Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1857-01-07
The Dred Scott Case.

The case, it will be recollected, was argued du-
ring the last month, and the Court postponed
their decision to a future day:
DRED SooTr, the plaintiff in error, instituted
an action of trespass in the Circuit Court OF the
United States for the District of Missouri descrb-
iEg himself as citizen of the State OF Missouri,
against John F. A. Sandford, described as citi-
zen of the State of New York, for imprisoning
himself Ored,) his wife Harriet, and his two
children, Eliza and Lizzy, as slaves, the action
being what is commonly called q suit for free
dom. The defendant filed q plea to the jurisdic-
ton of the court alleging that the plaintiff Is not
a '.citizen" of Missouri because he is negro OF
African descent, lis ancestors being OF pure
African blood, brought into the country ana
sold as slaves. The plaintiff demurred to this
plea, and the Circuit Court sustained the demnr-
rer, thereby deciding him TO be ''citizen, and
ordered the defendant to plead over Inc de-
PENDANT then pleaded over, justiiylng the alleged
trespass on the ground that the persons named
in the writ his slaves and,atte issue JOIN
ed upon these pleas, the parties agreed upon the
following statement of facts:
In 1884 bred Scott was negro slave belong
ing to DR.. Emerson, surgeon in the army OF
the United States. In that year DIR. Emerson
took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to
the military post at Rock Island, in the State of
Illinois, and held him there as o slave until 49,
SO. Dr.. Emerson then removed the plaintiff to
the military post at Fort Smelling, in the terri
tory of the United States north of SO degrees
and 80 minutes, and north of the State of Mis-
souri, where he held the plaintiff as slave IN
I'll 1888.
In 1885 Harriet, who was the negro slave OF
NT 49, . M 70
ken by her master to Fort Smelling, where she
was held as Il slave until 1886, when she was
sold to DR.. Emerson, who held her as slave at
Fort Smelling until 1888. In 1886 the plaintiff
and Harriet, with the consent of DR.. Emerson,
intermarried at Fort Smelling. Eliza and Lizzy
are children of that marriage. Eliza was born
on board steamboat, on the river Mississippi,
north of the north line of the State of Missouri
Lizzy was born in the State of Missouri, at JEFF
ferson Barracks, military post. In 1888 DIR.
Emerson removed the plaintiff and his wife and
children to the State of Missouri, where they
have eyer SINCE resided, Before the commence
ment Of this suit DR.. Emerson sold the plaintiff
and his wife and children to the defendant, Sand
ford, who has ever since claimed to hold them
as slaves.
Upon these facts the jury, under the instruc-
tions of the court, returned verdict for the de-
PENDANT The plaintiff then sued out writ OF
error to the Supreme Court OF the United States.
The cause was argued at the December term,
1856, and was then ordered by the court to be
reargued at the present term upon the following |
questions:
l. Whether, after the plaintiff had demurred
to the defendants first plea to the jurisdiction of
the court below, and the court had given judg /
ment on that demurrer in favor of the plaintiff, |
and had ordered the defendant to answer over,
and the plaintiff had submitted to that judgment
and pleaded over to the merits, the appellate
court can take notice of the facts admitted on
the record by the demurrer, which were plead
ed in bar of the Jurisdiction of the court below,
so as to decide whether that court had jurisdc-
ton to hear and determine the cause!
2. Whether or not, assuming that the appel
late court is bound to take notice ofthe facts APP
pealing upon the record, the plaintiff is citi-
zen of the State of Missouri within the meaning
of the 18th section OF the Judiciary act of 1889
The latter question involved among others,
the inquiry whether the condition of the plain
tiff was changed from slavery to freedom by resi-
dence in the territory subject to the operation
of the restriction contained in the act of Congress
of 1920, commonly called the Missouri conlpro-
mise act This drew into the case the constitu
tonality of that act.
THE GEORGIA CuALLENGE.-We recently no
ticed the card of Hon. A. H. Stephens, of Ca
posting Hon. Z. 3. Hill, one of the Fillmore Z
lectors of that State, Tor cowardice in refusing to
fight duel. The correspondence between these
two gentlemen which led to this result, is pub
lished in the Augusta papers. Mr.. Stephens
asks Mr.. Hill if in alluson to g discussion had
at Lexington, he had charged upon him (Mr.
Stephens that he had betrayed the Wing par
ty, and acted worse towards it than lscariot, by
abusing it afterwards" Mr.. Hill replies, speaks
of many unpleasant things uttered by Mr.. Ste
phens during the recent election contest, and
says that his use of the word Judas was but in
reply to him, and that he simply wished to be
understood in reply to his charges. Mr.. Ste
phens is not satisfied with this, and wishes fur
Their that the charge of "treachery' be removed.
Mr.. Hill replies at considerable length-professes
great respect &C., &C., for Mr.. Stephens, and re-
peats in effect that he was but simply replying
to the charge OF Mr. Stephens, and asks him to
Judge his meaning by his own. Mr.. Stephens
then sends challenge which Mr.. Hill declines.
Mr.. Stephens then posted Mr.eIlill, and the lat I
ter i'll reply says:
regard duelling as no evidence of courage
no vindcation of truth, and no test of the char
acter of true gentleman. | shall be "braggart,
liar and poltroon" enough, now and forever, to
declare that what the laws Of God and my ma
tive State unite in denouncing as murder, could
give me no satisfaction to d. to attempt, or to
desire. The determination is but strengthened,
when the contrary course involves the violation
of my conscience and the hazard of my family,
as against a man who has neither conscience nor
family. But have had, and shall continue to
have courage enough to do ay dirty firmly and
truthfuly, and to defend myself anywhere and
everywhere, even in the Eighth District, and if
any gentleman doubt ii, there is short and easy
way to test it.
Col. ALEXANDER OF New JERsEY.-A cores
pendent of the Washington Union, writing from
Annapolis, Maryland, Dec. 10th, says:
Why is it that in the testimonials offered by
the Democracy in different parts of the country |
to Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, and Mr.. Willard,
of Indiana, the name of the gallant Alexander, |
of New Jersey should be overlooked? Though |
defeated himself as our candidate for Governor,
no one in the free States contributed more than
he did to the triumph of Ito use his own Ian |
guage) Democracy, patriotism and principle"
COL VIM. G. Alexander is n son of the Rev.
Dr. A. Alexander, the learned divine of Prince
ton. Father and son are both natives of Vir-
GINA. COL Alexander is strongly imbued with
the good old doctrines of the Old Dominion
The election in New Jersey, though resulting in
his defeat, should be- nevertheless, highly graft
flying to Col A. personally. He passed through
the fercest and most desperately contested can
vass ever known in New Jersey, entirely unas-
sailed in his private or personal character. HeI
received more votes than any Democratic can
ddate ever did, polling more by ten thousand
than Gen. Pierce received in 1862, and more by
several thousand than Mr.. Buchanan.
The defeat of this gentleman is source of
deep regret to his friends in New Jersey, and