Dred Scott Case— Taney in 1843 against Taney in 1857.

Dred Scott has been driven from the Supreme Court, and denied the privilege of proving his freedom, because his ancestors are presumed to have come from Africa.-

Judge Taney holds, in substance, that all persons of African descent, no matter how remote, or how small the proportion of negro blood, are not citizens, but are chattles, and as such can have no standing or day in court. How far this same Judge has departed from his own decision in 1843, is shown by reference to the case of Williams vs. Ash, 1st Howard, Sup. Court Reports, page 12, where a slave sued for his freedom. We quote from the decision itself:

Taney, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

“This case is brought here by a writ of error from the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for Washington county, and came before the Court upon a petition for freedom.

It appeared on the trial that the petitioner was the property of Mary Ann T. Greenfield, of Prince George’s County, in the State of Maryland, who died in 1824, having first duly made her last will and testament, whereby among other things the bequeathed the petitioner with sundry other slaves to her nephew G. T. Greenfield, with a proviso in the following words: ‘Provided he shall not carry them out of the State of Maryland, or sell them to any one, in either of which events I will and devise the said negroes to be free for life. * * Upon the death of the testatrix, G. T. Greenfield took possession of the petitioner and other slaves bequeathed to him, and held them from that time until December, 1839, when he sold the petitioner to the defendant, and the petition was filed shortly after the sale.’ ** * Upon this evidence the Circuit Court instructed the Jury that by the fact of such sale of the petitioner; the estate or property in the petitioner so bequeathed to Greenfield ceased and determined, and he therefore became entitled to his freedom. — Under this direction of the Court, the verdict was in favor of the petitioner. * * * We think that the bequest in the will was a conditional limitation of freedom to the petitioner, and that it took effect the moment he was sold. The Judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be affirmed.” Now if Dred Scott had no right to sue for hie freedom in 1857, neither had the Petitioner in the above case in 1843. If such a suit is unconstitutional now, it was so then. But it may be said, that the question of jurisdiction was not raised specifically in that case. True and doubtless for the reason that no good lawyer would risk his reputation for professional skill by raising it. But had Judge Taney then believed that a slave can have no day in Court, and that the Court had no jurisdiction, he would, in accordance with its uniform practice, have so ruled and driven the Petitioner from its bar. The record showed the Petitioner to have been once a slave. So did the record in the Dred Scott case Then Taney affirms by taking jurisdiction, the Petitioner’s right to sue, and awards him his freedom. Now, the same Chief Justice denies that the Court has any jurisdiction, and dooms Dred Scott to hopeless bondage.

Really it leads one almost to despair of the Republic, when he sees the foul spirit of oppression invading the very temple of justice, and causing its judges to bow down and do it reverence – Cleve. Herald.