Bedford inquirer and chronicle. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1854-1857, 1857-05-15

80 S~'SSe SoHtn11Itee pi tue Sen2te, 10
which was referred the resolutions relative
to the decision OF the Supreme Court Of
the United States in the case of Dred Scott
vs.. John T. A. Sanford, submit the fol-
lowing
REPORT:
Your committee, for want Of time, and
by reason Of numerous other engagements
a. this late stage of the session, have been
unable 90 give the decision referred TO that
careful examination which its importance
demands, or tc prepare such report as
would do justice to the subject, or to them
selves. They were embarrassed also by an
inability TO procure au authentic copy of
the entire opinion of the Court, as deliv-
cred by Chief Justice Taney; but from
what is conceded TO be correct abstract
Of tie opinion, and from the opinions Of
she dissenting judges, We can gather with
reasonable certainty correct IDEAS of the
whole case.
The facts are substantially as follows
In the year 1884, Dred Scott, the plaintiff,
was negro slave, belonging TO Dir. Ea,er-
son, Of the State Of Missouri; and in that
year his master took the plaintiff from Mis-
rouri 10 Rock Island, in the State Of IIli-
nois, and there held him as slave until
1886. From Rock Island the plaintiff was
taken to Fort Smelling, then in the terrific
~ of the United States, north of the State
Of Missouri, and in which slavery was pro-
hibited by the act Of Congress known as
the Missouri Compromise, and there held as
n slave until 1888. In 1885 Msjor L.
Taliaferro took Harriet 10 Fort Smelling,
and there held her as slave until 1886,
wben he sold her 10 said DR.. Emerson, who
thereafter claimed her as his slave. In
1886 the plaintiff and Harriet were mar
ried At Fort Smelling, and two daughters,
Eliza znl LIKE we're the children of this
marriage. Eliza vas born north Of the
Rorth line of the State Of Missouri, and at
che commencement of the suit was about
fourteen years Of age. Lizzie was about
seven years younger, and was born 10 the
State Of Missouri. In 1898 DIR. Emefson
removed the plaintiff and his wife Harriet,
and their daughter Eliza 10 the State of
Missouri, where they have ever since resi-
ded. Before the commencement of the
L.. a
Harriet his wife, Eliza AID LIZZIE. TO the
defendant, John Z. 4. Sanford, Is slaves,
and be has ever since claimed to hold them
rs such. The suit was brought BY the
plaintiff in the circuit Court Of the United
States, for the district of Missouri, to re-
cover the freedom Of himself, Of his wife,
and Of his children. That Court decided
against the Plaintif, and an appeal was Ia
ken TO the Supreme Court Of the United
States. That Court dismissed tbe case fu:
want CT jurisdiction, on the ground that the
rlaia,if was not citizen of the State Of
Missouri, rcr Of the United States, and
that he was, therefore, incompetent to
maintain any action in the Courts of the
United States.
The opinion Of the Court was delivered
by Chief Justice Taney, and concurred in
by the four other Judges from the Slave
STATES, whilst the four Judges OF the Free
States d;ssented from the most important
L. 4 r. 4ha rC he
Court. The Chief Justice. in his opinion,
took most extensive view Of the whole
subject, and among other things Of less
importance laid down 10 substance as the
Law Of the land, the following most impor-
taut propositions:
Ist. That the plaintiff Dred Scott vas
not citizen of the State Of Missouri, or Of
the United States, and that iherefora he
was lot competent to maintain any suit in
the Courts of the United States.
ID. That the plaintiff, having been q
slave in the State of Missouri, his subse-
quent residence in the State Of Illinois
and IN the Territory north Of the State o.
Missouri. did not affect the condition o
himself or bis family, but that all remain
ed slaves.
3rd. That slaves are property, by tn
express provisions of the Constitution o
the United States, in no wise differing from
other property. and that therefore neither
the Congress Of the United States, nor so
territorial government created by it, hA
any power to exclude slavery frem the aa
4sonal Territories.
These novel and startling proposition
year committee propose to examine brief!
IN their order.
]. The frst propositions - not OF @
mach practical Importance to the people o
Pennsylvania ss are the second and third