The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1857-03-18
Decision Of the Dred Scott Case-The
Slavery Question Disposed Of
Missouri COMPROMISE Uncon-
stltutlonal, etc.

the best legal talent in the Union, and the
most patient Investigation by the Judges,
the Supreme Court of the United States
have decided the Dred Scott case. This
decision puts an eternal quietus on the
agitation OF several of the most important
questions that have excited the people for
years. 1t is the death knell to sectional
ism, the olive branch of peace to the dis
trac.ed Nation, and crown of glory to
patriotism and democracy.
This decision, coming as it does from
the highest judicial tribunal in the world
FROM jurists no less eminent for their in
tegrTty than their wisdom-far above a
suspicion of partiality, cannot fail to be
respected by the whole people of The Ma
ton. If there are any exceptions, they
viii be few fanatics who either utterly
|denounce the Constitution, or shut their
Ieyes to every portion which does not con-
form to their narrow and crooked views.
Seven of the nine judges concurred in
the decision-a large majority, certainly,
for question so ably contested and so
long unsettled.
The following are the names of the
ljudges-the last two named being the
dissenters
R. B. Taney, of Maryland, Chief JUS
tiee; j. NJ. Wayne, of Georgia, John
Catron, of Tennessee, P. Y. Daniels, OF
Virginia, j. A. Campbell, of Alabama,
S. Nelson, of New York, r. G. Grier, OF
Penn, John Mclean, of Ohio, and B. R.
Curtis, of Mass, Associate Justices.
Fhe case which brought these ques-
tions before the Court, was that of q
slave-Dred Scott-whose master had re-
moved with him from the State of Mis-.
souri, into Illinois, and afterward re-
turnef with to Missouri. Scott brought
suit for his freedom, and the case was car.
ried up to the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States. The following is the deci
sion as condensed, and published in the
National hsteuigencer,
WASHINGTON March 6.-The decision
of the Supreme Court III the Dred Scott
Case was delivered to-day by Chief Jus
tice fancy. 1t was full and elaborate
statement of the views of the Court
I They have decided the following all
important points:
l. That negroes, whether slaves OF
free, Chat is, men of the African race) are
not citizens of the United States by the
CONSTITUTION.
! g. That the Ordinance of 1881 haG
no independent constitutional force or lie
gal effect subsequently to the adoption O
THE Constitution, and could not operate
of itself to confer freedom or citizenship
within the North western Territories, upor
negroes, not citizens by the Constitu
ton.
4 8. That the provision of the act O
1890. commonly called the Missouri Com
promise, is, SO far as it undertook to ex
clude negro slavery from, and communi
cate freedom and citizenship to negroes
in the northern part of Louisiana. was (
Legislative act exceeding the powers o
Congress- and, consequently, void and o
no legal effect to that end.
In deciding these main points tn,
Supreme Court has determined the follow
ing incidental points
L.. That the expression Territory ant
other property" of the Union, in tn
Constitution, applies in terms only to sucl
TERRITORY as the Union possessed at tn
time of the adoption of the Constitution
j Q. That the rights of citizens of tn
United States, emigrattng to any Fedora
Territory, depend on the general provi
sions of the Constitution, which define
in this, as in all other respects, the pow
Ter of Congress.
! g.. As Congress does not possess pow
er in itself to make enactments relative t.
lpersons or property of citizens of tn
United States in the Federal Territory
! other than such as the Constitution con
fers, so it cannot constitutionally delegat
any such powers to Territorial Govern
ment, organized by it under the Consti
tuition.
4. That the legal condition Of slsv
in the State of Missouri is not effecte
by temporary sojourn of such slave i
Il any other State, but on his return his cor
e dition still depends upon the laws of Mis-
a souri,. As the plaintiff was not a citize
r of Missouri, and therefore could not su
e lin the Courts of the United States, th
I suit must be dismissed for want of juris
! Idiction.
k The delivery of this opinion occupie
!, about three hours. 1t was listened t
h with profound attention by crowde
IS court room.
Among the auditors were many gel
5, tlemen of eminent legal ability and du
" proportion of ladies.
n Justice Nelson stated the merits of IL
. ieose Tho uupstion heinp whether or nt