Said the Petersburg Intelligencer:

We are exceedingly sorry that Mr. Brooks dirtied his cane by laying it athwart the shoulders of the blackguard Sumner. We regret that he did so, not because Sumner got a lick amiss, not because he was not justly entitled to all he got and more besides, but because the nasty scamp and his co-scamps will make capital for their foul cause out of the affair.

They will raise a howl that will split the public ear, about the violation of the privilege of debate, Southern bullyism, etc. Master Horace Greeley in particular will jump out of his boots and breeches, have about 4,000 fits, and thus put up the price of asafoetida and burnt feathers throughout the country.

Disagreeing with the Richmond Whig as to the effect of Sumner's thrashing, we entirely concur with it, that if thrashing is the only remedy by which the foul conduct of the Abolitionists can be controlled, that it will be very well to give Seward a double dose at least every other day until it operates freely on his political bowels.

It is true that the cunning rascal is a little too smart to violate the decorum of debate, but his adroit demagogism and damnable doctrines are infinitely more dangerous to the country than the coarse blackguardism of the perjured wretch Sumner.

Said the Richmond Whig:

As will be seen by telegraph, Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, after the adjournment of the Senate on yesterday, administered to Senator Sumner,the notorious and foul-mouthed Abolitionist from Massachusetts, an elegant and effectual caning. We are rejoiced at this. The only regret we feel is that Mr. Brooks did not employ a horsewhip or cowhide upon his slanderous back, instead of a cane. We trust the ball may be kept in motion. Seward and others should catch itnext.

The students and officers of the University of Virginia, voted Brooks a cane, on which the leading Democratic organ of the South remarked approvingly: "The chivalry of the South, it seems, has been thoroughly aroused." The Richmond Examiner said: "Far from blaming Mr. Brooks, we are disposed to regard him as a conservative gentleman, seeking to restore its lost dignity to the Senate,"

whose example should be followed by every

Southern gentleman whose feelings are outraged by unprincipled Abolitionists."

The Richmond Enquirer, some weeks after the assault, said: "In the main, the press of the South applauds the conduct of Mr. Brooks, without condition or limitation. Our approbation, at least, is entire and unreserved.

*

* * It was a proper act, done at the proper time and in the proper place."

Nor were leading statesmen less explicit in their approval. Mr. Mason, in reply to an invitation to attend a public dinner in honor of Mr. Brooks, after referring to his "social and political intercourse" with their "able and justly honored representative" adds: "I know of none whose pub. lic career I hold more worthy the full and cordial approbation of his constituents than his." Jefferson Davis, on the same occasion, wrote: "I have only to express to you my sympathy with feelings which prompt the sons of Carolina to welcome the return of a brother who has been the subject of villification, misrepresentation and persecution, because he resented a libelous assault upon the representative of their mother."

Nor were they alone Southern men who joined in this formal endorsement. Mr. Buchanan, the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, referring to Mr. Sumner's speech, characterized it as "the most vulgar tirade of abuse ever delivered in a representative body," and added that though "Mr. Brooks was indiscreet, Senator Butler was a very mild man."

Mr. Savage, of Tennessee, in an eulogy in the House, said: "To die nobly is life's chief concern. History records but one Thermopyla; there ought to have been another, and that one for Preston S. Brooks. * * * So shall the scenes in the Senate chamber carry the name of the deceased to all future generations, long to be remembered after all men are forgotten and until these proud walls crumble into ruins."

History affords no parallel to the brutality and ruffianism displayed by the pro-slavery Democracy in applauding and approving Brooks, and insolently threatening similar or "more effective" punishment for Garrison, Wade, Giddings, Wilson and Beecher, Sumner's valiant co-workers for liberty, unless they should "cease discussing" the crimes of bondage.

Sumner was ill for many months in consequence of the blows he received. Gashes four inches in length, and laying the skull bare, covered his head. The fifteen scars left by them never disappeared, in fact, he never was a well man thereafter, though he lived until March 11, 1874-a period of eighteen years.

Nor did the slave power of the Democracy ever recover from the blows dealt it by Brooks, when he shattered his bludgeon over the head of the great apostle of freedom. Sumner, indeed, only partially recovered, but slavocracy, wounded to the heart, could never rally. It staggered on desperately, yet lower and lower, for a few years, and finally bit the dust in its last prodigious effort of rebellion and bloodshed to secure dismemberment of the Union.

Strangely enough Brooks, a few months after the assault, died in a sudden and tragic manner; Keitt fell fighting for State-rights, Democracy and slavery, while nearly all the others lived to see their treasonable prophecies disappear in disgrace and disaster.

RHODES

HOUSE

CHAPTER XI.

THE DRED SCOTT DECISION.

*OXFORD⭑

LIBRARY

Dred Scott, an Alleged Slave, Brings Suit for Assault and for His Freedom-Statement of the Case-He Wins But the Superior Court Reverses the Decision-Scott Appeals to the United States Supreme Court-Roger B. Taney's Sophistry-Himself and Four Other Justices Were Slave-Holders-Justices Curtis and McLean Dissent-The Decision Analyzed-What It Declared-Missouri Compromise Unconstitutional-Ordinance of 1787 Unconstitu tional-The Free States Astir-Martin Van Buren Tells What the Supreme Court Attempted to Do-The Slave-Holding Justices Became Mere Political Quacks-They Wanted to Save Slavery and Democracy-What They Ought to Have Done-The Unlawful and Iniquitous Foundation of American Slavery.

The friends of freedom, down to the lukewarm and indifferent, were deeply excited after the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott. The cause arose originally in a complaint of assault and battery by Scott, an alleged slave, against John F. A. Sandford, and was tried in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. The declaration set out three separate assaults—one on the complainant Scott, another on his wife and a third on two of his children.

The defendant's plea was "not guilty;" and in addition he pleaded in abatement that the plaintiff and his wife and children were defendant's slaves, and liable, without legal redress, to "flogging or other needful means of coercion." The case was tried in May, 1854, and went to the jury on the following statement of facts to which both parties had agreed:

In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a Negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there At the as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836. time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Suelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi River, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last mentioned date, until the year 1838.

In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the Negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as herein before stated, and kept her there as a slave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling unto the said Dr. Emerson herein before named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling, until the year 1838.

In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and Eliza and Lizzie, took each other for husband and wife. named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks.

In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza from said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided.

Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff said Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie to the defendant as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.

At the time mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands