Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1857-04-17
looIitttuI.
Is SLAVERY NATIONAL;- DRIED
SCOTT CASE
THE OPTNTO or


he was a citizen of the State Of Missouri and
that the defendant was a citizen Of the State
Of New York. It is not doubted that it was
necessary to make each of these allegations TO
sustain the jurisdiction Of the circuit Court
The defendant denied. by plea p the iurs-
diction, either sufficient or insufficient that
the plaintiff was a citizen Of The State of
Missouri The plaintiff demrod TO that
plea The Circuit Court ad "a the plea
insufficient, and the first quest .n ftr our CON
sdcration Is whether the suficicncy of that
plea is before this Court for Judgment upon
this writ Of error
The question is not what either Of the par
ties may be allowed to do, but whether this
Court will affirm or reverse Judgment Of the
Circuit Court on the merits. when il appears
on the record. by plea TO the jurisdiction,
that it is a case to which the judicial power
of the United States does not extend The
course Of the Court is. where no motion is
made by either party. on its own motion TO
reverse such Judgment for want Of urisdic-
ton, not only in cases where it is shown neg
atively, by the record, that jurisdiction does
not exist, but even where it does not appear.
afirmatively, that it does exist. lPcquignot
IS. The Pennsylvania Raiload Company. Is
How, 104.) Il acts upon the principle that
tbo i,,d;o;s1 ,,,,.,.,r 90 .i, r-,.;,t e..,. ...
no, o,...al e., - .. III 3.
extend, even if both parties desire to have it
exerted. Gutter VS.. Rao. How. 720l
H., ,L, ;,,.;.li.,i.... .i 60. |,'a
in a case brought here by a writ of error. the
first duty of this court is. suo spoate. if not
moved to it by either party. to examine the
suthcicncy of that plea. and thus 90 take care
In -, oui' '',' ,Di' CouI,
S.. f., ~. -, NV, =, w wv "'''1
-, ~ ,t. -, ''on ana
I.,. -. "o' N''ii'iou
,i,oos.i ..,..s... -. ........ AL
n.a i,,rie,l;e,;,,, ''' P'0' w
M L. ..., .. c.,,..
"Aod tbe s,id Iobn n s'nlt,,i +, hi. o..o ,.o..,
person. come, aud save that ;hIs Court ought a TO nave
of n-f mIihef e'lnisln,e oi the action 9forsad be-
er Of hea. ri any saeh have accrued o ,o o5 D,e5
sso't accrued TO ho a'i Drrl soo,t out ofihs ug.s-
W IN, ca,,. ', ~ % l' 4, within Y. larsa.ion
The said plaintiff Drci scott. &. not ai.isr, Or ne
s.a,e o. M,saf - aeEed n big declaraan because
pare Afresn blood aad were broabt iot, ~. eon,ry
and sod as negro slave. and This ne said Sanford {.
,s5. c,,, ~, - M le me. ne pI'y' laala,snt whether
tiou aforesaid"
/ The plaintiff demurred. and the Judgment
of the Circuit Court was that the plea was in
sufficient.
cannot treat this plea as a general raverst
of tine citizenship alleged by the plaintiff. In
deed. ii II were so treated the plea was
clearly bad for il concludes with vcrihca-
tion aad not to the contrary, as traverse
should
The truth Is, that though not drawn with
the utmost technical accuracy. it is special
traverse OF the plaintiff S allegation OF ciu-
zenship, aud was suitable and proper mode
OF traverse under the circumstances. lStoph-
ehsoh fl.' 100 Nh'- on fL' o-o'l Auo
upon demurrer 10 TINS plea the question
"hlch arises is whether the FACTS that the
planuh Is "a negro OF African descent whose
ancestors were oi pure African blood, and
were brought INTO thls country and sold as
negro slaves may 0t De bf"e' and yet the plain
TN be a citizen OF the State OF Missouri,
within the meaning Of the Constitution and
laws of the United States, which confer on
citizens OF one state the right 10 sue citizens
OF another state IN the Circuit Courts. In
doubleday II these facts taken together a.
mount to an allegation that, at the time OF