Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1857-06-26
fl From the authenticated oficial Report. a
The Reporters Head Notea OF Points De
cidcd BY thc Supreme Court Ia the Drc'
Scott Case.

cided 81 thc supreme Court In the Drcd
Scott Case.
/. Upona writ Of error 10 Circuit Court
Of the United States the transcript Of the
record Of all the proceedings in the case is
brought before this court, and is open to its
inspection and revision.
Q. When n plea to the jurisdiction, in
is overruIed by the court upon
demurrer, and the defendant pleads 10 bar,
and upon these pleas the fiual judgement
of the court is in his favor--if the plaintiff
brings writ of error, the judgement Of the
court upon the plea in abatement is before
tho court, although it is in favor Of the
if the court erred in oyerrul-
ing il, the judgement must be reversed, and
a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to
dismiss the case for want Of jurisdiction.
8. In the Circuit Courts Of tho United
States the record must show that the case is
one in which, by the Constitution and laws
of the United States, tho Court had--and
if this does not appear, and the court gives
judgement either for plaintiff or defendant
il is error, and the parties cannot by the
consent waive the objection TO the jurisdic.
ton Of tho Circuit Court.
4. A free negro of the African race,
whose ancestors were brought to this coun-
try and sold as slave, is not "citizen'
within the meaning Of the Constitution o.
the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted
they were not regarded in any of the States
as mombcrs Of the community which consti-
tuted the State, and were not numbered
among its 'pcoplc and citizens" Consc-
quently, the special rights and immunitics
guaranteed TO citizens do not apply 10 them
And not being "citizens" within the mean.
ing of the Constitution, they are not entitled
to sue in that character in Court of tn,
United States, and the Circuit Court hal
not jurisdiction in such suit.
6. The only two clauses in the Constitu
ton which points to this race, treat them a
persons whom it was morally lawful to dca
in as articles Of property and to hold al
slaves.
Z. Since the adoption Of tho Constitu
tion of the United States, no State can, by
any subsequent law, make foreigner ol
any other description of persons, citizens o
tho United States, nor entitle them to thu
rights and privileges secured to the citizenl
! by that instrument.
8. A State by its laws passed since the
adoption of the Constitution; may put {
foreigner or any other description of persons
upon a footing with its own citizens, as t
all rights and privileges enjoyed 10y then
within its domain and 10y its laws. Blu
that will not make him a citizen of tn
r United States, nor entitle him to sue in il
courts, nor any of the privileges and immu
mites Of citizen in another State.
/ o. The change in public opinion an
feeling in relation to the African race, whic
has taken place since the adoption of tn
Constitution, cannot change its constructio,
and meaning, and it must be construed ant
administered now according to its true
meaning and intention when it was formet
and adopted.
10. The plaintiff having admitted, by hi
demurrer to the plea in abatement that hi
ancestors were imported from Africa an
sold as slaves, he is not citizen of th
State Of Missouri according to the Constitu
tion of the United States and was not enti
tied to sue in that character in the Suprem
Circuit Court.
IL. This being the case the judgment {
the Court below, in favor Of the plaintiff 0
the plea in abatement is erroneous.
II.
: l. But IL tho plea in abatement is nc
brought up by this writ of error the objectio
TO this citizenship of the plaintiff is still az
. parent on the record, rs he himself, in NAL
Q ing out his case states that he is Of Africa
I descent, was born slave, and claim
r that he and his family became entitled
y freedom by being taken, by their owner
q reside in territory where Slavery is pa
T. hibited by act of Congress--and that, in q
70 dition to this claim, he himself became G
IS titled TO freedom by being taken to Rock
s. land in tho State Of Illinois-and being Fl
K. when he was by the laws Of that State
r citizen.
1t 2. II, therefore, the facts he states do n
give him or his family right to freedol
the plaintiff is still slave, and not entitl'
n to sue as ''citizen," and the judgement
: tho Circuit Court was erroneous on th
ground also, without any reference to d
o plea in abatement.
: 8. The Circuit Court can give no Judg
: ment for plaintiff or defendant in a en-
u where it has no jurisdiction, no matt
o whether there be plea in abatement
It not. And unless it appears upon the fa'
r Of the record, when brought here by writ
q error, that the Circuit Court had jurisdicti'
n the judgement must be reversed.
lr The case of Capron agt. Van Noord
n' e Cranch'l 26) examined, and the principl
y thereby decided, reaffimed.
IN 4. When the record, as brought here
ns writ of error, that the Circuit Court had
ut risdic,ion to revise and correct the err
m like any other error in the Court below.
D. 1t does not and cannot dismiss tho case
IN want Of Jurisdiction here: for that wor
g. leave the erroneous Judgment Of the Cnl
1t below in full force, and the party wiihc
r. remedy. But il must reverse the judl
As mont, and, as in other cases Of reversal, sc
u a mandate to the Circuit Court to eonfo
its judgement to the opinion Of this Cou
:. 5. The difference Of the jurisdiction
!. this Court IN the case Of writs Of error
~ State Courts and to Circuit Courts
Al the United States, pointed out; and
= mistakes made as to the jurisdiction Of I
Court in the latter case, BY confounding
with its limited jurisdiction in the form
4