitution,
tint the necessity nf a power to establish tempo
r,i rv G .verrinient, ns initiatory to the establish
ment of St ite Govei mii'inls, and to dispose nf the
pubiio lands, was felt and acknowledged ; that the
fale of these lauds was luoked to for the payment
of the Kevolufionary debt. And that ample pro
vision was made to establish .Territorial Governmerits
Jjy the 3d section of the 4th article of
Constitution, which gave Congress power tu dis
pose of, nnd mako all needful rules and regula
tions rospecting, the torritoty or other p,ooerty
bt l mginn to the United States. That frr sixty
years this power wus universally adrrittcd by
Com ts. Federal and State, und by all statesmen.
And he vindicated and maintained the opinion
the Supreme Court in the cast) of the Atlauliu In
surance Co. vs. Center, 1 Pe;ers, 611.
4. Under this head' ho discussed the effect
taking slaves into a free State or Territory, und
so hoiLing them, where Slavery is prohibited.
Ho assented to the doctrine clearly announced
in the case ot Prijijj tw. Pennsylvania, that Slavery
could unly exist iu a Stato whero it was established
by law ; and, consequently, it a slave be taken
where it is not authorized, the master could
coerce the slave. And that where Slavory was
prohibited, in Illinois anil north ot .Missouri, it
-lave were taken there by his tnastor.and remained
there iu hia servico.hu wmb ftee.undcr the decisions
of the Supreme Court, and by numerous decisions
by the Supreme Courts ot the S 'tiihortl States.
These were cited laritoly, and relied on, aa fully
sustaining the ground ot freedom, especially
decisions ot the ouprnme Uoort ot Alissouri. that
lor twenty-eight years the course ot decision was
uniformly in favor of the slave, until Dred Scott
o ime belure it.
6. Whether the return of a slave.under the oon
trol of his masier, alter being entitled to hi free
dom, reduces him to his former condition.
Under this head he examined the decision
Lord Stowell, in the casi- of Grace, nnd numerous
aulhoiilies of the slave States, nil of which, except
a tow recent cases, hold that the return of the
lave did not cause his former status to attach.
This was uniformly the course of the decisions
ihe Supreme Court of Missouri for twenty-eight
yoirs, until it was changed against Dred Scott,
ivowedlv by the minority ol the Court, to check
the "fell smrit of Autt-Slaverv" tu the free
St tea.
In England, a blare could not be coerced
his mnst'r. although there waa no express prohibi
tion agiinst Slavery ; hut it is not auth irized.
And he a'leged. from the f icts ngrecd to, that
return af Dred Scott waa net voluntary, a
fact admitted w is. "that he was removed by
mastor from Fort Snolling to Missouri," which
shows that the slaves acted under the coercion
their masters, and not undor their own volition.
6. Are the decisions of the Supreme Court
Missouri, on the questions before the Cuurt, bind
ing. within the rule adopted T
Under this head lis showed that the Missouri
Court refused to recognize the act of Congress
or Ihe Constitution of Illinois, i ndor both ol which
Dred Scott claimed his freedom. That this being
done, there was no case before the Court, or it
a caso which had but one side. And he Argued
that such a case may not be followed by
Supreme Court. And be reforrod to a lute dtoisiou
of the Supreme Court, fully
af-fu,al t0 (Moyl eh, decision in tbe ca. of Dred
jgeott.
JUDGE CURTIS.
Associate Judge Curtis gave his reasons for dis
senting from tho majority of the Court. The
question is, whether a person of African dissent
can bo a citizen of the United States. The Con
stitution uses the language, "citizen of the United
Statos at tho timo of the adoption" of that instru
ment ; referring to t hose who wero citizens under
the confederation, It may, therofore, be salely
said, the citizens of tho several States under the
confederation were citizens of tho United Slates
iinilor the Constitution. It ia a fact that all the
Freo native subjects of New Hampshire, Massa
chusetts, ew lurk and Aorth Carolina descended
from the African race, were not only citizens, but
possessed the franchise of electors on equal terms
with othor, or white citizens. those colored
persons wero not only included with the body of
w hite persons in the adoption of the Constitution,
but had the power to nnd did uct in its adoption.
