gentleman from Maryland, that all the South wants
is to have the force of the decision of the Supreme Court acknowledged
as to that part of the territory south of the line, in consideration
of which the South will yield what she gains by that decision in the
territory north; and also that we must do this, or the slave States
will be driven to join those States that have seceded. Now, it is due
to frankness to say, that the North does not acquiesce in that
statement; that the point as made by the gentleman from Maryland, has
been _decided_ by the Supreme Court. We know that the Chief Justice of
that court has expressed his own opinion that way; but we don't know
that it has been _decided_ by that court. But if it has been so
decided, the very ground of the decision is a misapprehension. If I
rightly understand the language of Chief Justice TANEY, he insists
that the Constitution expressly affirms the right of property in
slaves. I think it does not. The North thinks it does not.

Mr. SMITH then proceeded to discuss the facts in the Dred
Scott case, and the various opinions declared by the judges,
showing that the decision did not extend so far as claimed
by Mr. JOHNSON, and that the question of the _right_ to hold
slaves in the Territories was not presented by the record in
that case.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--There were two questions involved in the Dred Scott
case. One was, the authority of Scott to sue; the other was, upon the
constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Both these were decided
in that case, and both were decided by the Supreme Court years ago.

Mr. SMITH:--I am aware of the views taken by the gentleman from
Kentucky. I am stating as a matter of fact how this decision is
regarded by a large portion of the people of the North. I am aware
that the Southern construction of the decision is different, and some
at the North concur in it. I am trying to see how the majority
propositions will suit the people who agree with the Northern view.

I understand it is claimed that the court decided that slaves were
property, and that the Constitution did not permit any restraint to be
laid upon the owners of that property in the Territories. Yes, the
court did decide that the owner had the right to take his slaves into
the Territory and hold them there; and to that extent they were
property. It is a prevalent idea at the North that the Southern
construction of this decision is not fair, an