The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1857-05-30

sold a. slaves, he is not citizen OF the State
Of Missouri according 10 the Constitution Of
the United States, and was not entitled to
sue in that character in the Circuit Court.
II. This being the case, the judgment Of
the court below, in favor Of the plaintiff on
plea in abatement, was erroneous.
H.
!. But If the plea in abatement is 10,
brought up by this writ OF error, the OBJ
lection to the citizenship OF the plaintiff Is
still apparcn. on the record, as he himself,
in making ont his case, states that he Is OF
african descent, was born a slave and claims
that he and his family became entitled to
freedom by being taken by their owner to
reside in a Territory where slavery is pro
hiGitei by act of Congress and that, ia :
dition to this claim, he himself became en-
titled 10 freedom by being taken TO Rock
Island in the State Of Illinois and bein.
free when he was brought back TO Missouri
he was, by the laws OF that state, citizsu
>. II, therefore, the facts he states do not
give him or his family 4 right to freedom
the plaintiff is still slave, and not entitled
to sue as citizen" and the Judgment Of
the Circuit Court was erroneous on that
ground also, without any reference to the
plea in abatement.
8. The Circuit Court can give no judgment
for plaintiff or defendant in a case " here it
has not jurisdiction, NJ matter whether there
be plea in abatement or not And unless
it appears upon the face Of the record, when
brought here by writ of error, that the Cir
cult Court had jurisdiction, the judgment
must be reversed.
The case of Capron rs. Van Ioorden q
Cranch, 1860 examined, and the principles
thereby decided re-afiirmed
4 When the record as brourbt hero Nv
writ OF error, does not show that the Circuit
Court had jurisdiction, this court has juris-
diction TO revise and correct the error, like
any other error In the court below 1t does
not and cannot dismiss the case for want of
jurisdiction here for that would leave the
erroneous judgment Of the court below in
full force, and the party injured without
remedy. But it must reverse the Judgment,
and, as in any other case Of reversal, send a
mandate to the Circuit Court to conform its
judgment to the opinion Of this court
5. The difference of the jurisdiction in
this court in the cases of writs of error TO
State Courts and to Circuit Courts of the
United States, pointed out and the mistakes
made as to jurisdiction of this court in the
latter case by confounding it with its limited
jurisdiction in the former.
6. If court reverses Judgment upon.
the ground that it appears by particular
part of the record that the Circuit Court
had not jurisdiction, it does not take away
the jurisdiction of this court to examine into
and correct, by reversal Of the judgment,
any other errors, either as to the jurisdiction
or any other matter, where it appears from
other parts of the record that the Circuit
Court had fallen into error. On the contra
~ it is the duty and familiar practice of this
court to reverse On several grounds, where
more than one error appeared to have been
committed. And the error of the Circuit
Court in its jurisdiction stands on the came
ground. and is to be treated in the same
manner, as any other error upon which its
judgement is founded.
Z. The decision, therefore, that the iude-
ment Of the Circuit Court upon the plea in
abatement is erroneous, is no reason WHY
the alleged error apparent in the exception
should not also be examined, and the judg-
ment reversed on that ground also, if it dis
closes want of jurisdiction in the Circuit
Court
s. 1t is often the duty of this court, after
having decided that a particular decision of
the Circuit Court was erroneous, to examine
into other alleged errors, and to correct them
if they are found to exist. And this has
been uniformly done by this court, when the !
questions are in any degree connected with |
the controversy. and the silence of the court |
might create doubts which would lead to
further and useless litigation.
iii.
/. The facts upon which the plaintiff relies
did not give him his freedom, and make him
a citizen of Missouri.
2. The clause in the constitution author
zing Congress to make all needful rules and
regulations for the government of the terri
ory and other property of the United States,
applies only to territory within the charter
ID limits of some one of the States, when
hey were colonies Of Great Britain and
which was surrendered by the British govern
nent to the old Confederation of States in
he treaty of peace. 1t does not apply to
he territory acquired by the present Fede-
al government, by treaty Or conquest, from
foreign nation.
The case of the American and Ocean In
urauce companies cs. Canter q Peters, OLD
eferred 10 and examined, showing that the