A Century of Federal Judicature.
127
A CENTURY OF FEDERAL JUDICATURE. III. BY VAN VECHTEN VEEDER. THE career of Chief Justice Taney (183664) is a striking illustration of the sever ity of public sentiment. For nearly a genera tion this great lawyer served in the highest judicial station, if not with complete satisfac tion in all sections of the country, at "least with recognized judicial integrity and ability. But in his old age (with the most laudable motive, it may now well be believed) he over stepped the bounds of formal judicial proce dure in one conspicuous instance, and from that time, although he had merely pro nounced the views of a court composed of several members, he was overborne by re proach and calumny. I say calumny because the worst charges made against him in con nection with the Dred Scott case were with out foundation. There was no bargain be tween him and the administration concerning the court's decision. Nor did he express the personal opinion that the negro had "no rights which the white man is bound to re spect." This statement was made in connec tion with his declaration that the court had no concern with the justice or injustice of the law, but must interpret the Constitution as it was framed, and was part of an histori cal narrative describing the views sup posed to have prevailed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Taney had long before expressed his own views of slav ery: "It was imposed upon us by another nation while we were yet in a state of colo nial vassalage. It cannot be easily or sud denly removed. Yet while it continues it is a blot on our national character; and every lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be eventually, though it must be grad ually, wiped away." Chief Justice Taney seems to have persuaded himself, or allowed
himself to be persuaded by his associate, Justice Wayne, that he could quiet the gath ering storm by throwing the weight of the court's opinion in the balance. But the right eous sentiment of a people with the govern ing power in their own hands was no longer to be stayed out of respect for the political compromises of their ancestors. In fact, this decision contributed in no small measure to precipitate the crisis. The pain and humilia tion which the chief justice must have suf fered in his final years are no small atone ment for any offense. For the civil strife which ensued he had no heart; but, though he remained true to his oath, he was, never theless, an object of suspicion. He was reap ing the whirlwind. "Since the first organiza tion of this court," said Attorney General Bates, addressing the court at the opening of the December term, 1861, "no term has yet been held under circumstances so gloomy and sorrowful. I look up to that honored bench and behold vacant seats. Even this august tribunal, the coequal partner in the government of a great nation, the revered dispenser of our country's justice, shares with us in feeling the common sorrows and suffers in the common calamity. . . . Your lawful jurisdiction is practically restrained; your just power is diminished, and into a large portion of our country your writ does not run, and your beneficent authority to administer justice according to law is suc cessfully denied and resisted." The stern necessities of war subjected him to many humiliations, which he bore with the utmost dignity. When, in 1863, Congress passed the act withholding three per cent, of the salary of government officers, he wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, point