Under the Constitution every free person born
ntt the soil of a Stale and made a citizen by force
of its Constitution and laws, ia a citizen of the
Unitod St .tes. llavinir stated the erutind of his
opinion, and explained the provisions of the Con-
niiiuiiuu, iiu oai i unit every citizen at mo nine ui
tho adoption of that instrument was so recognized,
and no power was conferred to discriminate be
tween color, or deprive any one of his franchise.
It is not fue in point of fact that the Constitution
was made exclusively by and for white people.
The prcanibls openly declares that the Constitu
tion was loruied in order to secure to the people!
ot lite united Mates and to their posterity the
blessings of liberty, and us for tho ctdorcd citizens,
in five of tho Status they were among those for
whom tho Constitution waa ordained nnd estah-
lishod. Co'or iu tho opinion of tho lramers of the
Constitution was not necessary tu constitute cit-
izenship under the Constitution of the United
States ; nnd it might bo added that the power to
make colored persons citizens has been eted on
'
in
be
in repeated instances in the troatic with the
Clioi-t iws, tho Clieroiteos, and that of Guad.ilope
Hidalgo, in LS4S. AuJ ho arrived at the follow
ing conclusions :
1. That tho freo native born citizens of each
Stato at tho to mation of the Constitution bocatne
citizens of tho United States.
2. That free colored persons born within some
of the Slates, and citizens of those States, were
also citizens of tho Unitod States.
3. That every such chiaeu residing in any Stato,
lias too right to sue and bo sued tu
Court of tho Siato in w hich ho resides.
4. As the plea of jurisdiction in this caso shows
no facts except as to African descent, nnd as this
I'uct is not inconsistent with citizenship of the
United States, the decision of the Circuit Court for
Missouri was incorroct. He, therefore, dissented
I rom the opinion of the majority of tho Court that
a person id the Alrican race caunut be a citizen of
the United States.
11c did not believe the opinions of the Court on
questions not Uyitimutely lejore it, to be binding.
lie believed, howttcr, that the Court hits juris
diction in this case, und maintained that, under
the law i f Missouri, Dred Scott and his family
were lies persons on their return to that State.
There was nothing in the history or in tho languago
ol the Constitution w .ich retains the power to make
.II ueedful roles and regulations respecting the
Territory of the United States, to such territory
only us was owned by the United Statos at the
time of tho adoption of the Constitution. He
was not awaro that such a suggestion had ever
before been mado. Four distinct requisitions of
territory had been made, and six states tormed
upon iheiu have beon admitted int ) the Union.
Such r contracted construction ns that to which
he referred was inconsistent with the nature and
purposes of tho Constitution, as expressed in its
language. Ha would construe that clause of the
Constitution thus ; Congress shall havo power to
mako ell needful rules and regulations respecting
those tracts of country without the limits of the
United States, ami which the United States have
ur may acquire by cession, as well of jurisdiction
as id' soil, so Jar as the soil is the property of the
parties making the cession.
Congress has power to legislate with rogard to
the territories until they shall apply for admission
into the Union as States. The laws must be "need
fill," and aro left to legislative discretion,. There
iru two classes of nets; and in eight distinct
instances, beginning with the lirot Congress and
lining down tu is-ts, Uongress ras excluded
slavery from the territories ; nnd there are six dis
tinct instances in which Congress lias organized
government, for tnrritories.nnd recognized slavery
and continued it therein, also, beginning with the
first Congress un 1 coming dow n to 1822 Theefac!s
wero signod by seven Presidents, ootning regular
ly I iwn fro n Washington to John Qniucy Adams,
thus including all those who wero in pubiio life
when the Constitution was adnptnd. This should
havo much weight on the question of construction,
and it would bo difficult to resist the force nf the
acts to which reference was mado. His opinion
was, the decision of the Circuit Court of Missouri
should ho reversed, aud the cause remanded fur
uew trial.
,i p T i
tho Federal,',.
To these opinions of the Judges we add the
comments of some of the more influential presses
of the country.
OPINION OF THE PRESS.
FROM THE NEW YORK EVENING POST.
of
nf
a
the
of
of
by
the
The dangers apprehended from the organio ten
dencies of the Supreme Court to engross the legis
bitive power of the federal government, winch
Jefferson foresaw nnd so often warned Ins coun
trymen against, are nu longer imaginary They
me upon us. The decesion rendered by that body
on Friday, in tho case of a Missouri negro who
hail annealed to it for assistance in asserting h
right to share the promises of the Declaration
Independence, has struck at the roots ot the past
legislative ptdicy of this country in reference
slavery. It has changed the very bloud of the
uonstitution, from which we derive our political
existence, and has given to our government) a di
rection and a purpose as novel us it is barbarous
and humiliating.
In the first place, it has annihilated nt a single
blow the citizenship of the entire colored popula
tion id' the country, and with it all laws and con
stitutional provisions uf the different states for the
protection of those rights.
In the next placo, it has stripped Congress of
power to exclude slavery from the territories,
which has been rxercieed by every President
the United States from Washington down to Fill
more, and which had an effect in shaping, the po
litical mid domestic institutions ot more than half
the territory of the United Statos. The ordinance
of I7t7, with the passage or defence of which the
names ot the most eminent American statesman
have been iinperisliably aassociatcd, is not only
pronounced unconstitutional, but the power to on
act any law which contemplates a restriction up
on the right to buy, bold and sell slaves in our ter
ritories is distinctly denied.
Nor is this all, The doctrine which has been
recognized wherever the common . law prevails,
since the days of Lord Mansfield, that when
slave is takon by his master into the jurisdiction
uf a stato w hich prohibits slavery, be is from that
moment free, ia not only set aside, but the power
is denied to the states of this Union to prohibit'
masters bringing slaves within their jurisdiction.
provided they do not enter it w ith the intention
establishing a poruiuDont residence there. All
of these positious aro new in the judicial history
of the country.
FROM THE NEW YORK COURIER AND ENQUIRER.
ul
id
was
the
The Dred Scott decision is an amusement to all
I think the prevalent fueling is a conccss.on ur
uduiistion that tho Government of this Nat'on
w ttli and in the institution ot human alavery.
l'tie legal power and the Presidential power com
bined are invincible. It remains for those w ho
not believe slavery a national institution to ''bide
their time." I confess I can aeo no other result
thun tho complete ascendency of Slavery. It
on the Nation, either for good or evil.
I think it most probable that the voice of New
York will be dimly and wisely ottered in this
emergency. They who know the State well say
that the effect of the recent decision cannot
exageratod in its importance upon pubiio opinion.
ine greatest state in too nation is at this moment
'preparing to throw down theonly barrier that
constitution fnterpoaes to prevent the ontnplete cit
izenship of the nian nf color, while the highest
legal authority in the land i denying his oitizen
ship; Thu slowly, like approach of doom, doea
the State and Government come into controversy.
Tho highest sucoess in Literature, the highest
honor in War, have made the name of Scott
memorable, A poor, and humble, and wretched
man, is to make that name the very hingo of our
History,
FROM THE NEW YORK COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.
"Now there Is no concealing the (act that un
der this decision the right which the Free States
have all along believed themselves to possess, are
denied and can no longer be recognized. Thoy
have supposed that it was their prerogative to pro
hibit Human Slavory within their territories j that
they could declare, and carry out thoir declaration
that a slave brought voluntarily by hi owner,
within thoir borders, should thereby be freed from
bondage, especially when they met tho require
ments of the Constitution by surrendering fugi
gitive slaves, and the requirements of good btoth
eihood by publicly announcing that any Binvehol
der bringing his slave or slaves into their territo
ry would do it at hia own risk. They believed
tbev had lust as much constitutional right to sav.
'You shall not brinit your slave into our Stato,' as
they had to say, 'We will roturn your slaves if
they escane into our State.' According to the do-
eiion now mado, nil thia has been wrong. New
York has no such power. The Federal Constitu
tion requires not only that sho shnll return the fu
gitive slave who seeks refugo in her territory, but
that if a slaveholder brings into any of h r cities
or towns a whole retinue of slaves, sho shall pro-
tact him in his ownershio of them, a she would
in the ownership of so many horses or oxen,
' Unless we have mistaken the tenor and extent
0f t)l9 Jecision, and we do not think wo have, any
of the following consequences may result from it.
A. U. from Louisiana, tuny bring his family to
New Y'ork City, with as many slaves to w.iit upon
them ns he chooses. He may stay with them a
month, a year, or five years, so long as he is al
ways about to return ; or he mny pass to nnd fro.
retaining bis residence in Louisiana. CD. may
also onmofroin South Carolina, under similar cir
cumstances and with a similni retinue end the
number of tlaves settlod in the city, and to be
protected and otherwise treated as property, may
be indefinitely increased. Then A. B. may sell a
' P'trt of his slave to 0. D Or C. D. and himself
,., ...i...: .u.
