New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-12-16
nois wac pers law which the Courts Of other Stats,


were not bound 10 enforce.
The s,gued at the last session. but the Al.
cision va: reserved to allow Of arguments on certain
points Of law.
Mr.. Montgomery Blair appeared for plaintiff. and
Mesus Reverdy johnson and E. S. Geyef for
claimant
Mr.. Blair opened the case by stating thst nothing
was eaid ns session upon one question upon which tia
Court invited argument, viz: Whether q plea 10
abatement Of the jurisdiction Of the Court waived by
pleading the merits Of the case. He quoted decision
by Judge Daniel TO the effect that the act Of 1889 did
not change the rule Of common law requiring plea in
abatement unless final judgment k made upon that
plea and il is waived. The Court cannot take notice
OF evidence when tying the law on the subject. An.
other question is, whether the applicant Is citizen Of
Missouri
Mr.. Blair contended that tn plaintiff is legally
freeman of Missouri within the eleventh section Of the
act Of 1852 1t had been objected that be is not enti
tied to al the mmunites OF other citizens and If that
is test Of czenshp, three fourths Of the whites Of
The United States not citizens because the Census
elbows that there ia not more than voter in every
five inhabients Therefore, that hypothesis does not
hold good. The allegation that plaintiff ia not citizen
because be does not belong particular csss such a.
are eligible for the Senate for instance fall to the goupd
like the other because there many citizens of the
United States foreigners by BIRTH who are not eligible
for the Presidency. He referred to Judge CASTOR of
North Carolina who decided that all persons born within
the realm citizens that slaves are citizens under dis
abilities and foreigners under disabilities which
are removed by naturalization. He instsnced
the Constitutions Of various States which declare
that every white male citizen shall be entitled 10
vote; showing by this language that there are other
citizens, and that ia necessary to deny them certain
privileges by positive ensctment and express law Mr..
Blair thought this social law not the Law for Courts of
Justice and commended upon the ground of former rul-
ing Of the Courts that the party need not be entitled
states there has been no law repeating the general
principle of common law, and that birth makes cti
zenshp in deed. The act of the Missouri Legislature
of ls45 expressly recognizes free negroes citizens
L.. xbakr hall vbo
recognized by other States as cit zens.
The next question was the oonstitutonaity of the
Missouri Compromise. Whether it is 80 or not, the
Constitution Of Illinois is, and under it plaintiff is
titled TO bis freedom unless forfeited BY return to
Missouri. The Declaration Of Independence de lnes
liberty to be of those rights which are na'ienabe,
and we to be told that negro by any act of his
OVID can abrogate this right He cited many cases
bearing On the subject and said that Judge S,ott of
Missouri was the first man on this continent to find
out that the plaintiff had aienated his liberty
and made himsef slave again. 1t was set
tied point of law in Missouri even before her
admission; but it was not law, but passion
and politics which invaded Judge SCOTS mind.
1t was point Of common law which the Court 10
pie, and it is not bound to consider Judge
Scottsl opinion more than any other, except for
its weight and learning He alluded to point in the
opponents brief that Dr. Emerson mast be regarded
a. person 10 transitu and raid there is evidence
that be had a residence other than the place where
he was found residing for when he returned to
Missouri he went to Jeffereon Barracks. He quot.
ed the act of Illinois on the subject of Slavery,
any violation Of which copfes emancipation. This
man took his negro to Illinois under knowledge
that he thereby b free and could not be held he
intended to violate the law which prohibits Slavery
involuntary servitude. As TO the constutionality Of
the missouri Compromise, be, with the whole country,
had entire confidence in the decision OF this Court
Whichever side of the line it might decide was ndif.r
ell TO him. proposition was made BY Congress In
1880 10 the States general cetsion Of land for the
purposes of the General Adminstr son, and for the
common use and benefit. Under that act cessions were
made by Virginia add other States. In 1874
resolution was offered by Jefferson excluding
Slavery from the land ceded Some States being unrep
resented it did not pass. Subsequently, in 1857, it did
pass In 1885, Mr.. King, when renewing Jeffesons
motion sad Congress had all the needful poHer r. pass
rules and regulations for the government Of the Terri
tories This would authorize the enactment of law
prohibiting Slavery. The Court had affirmed that the
act of 1889 reenacted that Of 1887. and BY the eighth
section of tie Missouri act, Slavery was forever pro-
hibited north Of sc deg 80 min. There was no doubt
upon the subject till the invention of Squstter Sove-
reipnty which he thought was the father of many
anomalies. The Vigilance Committee Of San Fran.
cisco, for instance, an Legitimate exercise OF
Squatter Sovereignty. The Compromise Act Of 1850
in spirit if not in language, reams the act Of 1872
prohibiting Slavery in Texas north of that line, for it
says: "NothiDg shall be implied to invalidate." DC
Without concluding, Mr.. Blair gave way for ad-
journment.
The care will last several days.