The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-16
Interesting Slave Case In the Unitea States
Supreme Court.

Interc sting Slave Case In tine United States
Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, Dec. Is, 1853.
All the judges were present, ss well as many dstn-
guiahed juriss and members Of Congress.
The case Of Dred Scott, plaintiff vs. John A. Sand
ford came up for argument on questions OF law. Tne
plsintin, Of color, brought suit TO try
his right TO freedom. He claims having been
emancipa,ed by his master, having taken him to
reside in Illinois, which act declared by the coustu
ton OF That Saie operated TO emancpate him. The CIR
Quit Court decided against the plaintiff the ground tina
by hts turn TO Missouri, his masters right, dorman
whsl Illinois, had revived, and that the constitution
Of Illpcs WAS penal law which The courts Of other
States MT bound 10 enforce. The argued
oil arguments on certain points OF law.
Mr. Montgomery Blair appeared for plaintiff md kessrs
Reveroy Johnson ANA s. Geyer for claimant Mr.. Blair
upon question upon which the Court invited
argument viz whether plea In abatement Of the jnrs
d,con OF the Court waived by pleading the merits Of
the case He quoted decision by Judge Daniel 70 The
effect that tho act OF 1859 did not change the rule OF
mon law requiring plea 10 abatement unless final jueg
ment Is n ade upon that plea, and II ID waived The
Court cannot take notice Of evidence when try
Ing the law tho subject. Another question ID
whether the applicant 10 czsu Of Missouri.
Mr. Blair contended that the plaintiff legally = free
man Of Missouri within the eleventh section OF the act Of
1850. II had been objected that ne entitled 70 eli
the mmuniies Of other citizens; but IL thst OF
citizenship, threeourshs OF the whites Of the United
States not citizens because the census shows that
y
tants therefore, that hypothesis does not hold good.
The allegation that psintr Is not citizen because he
does not belong TO particular cass-such eligible
for the senae for nstance-ial the ground like the
other because there many citizens Of tho United
Siaestoreigners by birh-wh0 not eligible for the
Presidency Ho referred 70 Judge CASTOR Of North Caro-
lima who decided that all persons born in the realm
citizens; that slaves are citizens under disabilities
and foreigners under disabilities which are
removed by naturalization. He nstanccd tho constitu
tons various States which declare that every white
male citizen shall be entitled VOTE showing by this
language the other
cessary 10 deny them certain privileges by positive
scnent and express law. Mr. Blair thought this social
Law not tee law for courts Of justice, and cont snded up
tho ground Of former ruingsof the that the
party need not be entitled all the privileges Of citizen
ing the general principle Of common Law and tina. birth
makes citizenship deed The act OF the Missouri Logis
aturo Of ls4o expressly recognizes free Desroes IS ct
net declared BY other States as oitzens.
The next question was Ii constisutionaly OF the Mis-
souri, compromise Whether II s 20 or not tn, consti
tuiion Of Illinois Is and under II plaintiff ID entitled 10
HIS freedom unless forfeited by return TO Missouri.
The Declaration Of independence declares liberty
Of rights which inalensble aod are Se 70
be told that negro by any act OF bis own, arYogae
tnis act lie cited many bearing the aubjeot,
sei1 that Judge Scot OF Missouri the first
this bcnt 70 find out that the plaintiff had alien
s,ed his liberty and made himself slave again 1t
a settled point OF lay ia Missouri even before her
admission; bat il was not Law, Blu. passion and
politics which invaded Judge Scott's mimi. IL was q
pon. OF common ls~ which the court Is called upon 10
decide upon general ncple Ard IL IL not bound TO
consider Judge scotts opinion than any other
cept Tor It's weight and learning He alluded TO poin,
the opponents brief that r Emerson be regarded
person an bansD and said there evidence that
he had residence ether than where ne found resii
ing for when he returned TO Missouri he % Jeer
Barracks he quoted tho set of Illinois the subject
OF slavery any vioson of which oonfers emancipation
This took hs negro 10 Illinois . kno sledge
thst he thereby became free and could not held
intended violate the Jaw which prohibits slavery in
voluntary servtude. As TO the constitutionaty OF the
Missouri Com promise, be with the whole country, had
chre confidence the decision Of this court Wnicn-
sGe or the line IL nigh. decide indifferent
him proportion made by Congress in lTs0 10 the
States Tor general cesson OF lands for the Purposes OF
the general Administration AID Tor the common aud
bens t Unuer that ACT cessiors made by Vrg MIA
ano oher states. 10 lisa resolution offered by
Jefferson, excluding slavery from tho lsud ceded.
Some stpfc~ beiDg unrepyesented, did not
pass. subsequently,, ia 1881, II did pass In
1855, Mr. King. when renewing Jefersons
ton, saa Congress had all The needtu power pass
and regulations for the government OF the Territories.
The would authorize the enactment OF law prohibiting
slavery. TIE Govt had affirmed that the act 1852
enacted that OF 1857 and by the eighth section OF the
Missouri acs slavery was forever prohibited north Of
thirty six degrees thirty minutes rlere doubt
upon The subject I'LL the Invention Of squaer sovereign
ty, which he hopght the father OF many
The Vigilance Committee OF San Francisco for TO-
lilo mate exercise OF tqustter sovereignty TIE
Compromise act Of 1850 In spr,t II not In snguage
afr toe act OF $780, prohibiting slavery IA Texas norh
Of that line TOR says, "Noning shall be implied
vahcsie," &C. without concluding, Mr.. Blair gave way
for Adjournment
The will last several days.