Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-12-26
An important Law Case.


iurists and Members OF Congress. The
case of ID. Scott, plaintiff, .. John F. A
SANFORD, came up for argument on ques-
tons of law.
The plaintiff, a man of color, brought a
suit to try his right to freedom. He claims
having been emancpated by his master hav-
ing taken him to reside IN Illinois, which
act it is declared by the constitution Of that
State, operated to emancipato hun. The
Circuit Court decided against the plaintiff
on the ground that by his return TO Mary
land his masters right, dormant whilst IN
Illinois, had revived, and that the constitu-
ton Of Illinois was penal law, which the
Courts of other States were not bound ia
enforce.
The case was argued at the last session,
but the decision was reserved to allow OF
arguments on certain points Of law.
Mr.. Montgomery Blair appeared for plain
tiff, add Messrs Reverdy Johnson and T., s.
Geyor for claimant
Mr.. Blair opened the case.
Mr.. Blair commended that the plaintiff is,
legally, free man of Maryland within the
1lth section Of the act of l7e9.
It had been objected that he is not entitled
TO all the immunitios Of other citizens; but
If that is a test of citizenship, thrce-iourths
of the whites of the United States are not
citizens, because the census shows that there
is not more than one voter in every five in
hnbliants; therefore, that hypothesis does
not hold good. The allegation that plain
tiff is not a citizen because he does not be-
long to a particular class such as are eligible
for the Senate for instance, falls to the
ground like the other, because there are
many citizens OF the United States, foreign
ers by BIRTH who are not eligible for ;he
Presidency. He referred to Judge CASTOR
OF North Carolina, who decided that all per-
sons born in the realm are citizens; TINT
slaves arc citizens under disabilities; and
foreigners, under disabilities, which are re-
moved by naturalization. IIo instonovd the
Constitution of various States, which de-
clare that every white male citizen shall be
entitled to a vote, showing, by this language,
that there are other citizens, and that it is
necessary to deny them certain privileges by
positive enactment aud express law.
Mr.. Blair thought this special law not the
law for courts Of justice, and contended up
on the ground of former ruling of the courts
that the party need moi he entitled to all the
privileges of citizenship. Judge CASTOR
states there has been no law repeating The
general principle of common law, and that
birth makes citizenship indeed. The act Of
the Maryland Legislature Of 1915, expressly
recognizes free negroes as citizens, and de.
cares that none shall come there who are
not declared by other States as citizens.
The next question was the constitutional
lily of the Missouri Compromise. Whether
II is so or not. the Constitution Of Illinois is
and under il plaintiff is entitled to his free
dom, unless forfeited BY a return TO Missouri
He cited many cases bearing on the sub
iect, and said that Judge Scott Of Missouri
was the first man on this continent to find
out that the plaintiff had alenated his liber-
ty, and made himself slave again.
IT was a settled point Of Law in Missouri
even before her admission but it was not
Law, but passion and politics, which inva-
ded Judge SCOTS mind.
AS TO the cOnstitutonality of the Missouri
Compromise, he, with the whole country, had
entire confidence in the decision of this
court Whichever side of the line il might
decide was Indifferent to him. A PROPOSE
ton was made by Congress in 1880, to the I.
States, for general cession Of lands for the /
purposes Of the general administration, and .
Tor the common use and benefit. Under
that act cessions were made BY Virginia and .
other States. In 1884 a resolution was off. .
cred by Jefferson excluding slavery from the .
land coded. Some States being unrepresen- /
ted, it did not pass. Subsequently in I7g7, /
it did pass.
In 1885, Mr.. King, when reviewing Jefier-
sons motion, said Congress had all the need
FIJI power to pass rules and regulations for
tho government of the Territories. This
would authorize the enactment of a law
prohibiting slavery. The Court had affirmed
that the act of 1850 re-enacted that of l7S7,
and by the 9Th section of the Missouri Act
slavery was prohibited North of 80 deg. 80
min.
There was no doubt upon the subject I'M
ill the invention of squatter sovereignty,
which, he thought, was the father of many
anomalies. The Vigilance Committee of
San Francisco, for instance, was an illegit.
mate exercise Of squatter sovereignty. The
Compromise Act of 1850, in spirit if not in
language, re-Ofirms the act Of lS45, prohib-
lting slavery in Texas north of that line, for
II says" Nothing shall be implied 10 inval-
idate," &c.
Without concluding, Mr.. Blair gave way
fol adjournment.
DECEMBER lG. |
Alter the adjournment of two minor cases, .
argument in the case Of bred Scott v. ]. .
+. a. SANFORD, was resumed.
Mr.. Geyer, for the applicant took the .
broad ground that an African was incapable .
of being made a citizen, and that it had /
been so decided by the courts in q number
of cases. At the time of the adoption of
the Constitution, every State except one of
the slaveholdng States in the Convention
for the adoption of the Constitution, left open
the African Slave Trade for twenty years
and, to his mind, il was not the intention of
the trainers of that instrument TO make an
importation Of material for citizenship
The law of Missouri says: "If negro
comes to thar State with naturalization pa
pers from another State he shall not be
whipped" but it does not recognize him as
citizen II the master carries a slave into
State where slavery does not exist, and the
slave is not discharged by local law and then
takes him back to a State where slavery is
established, the latter is not bound to en-
force the law of the other State, or exact
the forfeiture imposed. lie denied that
slave was emancipated by d residence in
free State.
1t had been decided that the mere tenn
porary residence of the master in a non
slaveholdng State did not emancipate the
slave. lie referred to the Constitution of
Illinois, which, he understood, was intended
10 interdict the Legislature from by law e.
establishing slavery, but was not to affect
transitu slaves. In the case of Massachu-
sets VS.. Ames, the slave was released by
habeas corpus not by laws Of the State. SO
in the case Of Illinois, there is no physical,
legal or moral compulson against slave
passing through that State. He thought
when the question was examined, precedents
could be adduced recognizing the right Of
Congress TO establish municipal governments
in the Territories, but denied that there had
been any judicial decision allowing them to {
20 beyond. 1t was a remarkable fact that
every attempt to legislate on slavery was
made, not under the Constitution, but under
the pretense of a compact
The act Of 1898 and others were not an
exertion of power TO inhibit slavery, but an {
exercise of commercial power In fact
those very acts recognize the existence of
slavery by local laws, aud protect it, He
gave history of the Missouri Compromise,