JUDGE TANEY—DRED SCOTT—DR. CHAFFEE.

MR. EDITOR: DEAR SIR:—No judicial
opinion, since the days of the infamous and
bloody Jeffries, has so shocked the moral
sense of mankind, so tended to enfeeble the
power and majesty of law, nor done so much
to bring judges and courts into contempt, as
this monstrous perversion and abuse of juris
prudence, called the .—But so false is it to history, so distorted are its facts, so unfair and fallacious is its reason
ing, so subversive of all the known principles
of , and such a is it on our great
American Bill of Rights, and so is
the old dotard who wrote it with the gangrene of slavery, that its power for evil falls
harmless to the ground. Selfish and unprincipled demagogues, and corrupt doughfaced
Presidents have tried to ride the ugly thing,
booted and spurred, goading its lank and bony
frame along, but to a poor and sorry purpose.
Its dead and (like the Fugitive Slave Bill)
prostrate carcass is now harmful, only from
the nauseating stench it emits while in the
process of rotting above ground. Pro-slavery magisterials may quote its assumed "authority," and mouth over its diabolical phrases,
its solemn mockery of God and the rights
of man, but, thank Heaven! the Constitution,
embodying and guaranteeing the eternal prin
ciples of Justice, Libery and Equality, still
remains THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

But I took up my pen to write a few lines
on Dred Scott and Hon. Dr. Chaffee, and not
of an old fogy slaveholder's lucubrations upon
Human Rights and the Constitution of the
United States. By the by, would it not be
for the Federal Government to con
stitute a judicature of sea and land pirates to
sit in judgment, and write "decisions" on the
morality and constutionality of piracy and
murder? Why not? as says "the South
erner."

Dred Scott had suffered the rigors of sla
very. He had a cruel master. But in 1836,
at his own earnest solicitation, he was purchas-

ed from his old hard-hearted owner by Dr. Emerson. Subsequently, Dred fell in love with a slave girl by the name of Harriet, and was, of course, anxious to marry her. But Dr. Emerson would not consent to the marriage, unless he could first purchase Harriet, which he at length succeeded in doing, and the slaves were married. The Doctor was a very frugal bachelor gentleman, and had no use for these slaves other than to serve him.

At length the Doctor married, and in pro
cess of time, became the father of one child,
a daughter. In 1844, Dr. Emerson died, leav
ing his entire estate (including his slaves) to
his widow for life, and to his daughter after
the death of her mother. The brother of the
widow, the late J. F. A. Sanford, Esq., of
New York, was the executor of the will, and
was also made trustee and guardian for the
daughter, that he might take the best possible
care of the property for both his sister and
niece.

In the year 1850, the widow married Dr. C.
C. Chaffie, formerly of Nunda, in this State,
but at the time of his marriage to the widow,
and now, a resident of Springfield, Mass., and
member of Congress from that district. He
had no knowledge of the existence of these
slaves at the time of his marriage to the
widow, and when he did learn the fact, learn
ed also that their was placed in
the hands of the executor and guardian,
Sanford; and having no control over them,
he had, of course, no responsibility on account
of them.

This state of the case continued up to the
"decision" of the Court, and subsequent to
the 5th of May, 1857, when Mr. Sanford, the
executor, also died, and then the parties in
interest could control the matter as they
pleased. This took place on the 5th of May,
1857, and on the 20th of the same month,
only fifteen days after the Doctor's family got
possession of these slaves, they were made
free by the forms of law. From the year
1847, to the day of their legal emancipation,
they were, however, as morally free, as they
were after—no one ever attempting to control

them, or asking or receiving a farthing for
their services. It is said they could have had
their free papers at any time; but Dred Scott claimed compensation for himself and
wife from 1837, which claim Sanford, the executor, resisted, for the reason, as he said,
that it would bankrupt the estate.

An attempt has been made to make it appear that Dr. Chaffee lost a re-nomination to Congress in consequence of his connection with Dred Scott—that he in some way owned or held him as a slave. I have been personally and intimately acquainted with Dr. Chaffee for several years, both while he was a resident of this State, and since his residence in Springfield, and when he was a Radical Abolitionist, and believe he would not sustain any other relation to Dred Scott, or the system of slavery, than that consistent with justice and humanity. The reasons why he was not re-nominated to Congress were purely . The district which he represented was made up of parts of , and Hampden, in which he lived, had had the representation years, and the other counties, therefore, claimed and got the nomination.

The Doctor has not abated one jot or tittle of his hatred of oppression, nor do I believe he will shrink a hair from the condemnation of slavery, publicly or privately, when occasion demands.

Thus much in justice to the public, and to an old friend.

Yours, respectfully,

GEO. W. CLARK.

ROCHESTER, Dec. 20th, 1858.