Franklin Repository

Under the above caption the Valley Spirit of the 25th ult., undertakes to defend the unholy decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case. The language of the Chief Justice is most unblushingly, most wickedly denied, in order to make out a plausable pretext for bestowing praise upon an unworthy object.

The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal in the country- the court of the last resort -has had upon its bench some of the brightest legal intellects in the civilized world. The decisions of that body, in its purer days- when really great men were robed in its official ermine -were quoted with approbation and were received as oracles of wisdom, justice and law, in every country, and in every clime, where a court of law is the arbiter of the rights of man with his fellow men. In those days the chief object with that august tribunal was "to do justly, and to love mercy." Now the powers with which that important branch of the government are clothed are all basely prostituted to crush out every principle of justice and mercy which is incorporated in our Constitution; our bill of rights, and in the Magna charta of our liberty- the immortal Declaration of Independence.--It is any wonder then, that the descendents of Revolutionary Sires -the lovers of liberty in its largest sense, and its fullest signification- should spurn with contempt the edict of any body of men, which would circumscribe within improper bounds the workings of our glorious system of American independence and freedom? No man who has ten drops of the blood of a defender of our liberties, upon the tented field of battle, coursing through his veins, can calmly, contemplate the horrible wickedness; the jesuitical, insiduous betrayal of the dearest rights of freemen which is embodied in Roger B. Taney's opinion in that ever memorable case.

Who is Roger B. Taney? Who is this wonderful (?) man -whom Locofocos would have us look upon as "a Daniel come to judgment." The least said about him will least damage his reputation. We would have suffered the hoary old reprobate to pass down to merited oblivion, without this notice, if the political slave of the Spirit had not compelled us to put him thus upon record. Taney is the man who dared to remove the deposits of the Government from the vaults of the National Bank, at the request of President Jackson, without any legal authority and in direct defiance of an act of Congress. This willful trampling upon the statute, of the highest law-making power in the land, was the great recommendation with General Jackson when he appointed him to the elevated position of chief justice of the Supreme Court of the land; showing that obedience to his mandates was the highest necessary qualification for appointment to any office in his gift with the then chief executive. Taney commenced his career as a public man, by an open violation of law, arising from a blind subserviency to party spirit, and he was the man of all men, to give utterence to the reeking historical falsehoods, and legal misrepresentations of the Dred Scott case.

Our neighbor calls us to task for having, as it alleges, wilfully represented the statement of Taney in the opinion he delivered against justice; against law; against freedom; against history; against truth. They feel that the hellish doctrine which that opinion contains is so subversive of the dearest rights of our people that unless it can be recalled, or the masses made to believe he never uttered such dark sentences, the effect will be to entirely destroy the last vestige of locofoco dominion in the free states' hence their anxiety to cover the black record over with a frost work of lies. Below we give the identical language to be found in the opinion of Judge Taney.

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so inferior, THAT THEY HAD NO RIGHTS WHICH THE WHITE MAN WAS BOUND TO RESPECT; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

The foul stench of political sophistry, arising from this subtle document is enough to cause the virtuous portion of civilized humanity to turn their heads in disgust from us as a people; holding the whole nation responsible for the abominations issuing from the court of highest resort in the land.

It is a historical falsehood to say that there is any difficulty whatever in arriving at the state of public opinion with reference to slavery at the time of adoption of our Constitution; the time of the Declaration of Independence, and for a number of years previous. The universal sentiment was that it was a great evil. All philanthropists were busy devising ways and means for its speedy determination.--It was regarded as the dark shot upon our escutcheon. It is a legal misrepresentation, and no man is better acquainted with the fact than Judge Taney, to make justice and might synonymous terms. The majority to pass a law depriving the minority of any unalienable right, reducing them, it may be, into hopeless slavery, would be a law of might, but not of justice. However lawfully the poor unfortunate sons of Africa are held in a state of unpaid servitude; yet it is insulting to the attribute of the Deity to call such barbarous cruelty by the holy name of justice. This Judge Taney does and the Spirit glorifies him for the act. If there is any credit connected with such base, canting hypocrisy, the great (?) judge, and his immortal Spirit may divide it between them. We want no such glory.

The Spirit, which hereabouts is rarely named without the prefix evil, professes, in the issue of the 1st inst., to be very much consoled by the reflection that we do not dispute the territory with them; but have left them "sole defender of the faith (?) of old Buck in Franklin County."

A cooler piece of impudence, in several respects, could no where else be found, than in the Valley Spirit, where an abundance is always on hand, to meet every emergency. It requires considerable brass -but what of that, plenty at the Spirit office- for any man to claim to be the expected defender of the faith of a man whom he has denounced in unmeasured terms -showing, among other things, that an utter want of faith was a leading characteristic of the creature he now glorifies.

The faith of old Buck, ha! ha! ha! -Who struck Billy Patterson? Is he old Buck now, since he has repudiated the Cincinnati Platform? Time was, when he and it were considered synonymous terms by his ardent admirers in these regions. He utterly rejects the following plank in the Platform of the party which elected him, as proclaimed by the convention which put him in nomination, viz:

"Resolved, That the Democratic party will resent all attempts at renewing, in congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

Where are you now, Mr. defender of the faith? Where is "old Buck" now? You all swore by that article in old Buck's faith, in the campaign of 1856. What say you to it now? Do you change with the moon? or is the faith of old Buck the same in 1859 that it was when he was seeking his election? You know it is not. You know that he has created the widest dissensions in the party, that unwisely elevated to the highest post in the nation an imbecile, by advocating the wicked doctrine of Congressional interference for protection of Slavery in the Territories -even in defiance of the wishes of the citizens of the same. Such is now his faith. do you advocate the same infernal faith? In you consolatory article, you do not profess to proclaim Democratic principles, as annunciated by your last National Convention; but set yourself up as the "defender of the faith of old BUCK." What a happy time you must have of it.

You need not have been alarmed at our praise of Jeffersonian Democracy. No two sets of principles could be more widely at antipodes than those of Jefferson advocating the will of the majority as the supreme authority in a Democracy, and the tyrannical, overbearing dictation of the Oligarchy, backed by the prince of Federalists, (who you familiarly call old Buck) compelling the majority to yield their faith, their opinions and their conscience, as well as all their civil rights into the keeping of their self-constituted masters. The genuine Democracy of Jefferson, is so far removed from the spurious faith of old Buck, that if either had the small pox the other would be in no danger of catching it.

Why should you complain at any person advocating Jeffersonianism? You are the defender of the faith of old Buck, the arch old Federalist. Doubtless you have carefully put away, in cotton, in your office, the identical "jack knife" with which he cut his veins in search of one drop of Democratic blood. The public have not yet learned whether he ever found that one drop; certainly no larger quantity ever entered into his composition.

We would like to see the articles in the faith of old Buck published, in your paper, regularly once a month, for a year; and if we can not show twelve changes in that wonderful production, in just that number of months, (providing his Southern keepers saw fit to alter their tune that often) then we will do, what no person acquainted with him would like to undertake -call the editor of the Spirit a consistant politician, for the balance of our natural life.