U ISHI eelllK ' oui, v hid p, tbo, ,,o iiii.jt in nn bint,,
ho has such slaves for sale tn any gentleman from
either of the slave States, and where they may be
seen ; for the right of property involves these
rights. And if under the decision it may still be
within the Constitutional power of the Stale to
prohibit her own citizens from buying nnd selling
slaves (w hich may be doubted sn far ns any practi
cal assertion ot such power is concerned), yet un
der that decision slaveholders in transitu might
thus convert this Empire City into a slave-mart,
FROM THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE.
a
to
a
nf
a
ot
an
is
do
is
be
It is impossible to exngerate the importance of
tho recent decision of the Supreme Court. Ihe
grounds nnd methods of that decision ire have ex
posed elsewhere ; and we now turn from them to
contemplate the great fact which it establishes
the fact that Slavery is National; and that, until
that remote period when different Judges, sitting
in this same Court, shall reverse this wicked nnd
false judgement, the Constitution of the United
States is nothing better than tbe bulwark of inhu
manity nnd oppression.
It is most ttue thnt this decision is bad law
that it is based on false historical premises and
wrong interpretations of the Constitution : thnt it
does not at all represent the legal or judicinl npin
on of the Nation : that it is merely a Southern
sophism clothed with the dignity of our highest
Court. Nevertheless there it is, the final uction
of the National Judiciary, established by the foun
ders of the Kepublio to interpret the Constitution,
ana to etnoouy ine unimai logai concius m ui
the whole people an action proclaiming that in
the view of the Constitution slaves are property.
Tho inference is plain. If slaves are recognised
as property by the Constitution, of course no lo
cal or Stat law can either prevent property being
carried through an individual State or Territory,
or foroid its being held as such wheraver iu own
er may chooie to bold it. ihis is all invoivea in
the present decieien ; bat let a single oas draw
from the Court an official ' jndgment that slaves
oan bo held and protected under National law,
and we shall see men buying slaves for the New
York market. There will be no legal power to
prevent it. At this moment, indeed, any wealthy
New York jobber conneoted with the Souihorn
tiado can put in his next orders': "Send me a ne
gro cook, nt the lowest market value 1 Buy me
waiter! Ballance my account witn two chamber
maids and n truckman 1" Excepting the interfer
ence of the Underground Railroad and the change
of loss, there will be nolhing to etoD this. Bui
then ihoso onderhaded efforts for stealing proper
ty must, of course, be checked by our Police.
Mr. Matsell will have no more right to allow gen
Demon's servants to be spirited away by burgla
rious Abolitionists thuu gentlemen's spoons. They
are pro; erty under even stronger plodges of secu
rity than mere lifeless chattels. T.ie whole power
of tho Stale the military, ihe Courts nnd Gover
nor of tho State of New York will necessarily
be sworn to protect each New York slave owner
from the robbery or burglary ot tns negroes.
If they aro not sufficient, why then the United
States Army and Navy can be culled on to guard
that siDL'ular species of property which alone
all property the Constitution of the Unitod Slates
lias e-pocially recognized, slaves can do Kept
Boston : Mr. Toombs can call the roll of his chat
tela on the slope of Bunker Hill, auctions of bliuk
men may be held in front of Faneuil Hall, and the
slave ship protecteu uy me guns oi ins c oney.
Statos frigates, may land its dusky cargo at Plym
outh Hock. Tho free hills of Vermont, the lakes
of Maine, the banks of Connecticut, the city
where tbe charter Oak of Liberty has wisely fallen,
may be traversed by the gangs uf tbe negro-driv
er, aud enriched ly the legitimate commerce
the slave-pen. Are we told that pubiio upinion
will prevent 'his T What oan pubiio opinion do
against the Supreme Court and nil the power
the United States? Shall not u citizen of this
Union have the light to take and hold his proper
ty, his horse, his oxen, and dogs, his lavee, where
ever it seem to him good f According to the law
now established, the Free State men of Kansas
robbers, for they attack the Constitutional
ineltenahld rights of property. The bogus laws
of which they presume tu complain, but which the
mild and aud paternal punishment of dentil
cow to protect fiom infraction, ure just and neces
sary laws for the safety of those sacred rights.
