The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1857-03-14
Nttaha frtt Grabtr.
The bred Scott Case.

1ne DIeO ScOtt case
We give below Geographic despatch
from Washington, containing 4 review, or
syllabus Of the recent highly important de-
sision Of the Supreme Court Of the United
States in the bred Scott csse. Scott, II VIII
be remembered, had been taken by his mas
ter into territory lying north Of the line Of
$3.50 west of Missouri, KEEP: there for some
time and afterwards taken back to Missouri.
On the principle that free territory makes
free men. Scott claimed that by his residence
in this territory he became free, and that his
subsequent voluntary return with his master
to Missouri could not again enslave him
The supreme court decides against this claim,
AID holds that the local .sw Of Missouri
which made him q slave on his return, mus
govern. The court also holds that the Mis-
souri, Compromise act was unconstitutional,
and therefore the provision of that act chang
ing the character of the Louisiana territory
from slave to free territory was void. But
these. with the other points of the decision,
are given with sufficient ciearness in the
despatch belo-.
. The decision, We should think, must
change the whole phase Of the present slave
y controversy throughout tine country. 1t
ignores and declares unconstitutional nearly
every point sought TO be accomplished by
the Republican party. Henceforth, to con-
tend that congress shall prohibit slavery in
the territories will be nonsense, and the
principle Of the Nebraska bill, that the ter
ritories must decide the question for them
selves when they come to apply for admis-
sion into the Union as States, will be the
only practicable recourse under the consti-
tuition as thus defined.
Instead Of battling for the thus impractical
bic objects heretofore sought by the free
sellers and anti-slavery men generally, the
attack must now be directed against the su-
preme court, and addressed to the effort Of
changing the political views of that august
tribunal As the judges of that oour; hold
their places during life, this task must, IN
der the most favorable circumstances, in
solve years in its accomplishment, besides
that it presents prospect of ultimate sue
cess SO vague and hopeless, that we sppre-
bend it will be difficult to screw up po,iti
cal party to Q sufficient degree OF cohesion
10 such an enterprise, ever to become for
miiable.
Following IS the despatch:
!. That negroes, whether slave CT free,
that is, men Of the African race, are not
citizens Of the United States by the Consti-
tuition.
.. That the ordinance Of IFS. had TO IN
dependent constitutional force or legal effect
subsequent to tine adoption Of the Constitu-
ton, and could not operate of itself to con-
fer freedom or citizenship within the North
west Territory On negroes To. citizens by
the Constitution.
8. That the provision Of the act Of 1920,
commonly called the Missouri Compromise
20 far as it is understood TO exclude Negro
slavery from and communicate freedom auC
citizenship to negroes in the northern par
Of the country, is unconstitutional. lit
Louisiana cession was a legislative &C: ex
eeeding the power OF Congress and void ant
Of no legal effect to that end.
In deciding these main points the Suprem,
Court determined the following incidenta
points:
I. The expression, s. Territory ard o:he
property Of the Union" IN the Constitution
applies in terms only TO such territory a
3 zion possessed at the time of the .dvP
ton of the Constitution.
g The right Of citizens Of the Cnitet
States emigrating to any federal territory
and the power OF tic federal government
there, depends on the general provisions O
the Constitution, which defines in this, as !!
all other respects, the powers OF Congress.
3. AS Congress does not possess power !!
self tc make ensCtments in relation To per
sons and property of citizens OF the Unite
States in federal territory other than sue
rs the Constitution coniers, so il cannot cor
stitutioRally delegate such powers 10 4 terri
torial government organized by it under til
Constitution.
4. The legal condition Of slave in IN,
State Of Missouri is not affected by the TEN
porary sojourn Of such slave in any othe
State, but on his return his condition still
depends on the laws Of Missouri. AS tn
plaintiff was not o citizen Of Missouri, an,
therefore, could not Sue in the courts Of tn
United States the suit must be dismissed 70
want of ju isdictiOn.
The telegraph despatch further adds:
The delivery Of this opinion occupic,
about three hours 1t was listened to will
profound attention By crowded court room
Among the audience were many gent!enc;
of emiHent legal ability and due proper
ton Of ladies.
Justice Nielsen stated the merits of tn
case; question being whether or not the re
moval Of Scott from Missouri with his maste
to Illinois with the view Of temporary resi-
dence, worked his emancipation. He main
tanned that question depended wholly OF
the law of Missouri, and for that reason the
judgment Of the lower Court should be az
firmed.
Judge Catron believed the Supreme Cour,
had jurisdiction to decide the merits of the
case. He argued that Congress could no,
do di. ectly what it could not do indirectly
If it could exclude one species of property
il could another. With regard TO the terri
tories cedcd, Congr IS could govern then
only with t. restriction of the States. Thu
Missouri Compromise of 1920 violated tn,
leading features of the Constitution. 1twa:
therefore void. lie concurred with hi:
brother Judge that Scott is slave, and wa:
SO when the suit was brought.
Several OF the other Judges arc to deliver
their views to-day.