The Slave Case in the Supreme Court

To the U.S. Supreme Court to day, the case of Dred Scott, was continued.

Mr. Blair said – The Missouri Compromise was a sectional question, such as calls up the passions of all sections, and all countries. Nobody ever questioned its constitutionality until within a brief period. Mr. Calhoun, in 1850, though believing it a dangerous, did not say it was unconstitutional. – That record continued until 1847, when that distinguished man broached the idea that slavery might extend into the territories. The Court is now called upon to restrain an institution which Republics are founded. We are now naked to change a policy, and, upon the construction of a ward in the Constitution – “Territory” – decide whether there shall be a general sovereignty over this territory. His friends on the other side of the case say that Judge Marshall was an inspired man.

But, in this language he was loose. The looseness is not with the Judges’ words, but with those who impeached them. Judge Marshall says: - “Upon the words ‘Rules and Regulations’ is founded the right to govern the territories.” Does not this language warrant such a conclusion? If any man can conceive of any other territory separated from political government over it, his vision is clearer than mine. – Judge Marshall says the power of Congress is unlimited, supreme – subject only to certain limitations imposed by the Constitution. It is known that there are no limitations forbidding the prohibition of Slavery.

Mr. Reverdy Johnson submitted evidence that President Madison did not believe the restriction was within the true scope of the Constitution. Also a rough draft of a veto message, written by President Monroe, of this very bill, saying that if it is not violative of the Constitution, it is repugnant in its provisions, to the general sentiment of the States.

Mr. Geo P. Curtis made a powerful argument in favor of the Constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. He said he would confine his remarks to the third section of the 4th Article of the Constitution, which gives Congres authority to make all needful regulations for the government of the territory, and claimed that there existed full legislative power. The question is eminently an historical one, and when you have placed the facts in their historical relation, you have gone far towards settling the controversy. – The great unoccupied lands within the boundaries of the older States were almost the only subject of contention in those States. No sooner had Virginia made accession of land beyond the Ohio, than the question arose, what disposition shall be made of it. By the deed of [illegible], the United States were clothed with power to erect it into republican States. When Jefferson, in 1784, moved his resolution, it was the greatest possible doubt if Congress had power to pass it. In 1787, a great emigration began into the territory, which made Jefferson’s measure entirely inadequate, and the ordinance of 1787 was established.

[Owing to the lateness of the hour, the balance of Mr. Curtis’s remarks will be found in our 12 o’clock edition.]