Tho number of Free Soil men in that Torritury
can make nu difference hereafter, as it has made
none hitherto. Slavery is there, as the owner
ship of horses or land is there, by supreme na
tional law. Of what use then, tu contend fur such
a shadow as the difference between a Freo and
Slave Constitution? Or, what sense in that old
Uction of State Bights? The States have no rights
as respects Freedum ; their rights consist only
establishing and strengthening Slavery uothing
mure.
Another most pregnant change is wrought
this decision, in reaped of the Northern people.
Wa have been accustomed to regard Slavery ns
local matter fur which we were iu no wise respon
sible. As we have been used to say, it belonged
to the Southern States alone, and they must uu
swer for it beforo the world. We cau say this
mure. Now, wherever the star and stripes wave
tbev protect Slavery and represent Slavery. The
black and cursed stain is thick on our bands also
From Maine to ihe Pacific, over all future con
quests und annexations, wherever in the islands
... . i o .i. a I: r :
western seas, or in inu oouiu American voniiueui
or in the Mexican Gulf, the Aug of the Union,
just means or unjust, shall be planted, there
plants the curse, and tears, and blood, and unpaid
toil of this "institution," The Star of Freedom and
tbe stripes of bondage are henceforth one, Ameri
can Uopublicanism and American Slavery are
the future synonymous. This.then, is the final fruit
in this all the labors of our statesmen, the blood
of our heroes, the life long cares and toils of.
fore fathers, the aspirations of our scholurs,
prayers of good men, have finally ended I Amer
ica the elavebreeder and slaveholder I
The Buchanan Men represent the deoision
its'they desire it to be, another "finality." Tbe
No. of the Washington Union undor its new offi
cial Editor says;
The deoision in the Dred Scott case has furnish
ed the closirg and clinching confirmation needed
and henceforth sectional fanaticism cannot main
tain its warfare without nrriijlng itself distinctly
against the constitution. Tho people have decid
ed that sectional agitation must cease, and the
highest judicial authority has declared that the
pouplo have decided in accordance with the con
stitution. Tho Cincinnati Oazotto thinks the decision if
good for anything absolves from all compoots with,
slavery. Well, so bo it. Let us take advantage
of it and seize our froedom and assort that of the
slaves.
From the Cincinnati Gazette.
;
The Court has decided that the Ordinance of
1787 is, under the Constitution, void. Now, that
Ordinance was enacted by Congress under the old
confederation of States. Tim Congress being the.
representatives of States, and not voting by num
bers, but by States, the Ordinance was, in fact, av
compact between tho States. It had, therefore, all
the authority of tho Constitution. The Constitu
tion was created by a compact ntnont? ihe .States.
and though it went further nnd instituted a Gov
ernment, it had no authority except by that com
pact, ire uo not say, witn jir. Calhoun, that it
was a mere, com pact. Hut, beyond all question, it
had no authority beyond the compact. The Ordi
nance and the Constitution, therefore, were deriv
ed from tho samo parties and in the same way.
ihuir source, therelore, was the same, and they
are of equal force.
Tu this we have the highost negative authority
in the Constitution itself. That instrument not
only contains no repealing clause of any net before
passed, but it confois no power on Congress,
Courts, or executive, to disannul or repeal a sia
gle act of the old confederation. Can any on
supposo that tho convention intended to overturn
the ordinances, treaties, nnd pubiio nets under the
confaderition, and yet provided no way by which
it could bo dune? The Court, therefore, in re
pealing ihe Ordinance by a simple deuision, usurp
ed their authority. But they did more. They
committed a great political blunder. This will ap
pear I rum these facts
1. The theory of the Constitution adopted in
the South, and more particularly by Mr. Calhoun'
tchool of politicians is, that the Cocstttution is a
more compact. Hence thoy get tho idea of States
Bights, of Nullification, of the equality of tbe
Stales, which they rely upon as the best defense of
slavery, and consequently the unconstitutionality
of legislating by Congress over slavery in tbe
Stales. This may not be the unanimous view of
Southern statesmen, but it is the prevalent one.
Iu one sense, us we have said, it is correct. The
Constitution undoubtedly originated and proceed
ed from a compact of the States.
