Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1857-03-13
Uncons Il nationality OF the Missouri Comuroro,.
Decision of the Supreme Court In the bred So

Chief Justice fancy, In delivering the onin;o, =,
ne court said that Tins case, after argument at the
erm, owing 10 the difference of opinion existing
nong members of the court aud in order to give ~.
subject more mature elaboration.
There were two leading questions; first had tbo
Circuit Court of the United States for the Distc, o
NJ ssouri jurisdiction in the case and If it had ~
isdction, was its decision erroneous or not? 'U
The defendant denied, by plea in abatement a..
Jurisdiction of the Giro nit Court of the United So
On the ground that the plaintiff " is negro of Az
can descent bis ancestors were of pure African blood
and were brought into this country and sold as slaves
and therefore the plaintiff is not citizen Of H.
State of Missouri" To this plea the plaintiff Ss '
INJURED, and the Court sustained the demurrer
Thereupon the defendant pleaded over, and ius,;S1
the tIespass on the ground that the plaintiff and Ia
family were his negro slaves aud q statement &c
facts agreed 10 by both parties. read in evidences
The Chief-Jus having stated the facts in tn.
case proceeded Gin tone of voice almost inaudhIas
10 say, in substance, that the question first to he d.
cided was, whether the plaintiff was entitled 10 ana
in court of the United States. This was peculiar
question: and for the first time brought before the
court under such circumstances; but it had been
brought here and ii was the duty of the court n
meet and decide it. The question was simply his
can negro, whose ancestors were imported and sold
as slave-, become member of the political comm
nifty formed and brought into existence by the CON-
stitution of the United States, and as SUCH become
entitled TO all the rights, and mmunes Of citizen,
of which rights is suing in the courts of the II
States in cases therein specified In discussing This
question we must not confound the rights of citizen
which State may confer within its own limits with
citizen Of the United States. No one can be cit.
zen of the United States unless under the provisions
of the constitution but it does not follow that
man, being citlzengof one State must be recognized
as such by every State in the Union. He may be
citizen in one State and not recognized as such in an
other. Previous to the adoption of the constitution
every State might confer the character of citizen
and endow man with all the rights pertaining TO 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 adop.
ton of the constitution Every State may confer the
right upon an alien any other class descrip.
ton of persons who would, to all intens ami pupo.
ses, be citizen of the State, but not citizen in The
sense used in the constitution of the United States
He would not thereby become citizen of the United
States, and therefore, could not sue in any court in
the United States, nor could he enjoy the mmunities
of a citizen in the other states. His rights would De
confined strictly to his own State. The constitution
gives Congress the power to establish 81 uniform
rule of naturalization ,; consequently, no State, by
naturalizing an alien, could confer upon him the
rights and immunities of all the States under the
general government. 1t is very clear, therefore, that
no State can, by any act, introduce new member In
to the political Union created by the constitution.
The question then arises, whether the provisions Of
the constitution of the United States in relation to
personal rights 10 which citizen of State is enti-
ted embraced negroes of the African race, at that
time in the country, afterwards imported, or male
free from any State and whether it is in the power
of any Slate to make such a one citizen of the
State, and endow him with full citizenship in any
other Stale without their consent! Does the cons
tuition of the United States act upon him, and clohe
him with all the rights of citizen? The court think
the affirmative cannot be maintained and, if not,
the plaintiff could not be citizen of Missouri with.
in the meaning of the constitution citizen of the
United States, and consequently not entitled to
in its courts.
1t is true that every person, and every class and
description of persons at the time of the adoption Of
the constitution, regarded citizens of the several
States. became citizens of this new political body
and none other 1t was for them and their poserity
and for nobody else; and all the rights and immun'
ties were intended to embrace only those of State
communities those who became members aCcor-
ding TO the principles on which the constitution
adopted. 1t was Union of those who were members
of the political communities, whose powers, for
tain specified purposes extended over the whole Ter.
ritories Of the United States, and gave each citizen
rights outside of his State which he did not before
possess, and placed all rights of persons and property
on an equality.
1t becomes necessary, therefore. TO determine who
citizens of the several States when the const
tuition was adopted. In order to do this must
to the colonies when they separated from Great
Britain, formed communities and took their place
among the family of nations. They who were re-
cognized citizens of the States declared their in
dependence of Great Britain and defended it by force
OF arms. Another class of persons, who had been
imported slaves, or their descendants, were not
recognized intendend to be included in that mem.
orabe instrument-the Declaration of Independence
1t is difficult at this day to realize the state of public
opinion respecting that unfortunate class, with the
civilized and enlightened portion of the world, at the
time the declaration of independence and the adop-
ton of the constitution but history shows they have
for more than century been regarded as beings of
inferior order, and unfit associates for the white
race either socially politically and had no rights
which white men were bound to respect; and the
black man might be reduced to slavery, bought and
sold and treated as ordinary article Of merchandise
This opinion, at this time, was fixed and universal
with the civilized portion of the white race. Ii was
regarded as an axiom in morals, which no one though
OF dsputing and every habitually acted upon It,
without doubling for moment the correctness OIL
the opinion. And in no nation was this opinion more
liked or more generally acted upon than in England
| the subjects of which government not only seized
| them on the coast of Africa, but took them Odl
nary merchandise TO where they could make profit
on them The opinion thus entertained was uniVeI
sally Impressed on the colonists this side of the Az
lantlc therefore, negroes of the African race were
regarded by them as property, and held, and bought
and sold, such in every of the thirteen colonies
which united in the declaration of independence, and
| afierward formed the constitution.
| The doctrine of which we have spoken was strk'
ingly enforced by the Declaration of independence
1t begins thus: When in the of human evenls
it becomes necessary for people to dissolve The
political bonds which have connected them with an
other and to assume among the powers of the earth
the separate and equal station to which the laws OF
nature and of natures God entities them, decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation )" and then proceeds: 1--WE hold these
truths 10 be selfevident-that all men are created
equal that they are endowed by their Creator with