New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-02-20
From WASHINGTON
SLAVERY BEFORE THE SUPREME 0oURr.
w,smSoros, Monday Feb. II, 1850.

rs PUBIC stttni4On mas IN rVhf u's''" vocs
attracted to the case now before the Saprems
Court oftbe United States. which partially involves
the constitutionaty of the Missouri Compromise,
q brief outline Of the leading facts may prove
cept.be and interesting. The case is docketed,
bred Scott, plaintiff in error, vs.. john +. A. Sand
ford defendant The plAintid, = man Of color.
brought the original suit in the Circuit Court for
Missouri to try his right to freedom claiming to
have been emspcipated by his master having
taken him to reside in the State OF Illinois, which
act Il is declared BY the constitution Of that Stats
operated TO liberate him from Slavery.
AT the trial the plaintiff read in evidence state
ment of facts agreed TO between the parties as FOL.
lows: In the year 1884 the plaintiff, bred Scott was
e negro slave belonging to DR.. Emerson. who wsss
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
80 slave until the month of April or May, 1886,
abou. two years. At the time last mentioned, DR..
Emerson removed Scott from the military post Of
Rock Island to the military post at Fort Smelling.
situated on the west bank Of the Mississippi River.
in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, ac-
ouired By the United States of France, and lying
north of the latitude 36o 80 north, and north Of
the State of Missouri. DR.. Emerson held Scott in
slavery at Fort Snelling from the Spring Of 1886
until the year 1888, two years more, and making
four years during which he resided on free SOIL
In the year 1895, Harriet-nsmed in tho second
count of the plaintiff S declaration-was the negro
slave Of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the
army of the United States. During that year
ls35-Msjor Taliaferro took Harriet TO Fort Smell.
ing, military post situated as before stated, and
kept her there as a slave until the year 1556,
and then sold and delivered her as slave at Fort
Smelling unto DR.. Emerson already named. Dr.
Emerson held Harriet in slavery at Fort Smelling
until the year 1893.
In the year 1880, bred Scott and Harriet, a! Fort
Smelling, with the consent of DR.. Emerson, who
then claimed to be their master and owner, inter-
married and took each other for husband and wife.
Eliza and Lizzy-named in the third count of the
plaintiffs declaratiOn--are the fruit OF that mar
rage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was
born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the
north line of the State of Missouri, and upon ths
River Mississippi. Lizzy is about seven years old,
and was born in the State of Missouri, at the mill
tary 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 aud Lizzy to John L. A. Sandford
of New-YOrk, the present defendant, as slaves.
and he has ever since claimed to hold them as such.
These were tho material points in the evidence
adduced before the Circuit Court in Missouri, and
bred Scott prayed the Court to instruct the JURY
that upon the facts agreed BY the parties, they
ought to find for him. The Court refused to give this
instruction, but instructed thai 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 Court here.
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 These grounds
were also taken in the opinion o, .1e Supreme
Court of Missouri, in case which Scott brought
against his former owner, DIR. Emerson, in which
cause majority of the bench oyerruled the doc
tline previously aud uniformly recognized in Mis-
souri,, and generally elsewhere, that the removal
of slave by his master into Free State makes
him free forever. Judge Gamble, who delivered q
dissenting opinion on that occasion, held the fol-
lowing language: " In this State (Missouri it has
"been recognized from the beginning of the Gov.
" eminent as correct position in law, that the
master who takes bis slave TO reside in State
or Territory where Slavery is prohibited thereby
" emancpates his slave"
The plaintiff rests his right to freedom upon the
benefits conferred by the Constitution 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 ad
hitting Missouri as State into the Union. Both
Of these prohibitions are in the same words sub
stantiay, with only the difference in application
between State and Territory and both exclude
Slavery emphatically.
The arguments in the Court below were revived
here, with some additional points. 1t was con-
tended, among other things, that the Missouri re-
striction was unconstitutional and therefore that
tie two years residence at Fort Smelling did not
affect the status of Scott as slave. Much stress
was laid upon point that it was not shown Scott
had resisted the return to Missouri; and, indeed,
il was assumed in the argument that this non
appearance of refusal amounted to scquiescence,
which would revive the conditions Of bondage, even