9 trust if they did not hurl back such uujust imputations. The third count in the Senator’s indictment is, that we intend to prohibit slavery in the vast Territories of this Union. That charge, I confess, is true. We do so intend. If I understand the objects and purpose of the Republican party, if I understand the emergencies of the case that brought that great party into existence, it was this very subject. The General Government, acting in Congress faithlessly to all that it had covenanted heretofore, had broken down every barrier, and violated every pledge it had given of freedom in any of our Territories. These covenants being overthrown, the Republican party arose to rescue freedom. Had there been no violation of the Missouri compromise, it is very probable there would have been no Republican party here. W e did embody ourselves into a party, in order to rescue, protect, and defend, the free Territories of this country against the pollution of slavery. I have no concealments to make. There we now stand; this is our platform; on it we will stand forever. But the Senator says that the slaveholders have an undoubted right to go with their slaves, into the Territories of the United States, under the Constitution of the United States; and he claims that a decision of the Supreme Court gives them that warrant. There is no man who has more reverence for the decision of honest courts, when made on due deliberation upon matters of private right, and within their jurisdiction, than I have. I know how essential it is to the peace and welfare of every community that the decisions of courts settling the private rights of men in the last resort, even if they are believed to be wrong, must be lived up to and have effect. That has been my education—my principle; what I have held always, and hold to-day; but in j ust as much as I revere an honest court, keeping within its own jurisdiction, restraining itself from all political considerations, and adjudging the rights of men according to the law in its purity, so in exact proportion do 1 abhor and scout from me a corrupt judge, who, for any purpose, will impertinently reach over, outside, and- beyond rhe case before him, and endeavor to advance the political cause of one party or another by decisions that he may pretend to make. Sir, it is the same with Federal courts as with every other. The moment a Federal court transcends its legitimate authority, for the purpose of effecting some political object, its interference is impertinent; it is of no validity; and, with the high courts of Georgia, I say, I hold it in utter contempt. Yes, sir, [to Mr. Toombs,] I like the spirit of your courts, from which you are now so ready to depart. They stood up against what they considered a corrupt decision of this Federal court, and said they held it in utter contempt. That was right. Well, sir, if there ever was a holding on God’s earth that would warrant any judge, private man, or Senator, in saying that he held it in utter contempt, it is what is called the Dred Scott decision, so manifestly a usurpation of power; so manifestly done in order to give a bias to political action, that no man, though he be a fool, can fail to see it. What was the case ? An old negro, whom age had rendered valueless, happens to fall in the way of the politicians at a period when it was thought exceedingly desirable that the question of Congressional authority over slavery in the Territories shall be tried, and Dred Scott prosecutes for his liberty in the Federal courts; arid, by the way, after he had prosecuted his case through, and his liberty was denied him by the court, I believe the very next day the master gave him his liberty. He had served the purposes of the politicians, and they ought to have given him a pension for life for having been the John Doe of the transaction. I do not know of what authority the case may be, but its getting-up looks to me exceedingly suspicious. There was a concurrence of circumstances that very rarely happen of themselves. Old Dred Scott sued for his freedom, and a plea was put in that he, being a descendant of an African, and his ancestors slaves, he could not sue in that court; he had no right to be there, had no standing there. The court go on and argue themselves into the belief that either a man may be so monstrously low, or the court itself so monstrously high, that he cannot sue in its presence for his rights. I believe this is the first nation on God’s earth that ever placed any mortal man, or anybody bearing the human form, on so low a level, or any court on so high a one, as that. But let this go. Dred Scott brought his suit. The plea in abatement was demurred to; the question arose upon that demurrer, and a majority of the court decided that Dred Scott, being a negro, a descendant of an African, and his ancestors having been slaves, he could not maintain a suit in that court, because he was not a citizen, under the law. Now, sir, I ask every lawyer here, was not there an end of the case? In the name of God, Judge Taney, what did you retain it for any longer ? You said Dred Scott could not sue; he could not obtain his liberty; he was out of court; and what further had you to do with all the questions that you say were involved in that suit ? Upon every principle of adjudication, you ought not to have gone further. No court has ever held it more solemnly than the Federal courts, that they will not go on to decide any more than is before the court, and necessary to make the decision ; and every lawyer knows that if they do, all they say more is mere talk, and, though said by judges in a court-house, has just as much operation and effect as if it had been said by a horse dealer, in a bar-room, and no more. And yet we are told that we must follow the dicta of these packed judges—for they were packed, and I have.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=