The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1856-03-08
Correspondence Of the N. Y. Tribune.
Slavery Before the q. S. Supreme Court.

| Correspondence Of the N. Y. Tribune.
Slavery Before the q. S. Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, Feb. IL, 1856.
AS public attention has in some degree
been attracted to the case now before the
Supreme Court of the United States, which
partially involves the constitutionality OF the
Missouri Compromise, a brief outline of the
leading facts may prove acceptable and inter-
esting. The case is docketed, Fred Scott,
plaintiff in error, VS.. John +. A. Sanford,
defendant. The plaintiff, man of color,
brought the original suit in the Circuit Court
of Missouri, to try his right to freedom,
claiming to have been tmancipated by his
master, having taken him to reside in the
State of Illinois, which act it is declared by
the Constitution of that State, operated to
liberate him from slavery.
At the trial the plaintiff read in evidence
statement of the facts agreed to between
the parties as follows: In the year 1884 the
plaintiff, Fred Scott, was negro slave be-
longing to DR.. Emerson, who was surgeon
in the army of the United States. During
that year, 1884, DR.. Emerson took Scott
from the State of Missouri to the military
post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois
and held him there as slave until the month
of April or May, 1886, about two years.
At the last time mentioned, DR.. Emerson
removed Scott from the military post at Rock
Island to the military post at Fort Smelling
situated on the west bank of the Mississippi
river, in the Territory known as Upper Lou
isiana, acquired by the United States Of
France, lying north of the latitude of sc
deg. 80 min north, and north of the State
of Missouri. DR.. Emerson held Scott in
slavery at Fort Smelling from the spring Of
1886 until the year 1888, two years more
and making four years during which he resi-
ded on free soil.
In the year 1885, Harriett-named in tie
second count of the plaintiff IS declaration
was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who
belonged to the army of the United States
During that year, 1885, Major Taliaferro
took Harriet to Fort Smelling, military
post situated as before stated, and kept her
there as slave until the year 1886, and
then sold and delivered her at Fort Smelling
unto DR.. Emerson already named DR.. En-
erson had Harriet in slavery at Fort Smell
ling until the year 1888.
In the year 1886, Fred Scott and Harriet
at Fort Smelling, with the consent of Dr. E.
who then claimed to be their master and
owner, intermarried and took each other for
husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzy-named
in the third count of the plaintiffs declara-
tion-are the fruits of their marriage. Eliza
is about fourteen years old, and was born
on board the steamboat Gipsey, ncrth of the
north line Of the State of Missouri, and up
on the Mississippi. Lizzy is about seven
years old anu was born in the State of Mis-
souri,, at tie military post called Jefferson
Barracks.
In the year 1888, Dr. Emerson removed
Scott and Harriet and their daughter Eliza
from Fort Smelling to the State of Missouri
where they have ever since resided. Before
the commencement of the suit, DR.. Emerson
sold and conveyed Scott, Harriet, Eliza and
Lizzy to John f. A. Sanford of New York
| the present defendant, as slaves, and he has
ever since claimed to hold them as such.
These were the material points in the evil
dence adduced before the Circuit Court in
Missouri, and Fred Scott prayed the Court
to instruct the jury that, upon the facts
agreed on by the parties, they ought to find
for him. The Court refused to give this in
struction, but instructed that the law was
with the defendant, and the jury so found
on all the issues presented in this way the
pending appeal has come before the Supreme
/ COurC mere.
The Court below decided against Scott on
two grounds-frst, that by his return to
Missouri his masters right, dormant while
residing in Illinois, was revived; and second
that the Constitution of Illinois was penal
law, which the courts of other States were
not bound to enforce.
The plaintiff rests his rights to freedom
upon the benefits conferred by the Constitu-
ton of Illinois upon him during two years
residence there, and subsequently, during
his residence of two years at Fort Smelling,
upon the restriction in the act admitting Mis-
souri, as a State into the Union Both OF
these prohibitions are in the same words sub
stantially, with only the difference in appli-
cation between State and Territory, and
both exclude slavery emphaticaliy.
The arguments in the Court below were
revived here, with some additional points
1t was contended, among other things that
the Missouri restriction was unconstitution-
al, and therefore that two years. residence at
Fort Smelling did not affect the status of Scott
as slave. Much stress was laid upon a point
that it was not shown Scott had resisted
the return to Missouri; and, indeed, it was
assumed in the argument that this non-ap-
|pearance of refusal amounted to acquescence
which would revive the conditions of bond
age, even if temporarily free, while living
in a State and Territory where slavery was
prohibited. The learned counsel took care
t. withhold any expression of opinion either
as to the ability of the alleged slave to resist
when he had always been accustomed to obey
or of his knowledge of his rights when at
Rock Island or Fort Smelling.
1t is expected the judgment of the Court
will be rendered within fortnight.