Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1857-03-26
THE DRED SCOTT CASE.
Opinion of the United States Supreme
Court.
DELIVERED By cHIKr.JusrIcE rAHEY,
MARsR FIFrE.

opinion of the Court, said that this case,
after argument at the last term, was direc,-
ed to be re-argued at the present term, owing
to difference OF opinion existing among
members of the Court, and in order to give
the subject more mature deliberaiion.
There were two leading questions: first,
had the Circuit Court OF the United States.
for the District Of Missouri, jurisdiction in
the case; and if jurisdiction. was its decision
erroneous OF notl
The defendant denied bv plea in abate-
ment, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court
Of the United States, on the ground thai the
plaintiff ''is negro Of African descent, his
ancestors were of pur African blood. and
were brought iu:o this country and sold as
slaves" aud therefore The plaintiff lis hot
citizen o! lhe State of Missouri" To this
plea The plaintiff demurred, and the Court
sustained tie demurrer. Thereupon the de-
fendsnt pleaded over, and justified the tres
pass on the ground that the plaintiff and
his family were his negro slaves; and a
statement of facts, argued to both parties
was read in efidence
The Cbief-Jusiice, having stated the facts
in the case, proceeded Gin tone of voice
almost inaudble) to say, in substance, that
the question first to be decided was, whether
The plaintiff was entitled to sue in a Cour
oil The United States. This was peculiar
question, and for the first time brought be-
lure the Court under such circumstances;
but il had BEEN brought here, and i, was the
duty pf the Court to meet q I'd decide it,
The question was simply this, can q negro,
whose ancestors were imported and sold as
slaves, become a member of the political
community formed and brought into exist
enee by the Constitution o. the United
States. and, is such, become entitled to all
the rights and immupities of either one
OF which rights is suing in the Courts of the
ULited States i'll cases therein specified. In
discussing this question we must not con-
found the rights of a citizen, which State
may confer within its own limits, with =
citizen of the United States. No one can
be citizen of the United States unless un-
der the provisions of the Constitution; but
it does not fellow that man, being a citi-
zen of 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 another. Previous to the lop
tion of the Constitution, every State nigh,
confer the character of a citizen, and endow
man with all the rights pertaining to it.
This was confined to the boundaries of .
Siase, and gave him no rights beyond its
limits. Nor have the several States surren-
der, d this power by the adoption of the
Constitution. Every State may confer the
right upon an alien or on any other class
or description of persons, who would, to all
intepts and purposes, be a citizen of the
State. but not citizen IN the sense used in
the Constitution of the United Stutes. He
would not thereby become a citizen of the
United States, and, therefore, could not sue
in any Court in the United States. Ior could
he enjoy the immunities of citizen in the
o'her Stltes. His rights would be confined
strictly to his own State. The Constitution
gives Congress the power to establish ga
uniform ru of naturaliza,ion;" consequent.
ly, no State, by naturalizing an alien, could
confer upon him the rights and immunities
of all the Stales under the General Govern
ment. 1t is very clear, therefore, that no
State can, by any act, introduce a new
member into 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 to which a citizen of State is enti-
tied, embraced negroes of the African race
at that time in the country, or afterwards
imported. or made free from any State; and
whether it is in the power of any State to
make such one citze of the State, and
endow him with full citizenship in any other
| States without their consentl Does the
Constitution of the Uni,ed States act upou
him and clothe him with all the rights of o
| citizen. The Court think the affirmative
cannot be maintained; and, if not, the pain.
tiff cOuld not be citizen OF Missouri within
the meaning of the Constitution, nor citi
zen Of the United States, and, consequently
not entitled 10 sue 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
as citizens of the several States, became
citizens Of this new political body, and zone
other. 1t was for them anG their posterity
and for nobody else; and all the rights ane
| immunities were intended to embrace oniy
those of State communities, or those W he
became members according to the principle:
on which the Constitution was adopted. II
was Union of those who were members o
the political communities, whose powers
for certain specified purposes, extended ovel
the whole territories of the United States
and gave each citizen rights outside hi.
State which he did not before possess, ant
placed all rights of persons and property or
an equality.
1t becomes necessary, therefore, to deter
mine who were citizens of the several States
when the Constitution was adopted. Ii
order 10 do this, we must recur to the colo
nies when they separated from Great Britain
formed new communities, and took theil
place among the family OF nations. They
who were recognized as citizens of the
States declared their independence of Grea
Britain, and defended il by force of arms
Another class of persons, who had beer
imported,as slaves, or their descends nts
were not recognized or intended to be in.
cluded in that memorable insirument-the
Declaration Of independence. 1t is difficult
at this day to realize the state of pubic
opinion respecting that unfortunate class
with the civilized and enlightened portion
of the world, at the time of the Declaration
of independence and the adoption of the
Constitution; but history shows they have
for more than century been regarded Of
beings of an inferior order, aid unfit asso.
ciaies for the white race, either socially OF
politically; and had no rights " hich white
men were bound to respect; and The black
man might be reduced to slavery, bough,
and sold, and treated as an ordinary article
of merchandise. This opinion at that time
was fixed and universal with the civilized
| of xr,hi Il