Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-03-18

| State6-8n0 the great OD1eCC was 10 SSoCur6 TIT
blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.
1t speaks in general terms of citizens and people o
the United States when providing for the power
! granted, without defining what description of per
sons should be included, or who should be regarded
| as citizens. But two clauses of the constitution
point to the negro race as separate and not regard
ed citizens for whom the constitution was adopt
ed. One clause reserves the right to import slave!
until 1908, and in the second the States pledge
themselves. one to another to preserve the rights
the MASTER and to deliver up slaves escaping to the'
respective territories BY the first clause the right
to purchase and hold this property is directly sane
toned and authorized by the persons who framed
the constitution for twenty years; and the States
pledged themselves to uphold the right of the master
as long as the government then formed should ell
dure. And this shows conclusively that another
description Of persons was embraced IN the other
provisions of the constitution. These two clauses
were not intended to confer upon them or their pos
terty the blessings of liberty carefully conferred
upon the whites. None of this class ever emgrated
to the United States voluntarily. They were all
articles of merchandise. The number e:nancipated
was few as compared with those who were held in
slavery, and not sufficiently numerous to attract
public attention as separate class, and were re-
garded as part of the slave population rather than
free.
1t cannot be supposed that the States conferred
citizenship upon Them for all those States at that
time established police regulations for the security
of themselves and families as we'll as of property.
In some minor cases there were different modes of
would have formed or consented to a government
which abolished this right and took from them the
safeguard essential to their own protection. They
have not the right to bear arms. and appear ut pub
lie meetings to discuss political questions, urge
measures of reform which they might deem advisa.
ble They cannot vote at elections, nor serve as
jurors, nor appear as witnesses where whites are
concerned. These rights secured in every State
to white men, 1t is impossible to believe that the
men of the slaveholding States, who took so large a
share in the formation Of the constitution could he
regardless of themselves and the safety of those
who trusted and confided in them.
Every law of naturalization confines citizenship to
achite persons. This is marked separation from
the blacks. Under the confederation every State
had right to decide for ITSELF and the term free
inhabitant," the generality of form, certainly ex-
cluded the African race. Laws were framed for the
latter especially. Under the constitution the word
'citizen" is substituted for free inhabitan" After
further elaboration this point, the Chief Justice
said, from the best consideration, we have come to
the conclusion that the African race who came to
this country whether free slave, not intend
ed to be included in the constitution for the enjoy
ment of any personal rights benefits; and the
two provisions which point to them treat them as
and make it the duty of the government
to protect them such. Hence, the court is of
opinion, from the facts stated in the plea in abate-
ment that bred Scott is not citizen of Missouri
and is not. therefore, entitled to sue liz the United
States courts.
The following facts appear on the record:
I'm 1884 the plaintiff was negro slave belonging
to DIR. Emerson, who was surgeon in the army of
the United States In that year 1880 said Dr. EN-
erson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri
to the military post at Rock Island in the State of
Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the
month of April, 1886. At the time last mentioned,
said DR.. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said
military post at Rock Island to the military post
At Fort Smelling, situated on tile west bank Of the
Mississippi river, in the territory known as Upper
louisiana acquired by the United States from France
and situated north of the latitude of Sc degrees 80
minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri
Said DIR. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at
said Fort Smelling until 1888.
I'm the year 1885, Harriet (who is named in the
second count of the plaintiffs declaration was the
ave of Major Taliaferro who belonged to the army
II the United States. In that year $3.50 said Major
[allaerro took said Harriet to said Fort Smelling a
military post situated as hereinbefore stated, and
iept her there as slave until the year 1886 and
hen sold and delivered her slave at Fort Smell
ng unto said DIR. Emerson, hereinbefore named; and
'aid DR.. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at
said Fort Smelling until the year 1885,
I'm the year 1886 the plaintiff and said Harriet.
It said Fort Smelling. with the consent of said DR..
emerson, who then claimed to be their master and
wner, intermarried and took each other for hus-
and and wife. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the |
bird count of the plaintiffs declaration. are the
ruits of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen !
ears old, and was born on board the steamboat |
iIpsey north of the north line of the State of Mis-
our and upon the Mississippi river; Lizzie is about
even years old, and was born in the State of Mis-
our at the military post called Jefferson B1rracks"
, In the year 1888 said DIR. Emmerson removed the
lantlH and said Harriet, and their said daughter
liza from SAID Fort Smelling to the State of Missou-
!, where they have ever since resided
Before the commencement of this suit. said Dr. |
merson sold and conveyed the plaintiffs, said Har-
let, Eliza and Lizzie, to the defendant as slaves |
nd the defendant claimed to hold each of them as
aves
At the times mentioned in the plaintiffs declara-
on, the defendant, claiming to be owner as afore-
I'D laid his hands upon said plaintiffs Harriet Eli.
!, and Lizzie and imprisoned them; doing in this
spect, however, no more than what he might law
lily 10 II they were of right his slaves at such
mes"
The Chief Justice proceeded to examine the state
en assuming that this part of the controversy pre-
nted two questions:
Firstly. Was he scotD and all his family free in
issouri and,
Secondly: If not were they free by reason of their
'moval to Rock Island Illinois?
The act of Congress on which the plaintiff relies
'ntans the clauseo, that slavery and involuntary
rvtude, except for crime, shall be forever prohib-
ed in that part of the territory acquired by treaty
ON Louisiana, and not included within the limits
the State of Louisiana. The difficulty which
eets US at the Threshold is, whether Congress is
,thorized to pass such law under the powers
ranted to it by the Constitution The plaintiff
wells much on the clause which gives Congress pow
to make all needful rules and regulations respect
g the territory or other property of the United
latest" But this provision has no bearing on the
resent controversy. The power there given is con-
n ned to the territory which then belonged to the
nlted States, and can have influence on terrific
T Wn':n was acquired from foreign governments
irgnia and other States saying the only object was
put an end to the existing controversies and to
liable Congress to dispose of the lands for the com