Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1857-03-19
THE DRIED SCOTT CASE.
OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES SU-
. PREME COURT.

to difference of opinion among the members
of the Court, and in order to give the sub
ject more mature elaboration.
There were two leading questions: first,
had the Circuit court of the United States,
for the District of Missouri, jurisdiction in
the case and if jurisdiction, was its deci-
sion erroneous or not? ati-e
The defendant denied, by plea in abate-
ment, the jurisdiction Of the Circuit Court
of the United States on the ground that the
plaintiff lis negro of African descent, his
ancestors were ofpure African blood, and
were brought into this country and sold as
slaves and therefore the plaintiff ''is not
citizen of the State of Missouri" To this
plea the plaintiff demurred, and the Court
sustained the demurrer. Thereupon the
defendant pleaded over, and justified the
trespass on the ground that the plaintiff and
his family were his negro slaves; and state
ment of facts, argued to by both parties,
was read in evidence.
| The Chief Justice, having stated the facts
in the case, proceeded in tone of voice
almost inaudible) to say, in substance. that
the question first to be decided was, wheth-
Ter the plaintiff was entitled to sue in Court
of the United States. This was peculiar
tquestion, and for the first time brought be-
fore the Court under such circumstances !;
but it had been brought here, and it was
the duty of the Court to meet and decide
1T. The question was simply this, can a
negro, whose ancestors were imported and
sold as slaves, become member Of the po-
itical community formed and brought into
existence by the Constitution OF. the United
States, and, as such, become entitled to all
the rights and immunities of "a citizen, one
of which rights is sueing in the Courts Of
the United States in cases therein specified.
In discussing this question we must not
|confound the rights of a citizen which State
may confer within its own limits, with a ci-
tizen of the United States. No on can be
a citizen of the United States unless under
the provisions of the Constitution !; but it
does not follow that man, being a citizen
Of one State, must be recognized as such by
every State in the Union. He may, be a
citizen in one State and not recognized as
such in another Previous to the adoption
of the Constitution, every State might con-
fer the character of citizen, and endow a
man with all the rights pertaining it. This
was confined to the boundaries of State,
and gave him no rights beyond its limits.
Nor have the several States surrendered this
power by the adoption Of the Constitution
Every State may confer the right upon an
alien or on any other class or description of
persons, who would, to all intents and pur-
poses, be citizen Of the State, but not a
citizen in the sense used in the Constitution
of the United States. He would not there
by become citizen of the United States,
and, therefore, could not sue in any Court
in the United States, nor could heenjoy the
immunities of citizen in the other States
His rights would be confined strictly to his
State. The Constitution gives Congress the
power to establish ga uniform rule of natu-
ralization y consequently, no State, by ma
turalizing an alien, could confer upon him
the rights and imunities of all the States
under the General Government. tits very
clear, therefore, that no State can, by any
act, introduce new member into the politi-
cal Union created by the Constitution. The
Equestion then arises, whether the provisions
of the Constitution of the United States in re-
lation to personal rights to which a citizens of
IA State is entitled, embraced negroes of the
African race, at that time in the country. or
afterwards imported or made free from any
State; and whether it is in the power of any
State to make such one citizen of the State,
and endow him with full citizenship in any
other States without their consent? Does the
Constitution of the United States act upon
him and clothe him with all the rights of CT
tizen? The Court think the affirmative
cannot be maintained; and, if not, the plain
tiff could not be citizen of Missouri with
in the meaning of the Constitution, nor
citizen of the United States, and, conse-
quently, not entitled the sue in its Courts.
It is true that every person, and every
class and description of persons at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution, re-
garded as citizens of the several States, be-
came citizens of this new political body, and
none other. It was for them and their pos
terity, and for nobody else; and all the
rights and immunities were intended to en-
brace only those of State communities or
those who became members according to the
principles on which the Constitution was a.
|dopted. It was Union Of those who were
members Oft the political communities, whose
powers, for certain. specified purposes, ex-
tended over the whole territories of the
United States, and gave each citizen rights
outside his State which he did not before pos
sess, and placed all rights of persons and
property on an equality.
It becomes necessary. therefore, to deter
mine, who were citizens of the several States
when the Constitution was adopted. In Or