The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-03-11
THE DAILY UNION


log the free hsre5 oe abrdging the freedom of
spsech OF OF the the right Of the people peaceab
70 assemble and to neiuu me government for redress
'euces, &c Thus the rights of property are unitt
with the rights and this extends 10 the Territories
well the States Congress cannot authorize the
Territories 10 do what IL cannot do ITSELF it cannot confer
on the Territories power to violate the provisions oil the
1t seems however that there supposed to be differ
enee between slaves and Other property. The people, In
the formation of the constitution delegated the general
government certain enumerated powers and forbade the
exercise Of others 1t has powers over persons aud
property Of cz except those enumerated in the cons
tuition II the constitution recognises the right OF master
and slave and makes difference between slaves and
other property tribunal acting under the authority OF
the United States draw such distinction and deny the
provisions and guarantees secured against the encroaeh
ment of the government
Aswe have already said the right of property in slave
is expressly conferred in the constitutions and guaranteed
to every State This in language too plain to be misun
derstood and words be found in the constitution
giving Congress greater power slaves than over any
other description OF property.
II h therefore, the opinion of this court that the act OF
Congress which prohibits czeus from holding property
of this character north certain line is not warranted
by the constitution, aud is therefore void and neither
bred Scott any of his family made free by
their residence in Illinois The plaintiff was not citizen
of Missouri but still slave and therefore had no
right TO sue in court Of the United States. Is
The COURT having thus examined the case as 1t stands
under the tuition to other points, saying
Scott slave when he was brought back to Missouri
from Illinois be under the law of the former and not
the latter 1t has been settled by the highest tribunals
that individual does not acquire his freedom under such
circumstances As appears the court that the plain
tiff is not citizen of Missouri nor citizen OF The United
Stats who could 10 the United States court this court
give Judgment aud hence the suit must be dismiss
ed for want OF Jurisdiction
Justice Nelson's Opinion.
Associate Justice Nelson stated the grounds on which he
had arrived the conclusion that the argument of the
court below be affirmed Having stated the case,
substantially, above he proceeded to examine 1T on its
merits. The question was whether the removal of the
plaintiff with his ny, 10 Illinois with view TO tenn
porary residence and after his to Missouri such
residence in free State worked emancipation. He
maintained that it did rot Such questions belonged to
the States TO decide for themselves. As to whether Mis-
souri, will recognise give Effect to the laws of Illinois
the subject of slavery is for Missouri herself to deter
mine nor is there any constitutional power righttuly to
control her. Every STATE or nation possesses exclusive
sovereignty and jurisdiction within her territory aud
her laws act and bind all property within her limits
No State nation affect or bind persons or property
outside of Eer territory.
The question is fully established that it belongs the
sovereign State of Missouri to determine the question
slavery within her own jurisdiction subject only to such
limitations may be found in the constitution. This Ii
the result of the independent and sovereign character OF
the State 1t equally applicable to the other States be
longing TO the conederacy 1t must re admitted that Con-
power to create or abolish slavery in
State and if Cong possesses power under the cons
tuition abolish slavery in the Territories it must
sar possess the power to establish it, This he denied
and then ded to show that the question involved 10
the now beie the court was depending solely on
the law of Missouri concluding with the remark that thu
judgment OF the court below should be affirmed.
..,. Justice Catron's Opinion.
Associate Justice Caron also stated the history Of The
case aud said that the has power decide bt
question further than to dismiss it, it had right dis
It's merits but he held that the court has Jurisdiction
decide The merits of the case which he proceeded
anime. II late to question the power to gov
the Territories ucpient States and fit them for ad
mission. The only question was how far the power o.
Congress is limited as to the Northwest Territory Virginia
had the tight to abolish slavery there, and did by
agreement In 1887 with The other States but this did
prevent NEW States being admitted with without sla
very. Subsequently North Carolina and Georgia coded
their lands for the benefit and Congress had
power 10 cGate slavery out of those cessons than
il had TO cgsate slavery in the t.ritory north OF The
i Ohio.
4 There was power to legislate slavery 10 either
case The inhabitants stood protected after they did
before the cessions made In Louisiana slavery was
not only lawful, but most valuable. At the date Of
the treaty The inhabitants left free to enjoy their prop
ery freedom and liberty and be pro ctd therein
until they into the Union as State. The Missouri
do indirectly what it can: OF perform directly If south
ern man cannot 60 TO the Territories with his Slaves il
follows that northern farmer mechanic bring
with him his implements of toll Ii Congress could pro-
hibit any species of lawful property throughout Louisiana
when it acquired it could exclude all descriptions
Of property The right to legsiae In the Territories de-
ponds on the contract of cessicn.
His opinion that the third article of the treaty by
which Louisiana acquired stands protected by the
constitutions and cannot be repealed by Congress and that
The act OF 1890 known the Missouri Compromise vio-
lates the leading features of the constitution on which
the Union depends ard which secures to all citizens com-
mon rights. lie therefore held that the was void and
concurred with his brother judges that the plaintiff bred
Scott is slave and when this suit was brough Int
|