The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1857-05-27

ence 10 il they state that IT is Substantially
the same in every particular as The Dred Scott
case" Every one who examines the case
cited. will find that the majority err in apply.
ing its principles 10 the Dred Scott decision
The facts arc mol the same, and the principles
involved are by no means identical. In Ra-
chsl VS.. Martin, il appears that j. b. w. Stock
ton, an officer in the army of the United
States, residing at Fort Smelling, in the Mis-
souri, Territory, wherein slavery was not pro-
bbited by the Missouri compromise sent into
a sla ave State, and purchased the slave Rachel
From the State of Missouri she was taken to
the military post, aforementioned, and held
there by her master as his Servant" Stock
ton lived in free territory when he bought
her. and ncrer hcldher under the local id,vs of Il
slave State. "ln this CASE" says Judge Nc.
Girk, in delivering the opinion of the Court,
"lhe officer lived in the Missouri territory al
the time lie bought the slave, he sent to a
slaveholdiug territory and procured her; this
was his voluntary acl, and done without any
other reason than that OF convenience, and he
and those claiming under him must be hold
en- to abide the consequence OF Introducing
slavery both in Missouri territory apd Michi-
gan, contrary to law" No one will dispute
the soundness Of these conclusions: but in
The Dred Scott case different state of facts
oppe ars on the record. Scott was held BY his
master in Missouri, under the local laws of
tina; State, which recognized The institution OF
| slavery, was removed 10 free territory where
his master temporarily resided, and was after
wards taken back 10 the slave State Of Mis-
souri,. Stockton, or those who held under
him, could not rest their claim on the lea loci
OF Missouri, for he was q resident of a free
territory when Rachel became his property
The principle decided IN The Dred Scott case
did not arise in Rachel Us. Martin, and like the
point in the Somerset case, has no bearing
upon the question. The Judge, in deciding
the case, after reviewing the application of
The ordinance OF 1887 10 the question before
him, remaIked--'.In the case of Lagrang Us.
Menard the coun will raise other exceptions
than those expressed in the ordinance; the
case of Lagrang was ono where the owner
lived in Iliuois and had his slave employed
in Missouri, aud the slave made occasional
visits TO mis- masters house in Illinois the
court declared that this did not work an
emancipation" We, therefore, dismiss this
branch of the subject, and after careful aud
elaborate investigation OF the decision OF The
Supreme Court, we beg leave 10 record our
unqualified assent 10 the vital principles il
contains aud the great doctrines il enunci-
ates.
Having thus disposed OF the Two leading
points in the Dred Scott decision, we might
leave the question without further comment,
were il not for the unwarran,able position as
sumed by the majority OF the committee in
the conclusion of their report. Ttey com.
plain upon the questions Of the uncorsti,u
tionality Of the Missouri compromise and the
effect Of the removal Of Dred Scott into free
State where his master had u temporary resi-
deuce, the court travelled beyond the case
before them, and had no jurisdiction and
therefore they argue, that upon these points,
the decision was "ex,ra judicial, oonm non
jtice, imperative asd void.' An Of the
Judges, however, <McI.ean and Curtis ex-
ccpted) seem 10 have regarded these points
as essentially involved in the case, and even
Judge Mclean, in his dissenting opiuion
takes The ground that the plea to jurisdiction,
lha, is the one involving citizenship, was not
before the court; because the demurrer TO the
plea Of jurisdiction had been sustained in the
cour, below; and the defendant, that is The
master, had pleaded over and justified the
uespasS on The ground ina, the plaintiff Tds
his <llw On this plea the ease was decided
against the Nave III the court below, aud up
on Il the WI, Of error in behalf of bred Scott
was then prosecuted. Upon this ritir Of the
case Judge Mclean proceeds 10 argue, as does
Julss Curtis, the very points which the ma
joriiy of The crmmntee complain Of as having
been extra jud,ciaIy decided.
The fac, is apparent that upon the plead
ings in this case, as taken mp to the Supreme
Court OF the Unied Sales, The naked ques-
lion Of citizenship was not as necessarily in
yolved as were the olhsr paris in regard to
the slavery OF the plaintiff. As appesrs by
the record, the defendant, who was master,
denied b, plea in abatement, this jurisdiction
OF The Circuit Count OF The Unned Safes, on
The ground ,ha, The plaintiff ais anegro of
African blood, and were brought into Ibis
county and sold as slaves" and, therefore,
the plaintiff sis no, a citizen Of the State of
Missouri" To this plea the plaintiff demur-
red and lae court sustained The demuuer.-
Thereupou, the defendant pleaded over sud
justified The ltespsss, solely on the assump.
lion :ha, The plaintiff, Drec Scott, and his
family, sssrs ia .tasi Aas negro stares. Upon
these pleading the couH went 10 jury, AMI The
orly question before them was the slGpos or
freedom OF the plaintiff. The jury decided
that he and his family pne slaues, and the
wnr OF error then prosecuted was no, based
uron the question OF cHiEenshir, or jurisdic-
,icn of the coun, for that had been decided
in his favor. but upon The instruction 10 the
xrsyh he