The Washington union., 1857-05-28

of government and the rights and privileges of the
citizen regulated and plainly defined by the constitu
ton itself And when the Territory becomes part Oh
the United States the federal government enters into
possession in the character impressed upon II by those
who created it, Ii enters upon it with its powers over
the citizen strictly defined and limited by the constitu-
ton, from which IL derives its existence, and by viz
of which alone il continues 10 exist and act gov
ernment and sovereignty. IL has power OF any kind
beyond 1t; and 1t cannot when IL enters Territory OF
the United States put of its character and assume dis
cetionary or despotc powers which the constitution
has denied TO it, II cannot create for itself new char
acter separated from the citizens OF the United States
and the duties them under the provisions Of the
constitution The Territory being part OF the United
States the and the citizen both enter il under
the authority of the constitution with their respective
rights defined and marked out; and the federal govern
ment can exercise power his person property
beyond what that instrument confers lawfully deny
any right which II has reserved.
reference TO few of the provisions of the constu-
ton win illustrate this proposition
For example, no one, We presume, viii contend that
Congress make any law in Territory respecting the
establishment of religion the free exercise thereof or
abdgng the freedom Of speech of the press, the
right of the people OF the Territory peaceably to assem-
ble and petition the government for the redress OF
grievances.
Nor Congress deny to the people the right to keep
and bear arms, the right to trial by jury compel
any one to be witness against himself in criminal pro-
cceding.
These powers, and Others, in relation to rights of
son. which il is not necessary here TO enumeate are in
ana denied 10 the general
hent; and the rights of private property have been
guarded withequal Thus the rights of property
united with the rights of person. and placed the same
ground by the fifth amendment to the constitution which
provides that person shall be deprived of hc liberty
and property without due process of law And act of
Congress which depriyes citizen Of the United States OF
his liberty property, merely because he came himself
or brought his property into particular Territory of the
United States and who had committed no offence against
the laws could hardly be digned with the name of due
process OF law.
So too it will hardly be contended that Congress
could by law quarter soldier in house in Territory
without the consent of the owner In time Of peace
in time of war; but in prescribed by law Nor
could they by law forfeit the property OF citizen III
Territory who convicted of treason, for longer pc
riod than the life of the person convicted nor take pr
property for public without Just compensation
The powers person and property of which we
speak not only not granted to Congress but are in
express terms denied and they forbidden to exercise
them And this prohibition not confined to the States
but the words general and extend to the whole ter
toy which the constitution gives it power to eg
late including those portions OF it remaining under terri
toria government well that covered by States 1t
is total absence of power everywhere within the domin
ion OF the United States and places the citizens OF Ter
rtory SO far as these rights concerned the
footing with citizens of the States and guards them as
firmly and plainly against any nroads which the general
government might attempt under the plea Of implied
incidental powers And Congress itself cannot do this
if it is beyond the powers conferred on the federal govern
ment it will be admitted presume, that it could not
authorize territorial government to exercise them 1t
could confer power any local government estab
shed by its authority to violate the provisions of the
constitution.
1t seems however to be supposed that there is differ
between property in slave and other property and
that different rules may be applied to it in cxpoundng
the constitution of the United States And the laws and
usages of nations and the writings of eminent jurists up
on the relation of master and slave and their mutual
rights and duties, and the powers which governments
may exercise it, have been dwelt upon in the arg
ment
n,.,, Jnfnrn bn
borne in mind that there is law of nations standing
between the people of the United States and their govern
ment and interfering with their relation to each other
The powers of the government and the rights Of the ct
under it are positive and practical regulations plain
y written down. The people of the United States have
delegated to it certain enumerated powers and forbidden
it to exercise others 1t has power the person
property of citizen but what the citizens OF the United
States have granted And laws usages of other
tons reasoning of statesmen ursts upon the rela
tons master and slave, enlarge the powers OF the
government take from the citizens the rights they
have reserved And if the constitution recognises the
right property of the master in slave, and makes
distinction between that description of property and other
property owned by citizen, no tribunal, acting under
the authority of the United States whether it be eisa
tive executive, judicial, has right to draw such
distinction deny to it the benefit of the provisions and
guarantees which have been provided for the protection
of private property against the cncroachments OF the gov
ernment.
Now as we have already said in earlier part of this
opinion upon different point, the right of property in
slave distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitu
ton The right traffic in it, like ordinary article of
merchandise and property, guaranteed to the citizens
of the United States in every State that might desire it,
for twenty years And the government in express terms
is pledged to protect it in all future tme if the slave
capes from his This is done in plain worts-too
plain to be misunderstood and word can he found i'll
the constitution which gives Congress greater power
over slave property which entities property of that
kind less protection than property of any other descrp
ton. The only power conferred is the power coupled
with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in
his rights
Upon these considerations it is the opinion of the court
that the act of Congress which prohibited citizen from
of the United States north Of the line therein mentioned
is not warranted by the constitution and is therefore
void and that neither Dred Scott himself any of his
family, made free by being carried into this terrific
ry they had been carried there by the owner with
the intention of becoming permanent resident.
We have far examined the case, stands under
the constitution of the United States and the powers
thereby delegated to the federal government.
But there is another point in the which depends
State power and State law. And it is contended,
the part of the plaintiff that he is made free by being
taken to Rock Island in the State of Illinois, ndepend
emily of his residence in the territory Of the United
States and being so made free, he not again
duccd state of slavery by being brought back to Mis-
souri.
Our notice of this part of the will be very brief
for the principle which it depends decided in this
court upon much consideration in the of Srader q
a. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 81 In that
the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio,
with the of the owner and afterwards brought
back to Kentucky And this court held that their status