2. The Supremo Court, in decidiog th Ordi
nance void, have decided a compact between tha
States void.
3. They having previously decided that a grant
was a contract, they have now decided that a con
tract under a cumtnet was void.
4. They havo decided, therefore, that compaota
and contracts aro void when they come in contact
with the rights of a master to his slave under
State laws 1 This is really practical nullification.
Slavery is created by looal laws. The Court de
cides that these local laws must be upheld against
a compact between the States.
0, ihe corollary nid conclusion from this is,
that it the Ordiuanco of 1787 be void, then all
compacts on the subject of slavery are void 1 Wa
ouj, mi, ,o 1,110 iiiuvjtuuje conclusion, ior mere i
neither lawyer nor man of common sense who will
affirm that a compact is binding on one party and
not on ine oilier, n tne compaet ot l ie! is void
when it comes in contact with the State laws of
Missouri, what compact is binding against lbs
laws of Ohio creating freedom? The final result
then is, that if the principles set up by the Court
as now reported, are correct, then ull the compact
about slavery are void. The Constitution has no
higher source of authority than the Ordinance.
DRED SCOTT CASE AND THE LEGISLATURES
LEGISLATURES.
ti
ol
ot
The outrageous positions of tbe Supieme Court
have arrested the attention of the Legislatures of
New Y'ork and Massachusetts, and resolutions look
ing to some defence of tha States against theea
croachmcnts of the court, have been adopted
Will the Republican legislature of Ohio make
any m jvfctncnt in this direction. We should think
that such nn nssault upon the sovereignty of tbe
States and the rights of the people might call forth
some suggestions from our Stutes rights Governor,
in defence of his great political panacea. "Ne
Slavery outsido tno slave States." But as nor
States are now. according to tho Supreme Court,
nil slave States, perhaps it may be thought best
to be quiet, lost a movement should involve us in a
conflict with European, Asiatic, or perchance Af
rican po'itics: as Dr. Livingston informs us that
many of tho African nations, beyond the reach of
our American and European civilization, are noa
slaveholders, this Republican motto might re
quire interference for the protection, of tbeir liber
ty. But it seema by its own definition to have ne
application within the bounds of the American
Union. It might therefore, if we are ready
for such foreign interference, he now amended se
us to read No Slavery outside the American
Union, On this broad and Catholio platform, we
think the "party of freedom" might succeed in
the next presidential election, and a fusion might
be effected by all parties. Such a course would be
in harmony with the motto, and with the "master
ly inactivity" of the Republican leaders ia th
State. We will however, wait, hoping to se our
Governor and Legislature move in company with
Ngw York and Massachusetts in an attempt to re
sist slavery w here it is, as well as where it is not.
A MISTAKE.
is
a
in
by
a
nu
of
.
by
it
for
tho
One of our exchanges represents the late decis
ion of the Siiprotno Cuurt aa ''presenting the stars-
ling judicial announcement, thnt hereafter th
fundamental rule of the government shall be no
freedom outside the free Statos." True, it doe
decide thus, but the pith and marrow of the de
cision is, that there shall be no freedom insidt of
the misnamed free States. That slaveholder may
carry their slaves to any State and hold them at
their pleasure and take them where they will. Dred
Scott was held for two years a slave in Illinois
then carried to Minessota and thence to Miasenru
and all the time a slave. The rule is, slavehold
ing, like slavehunting is lawful everywhere.
Whether this decision is legitimately constitution
al or not, it is the legitimate fruit of the Union,
and we can hope for nothing better while liberty
and slavery aro permitted on equal footing to eon
test for the niajurity in the Government.
us
first; vuneemept,
Spiritualism. Mrs. Semour a Spiritual Medi
um from Wuukegan, Illinois, recently spent a few
days in Salem, among friends and Inquirers of
"the new philosophy." On Sunday evening be
addiessed a pubiio audience in the Town 1111 in
"trance state." The address, from whatever source
it may have emanated, contained much plain and
radical truth, and was listened to with attention
by the large audience, though a great majority
were evidently very skeptical regarding the allege
ed og-ucy of the Spirits. Mrs. Semour is a bears
ty, earnest abolitionist aDd a thorough friend of
all the importuut reforms ot tbe day; and spirit
ualism with her is the irreat meant of tbeU nd