Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-03-18

VISION was now necessary 10 give tue new govern
men the power to carry into effect every object for
| which the territory was ceded It was necessary
that the lands should be sold to pay the war debt
and that power should Be given to protect the ct.
zens who might emigrate with their rights of prop
erty. Arms, military stores, (as well as ships of
war; were the common property of the States ex-
listing in their independent character and they had
right to take their property to the territory, with.
out the authority of the States" The object to
place these things under the guardianship of new
| government, which gives Congress the power =" to
make all needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory other property of the United States
1t applied only to property held in common at the
time, and not with reference to any property which
the sovereignty might subsequently acquire. 1t ap-
piled to the territory then in existence and known
as the territory of the United States then in the
mind of the trainers fthe constitution. 1t refers to
the sale or raising of money. This is different from
the power to egislate over the territories With the
words I" to make all needful rules and regulations
| respecting the territory" coupl ed the words
"and other property Of the United States" And
the concluding words render this construction ire
sstible: land nothing in the constitution shall be
so construed as to prejudice any claims Of the United
States or any particular State"
1t is obvious that the Congress- under the new
government, regarded the above clause as necessa-
ry to carry into effect the principles and provisions
Of the ordinance of 1887, which they regarded
act of the States in the exercise of their political
power at the time; and these represen tatves of the
proper to depart from any essential principle, and
did not attempt to undo any thing that was DONE
AS to territory acquired without the limits of the
United States it remains territory until admitted in
to the Union. No power is given in the constitu-
ton to acquire territory to be held and governed in
that character and, consequently, there cannot be
found in the constitution any definition of power
which Congress may lawfully exercise before it be-
comes State The power to acquire territory I'M
til it is in condition to become State equal
sound discretion, and it becomes the duty of the
government to administer the laws of the United
States for the protection personal rights and prop
erty therein.
Whatever territory is acquired is for the common
benefit of the people of the United States which is
but a trustee. At the time that territory was OBJ
tanned from France it contained no population to be
admitted as State, and it therefore became neces-
sary to hold possession of until settled and inab-
tied by civilized community, capable of gov
eminent and for admission into the Union But, as
we before said, it was acquired by the federal gov
eminent as the representative and trustee of the
people of the United States, and must be held for
their common and equal benefit: for it was the ac-
QUESTION Of the people Of the United States, acting
through their agents. and government held for the
,mon benefit until it shoull become associated
member of the Union.
Until that time arrived it was undoubtedly nee.
cssary that some government be established to pro-
tect the inhabitants in their persons and property
LIE power 10 acquire carries Win II the power to
preserve. The form Of government necessarily
rests on the discretion Of Congress- 1t is their duty
to establish the best suited for the United States,
and that must depend the number of its inhabt-
ants, and the character and situation of the terrific
ry. What government is the best must depend on
the condition Of the territory the time be con-
tinued until it shall become State But there can
never be mere discretionary power over persons
and property. These are plainly defined by the
constitution.
The constitution provides that congress shall
make no law respecting establishment Of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrig
ing the freedom of speech. of the press; or the
right of the people peaceaby to assemble, and to |
petition the government for redress of grievances"
&c Thus the rights Of property united with the
personal rights, and this extends to the Territories as
we'll as to the States. Congress cannot authorize
the Territories to do what cannot do ITSELF can.
not confer on the Territories power to violate the
provisions of the constitution.
1t seems, however, that there is supposed to be |
difference between slaves and other property. The
people, in the formation Of the constitution dele
gated to the general government certain enumerated
powers and forbade the exercise of Others I. has |
no powers over persons and property of citizens
cept those enumerated in the constitution If the
constitution recognises the right of master and slave
and makes no difference between slaves and other
property. no tribunal acting under the authority of
the United States can draw such distinction and
deny the provisions and guarantees secured against
the encroachmcnt Of the government
AS we have already said, the right Of property in
slave is expressly conferred in the constitution
and guaranteed to every State. This is in language
too plain to he misunderstood; and no words can be
found in the constitution giving Congress greater
power over slaves than any other description
of property.
Il is therefore, the opinion of this court that the
act of Congress which prohibits citizens from hold
ing property Of this character north of q certain
linc is not warranted by the constitution, and is
therefore void; ard neither bred Scott nor any one
OF his family was made free by their residence in
Illinois. The plaintiff was not citizen of Missouri
but was still slave, and therefore had no right to
sue in court of the United States.
The court having thus examined the case as it
stands under the constitution, proceeded to other
points, saying as Scott was slave when he was
brought back to Missouri from Illinois, he was I'm.
der the law of the former and not of the latter 1t
hos been settled by the highest tribunals that an in
divdual does not acquire his freedom under such
circumstances AS it appears to the court that the
plaintiff is not citizen of Missouri, nor citizen of
the United States, who could in the United
States courts this court can give no Judgment and
hence the suit must be dismissed for want jursdc-
ton.
Justice Nelson's Opinion.
Associate Justice Nelson stated the ground on
which he had arrived at the conclusion that the ar.
gument of the court below must be affirmed Iav-
ing stated the case, substantially as above he pro-
ceeded to examine it on its merits. The question
was, whether the removal of the plaintiff, with his
family to Illinois, with view to temporary resi-
dcnce, and after his return to Missouri, such
residence in free State as worked emancipation
He maintained that it did not. Such questions be-
onged to the States to decide for themselves As to
whether Missouri will recognise give effect to the
avs OF Illinois on the subject of slavery is for Mis-
souri, herself to determine, nor is there any consttu
ional power rightfuly to control her. Every State
Or nation possesses exclusive sovereignty and juris
dction within her own territory, and her laws affect