The true Democrat., 1857-03-31

powers granted, without definino ,vbat dosor;,- ton of persons should be included or who should be regarded as citizens. But two cI.n.es of the constitution point to the negro race as se eparate and not regarded as citizens for whom the constitution was adopted One clause re- serves the right to import slaves until 1908. and in the second the States pledye themselves. one to another to preserve the rights of the master, and to deliver up the slaves escaping to tnelr respective territories By the first clause
 the the ght to purchase and hold this property is difectIy sanctioned and authorized by the per- sons who framed the constitution for twenty years; and the States pledged themselves to sustain the nght of the master AS long as inc government then formed should endure And thls shows conclusively that another descrin- ton or persons were embraced in the other nro visions of the constitution. These two clanses were not intended to confer upon them or tbar posterty the blessings of liberty so carefullv conferred upon the whites. None of thi, class ever emigrated to the United States voluntarily They were all articles of merchandise. The number emancipated was few as compared with those who were held in slavery, and not sulilcently numerous to attract public atten- ton as separate class, and were regarded as a part ot the slave population, rather than free
 It cannot be supposed that the States confer red citizenship upon them: for all those States at that time established police regulations for the security of themselves and families, as well as Of property. In some minor case there were different modes of trial, and it could not re supposed that those States would have form. ed or consented to a government which abolish ed this right and took from them the safeguard essential to their own protection. they have not the right to bear arms, and appear at public meetings to discuss political questions, or urge measures of reform which they might deem ad- vlsable. They cannot vote at elections. nor serve as jurors, nor appear as witnesses, where whites are concerned. These rights are secured Tn every State to white men. It is impossible to belleve that the men of the saveholding States, who took so large share in the for nation ot the constitution. could be SO regard 'eSs ot themselves and the safety of those who trusted and confided in them.
 Every law of naturalization confines citizen ship to 0hite persons. This Is marked se paratlon from the blacks. Under the confeder. atlon every State had right to decide for itself ana the term " free inhabitant !" the generality oI form, certainly excluded the A trican race. Laws were framed for the latter especially Under the constitution the word "citjzen" is substituted for :" free lnhabitant." After fur ther elaboration on this point the Chief Justice sad, from the best consideration, we have come to the conclusion that the African race who came to thls conntry, whether free or slave were not Intended to be included in the con- Sttutlon Tor the enjoyment of any personal rights or benefits and the two provisions which polnt to them treat them as property, and make It the duty "t the government to protect them as such. Hence, the court is of opinion, from the facts stated in the plea in abatement that Dred Scott IS not citizen of Missouri, and is not, therefore, entitled to sue in the United States courts
 The following f4cts appcaron the recor.l
 Tn 1851 the plaintiff Was negro slave be- longing to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year (l034) sad Dr. 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 a slave until the month of April. 1856. At the time last mentioned. said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said mill. tary post at Rock Island to u military post at Fort Smelling, situated on ths west bank of the Mississippi river, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States from France, and situated north of the latitude of 36 degrees 90 minutes north. and north of the State of Missouri Said Dr.. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Smelling un- til 1858.
 In the year 1885 Harriet (who is named in the second cornt of The plaintiff decaration) was the slave of Major ralaferro, who belong ed to the army of the United States h that year (lo33) said Major Tlliafcrro took said Harriet to sand Fort Smelling military post situated as hereinbeiore atated and kept her there as slave untll the year 1886 and then sold and delivered her as d slave at Fort S1el- ling nnto said Dr. Emerson, hereinbefore nam cd; and said Dr. Emerson hell said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Smelling until the yea 1858.
 In the year 1886 the plaintiff and said liar net, at Saiat Fort Smelling, with the consent of 4aId pr. Emerson, who then claimed to be ther master and owner, intermarried and took each other Tor husband and wife Eliza and Lizzie, named lu the third count of tn. plain- uH $ aration, are the fruits of that marriage EllZa is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gjp>ey, north of the north line ef the State of Missouri, and upon the Mississippi river; Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri. at the military post called Jefferson Bau.cEs. "
 In the yelr 1858 saiI Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and sad Harriet and their said daughter EIiza from said Fort Smelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided
 Before the commencement of this suit, said Dt. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiffs. sad Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie, 10 the defendant as slaves, and the defendant claimed 10 hold each of them as slaves.
 At the times mentioned in the plaintiffs declarauon the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiffs, Harriet Ellze, and Lizzie, ,and imprisoned them; dong Tn this respect however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times"
 The Chief Justice proceeded to examine the statement, assuming that this part of the con. trovcrsy presented two questions:
 Firstly. Was he (ScotD and all his family free in Missouri; and
 Secondly. If not were they free by reason of their removal to Rock Island, Illinois?
 The act of Congress on which the plaintiff relics contains the clause, that slavery and invo- luntary scrvitude, except for crime, shall be forever prohibited in that part of the territory acquired by treaty from Louisiana, and not in cluded within the limits of the State of Loui- siana The difficulty which meets us at the tHtcSHpId tS, whether congress Is authorized to pass such a law under the powers granted to 1t by the constitution? The plaintiff dwell, much on the clause which gives Congress pow CT to make all neediul rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States." But this provision has TO bearing on the present controversy. The pow CT there given is confined to the territory which then belonged to the United States, and can have no influence on territory which was ac- qulred from foreign governments
 The justice then referred to the sessions of land by Virginia and other States, saying the only object was 10 put an end to the existing controversies, aud to enable Congress to dispose Ot the lands for the common benefit Uulouht edly, the power of sovereignty and eminent domain was ceded in the act. This was proper to make 1t essential. There was then r.o % verhment u existence with enumerated powers. What was called the States were thirteef, inde- pendent colorics which entered into confe,lera- tion for mutual protection. It was little more than Congress of ambassadors. in which all had common concern. IL was this Congress