Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1857-07-25
WHAT THE DRIED scoTT CASE DECIDED,
AND WHAT 1T DID NOT DECIDE.

AND WHAT 1T DID NOT DECIDE.
The Boston Law Reporter for June con
tains very able and thorough review of th,
bred Scott "Decision," which will enable tn,
reader TO know what the Supreme Court ha,
decided in that important case far more read
lily and clearly than he can learn from tn,
official report itself. In fact, the review ha:
done just what the reporter. Mr.. Howard
in long and confused head-notes attempted
but failed to accomplish.
Those, also, who desire to understand, NOT
merely the points which the so-called deci
sion really decided, but what il did not de-
eide, will do well to consult the Law Repor-
ters article, the authorship of which is as
cribod to Horace Gray, Jr., and John Lowell
two well known legal gentlemen of Boston.
The result of their investigation Of the deci-
sion, is briefly stated, as follows:
"FIRsT.-As to the question, Can o negro
be q citizen of the United States p 1t has
been commonly supposed that tho Court de-
cided this question in the negative This is
a mistake From the form in which it was
presented it was very doubtful whether it was
before the Court for decision. -Four of the
nine Judges thought that it was these were
the Chief Justice, and Justices Wayne and
Daniel who answer the question in the mega
tive, and Justice Oustis, who answers in the
affirmative. Ofthe Judges who give no opn-
ion upon the point, one Judge NJ Lean) de-
clares that if he answered the question at all,
il would be in the affirmative. Judge Catron,
when Chief Justice Of the Supreme Court Of
Tennessee, gave an opinion directly involving
an affirmative answer to the question; the
three other Judges give no clue to their opin-
ions. On this question, then, the Court stands
thus: three in the affirmative, three in the
negative, and three silent.
SytOED Was thp Missonri Com nron,ise
Constitutional? 1t is q perfectly well-setLled
principle OF the Supreme court, and one that
has been often laid down from its bench, that
no part Of On opinion Of tie Court is to be
regarded as of authority as precedent which
was not necessary to the determination Of the,
question before it. Anything beyoud this is
merely the expression Of the individual opin-
ion of the judge; and it has been well said
that "if general dicta are to be considered as
establishing the law, nothing is yet settled or
can long be settled" Bearing this in mind,
let Us look at the facts of the case. Scott
was slave in Missouri; was taken by his
master to Illinois, aud thence into IA territory
of the United States where slavery was pro-
hbited by the Missouri Compromise, and
thence back to Missouri. The opinion of the
Court is placed upon tho ground that the
laws of Missouri are to decide whether Scott
is or is not a slave, now that he has returned
thther If this be so, what matters it whe-
ther the Compromise was valid or invalid
In other words, whether Scott was free when
in Illinois, or in the territory, or whether he
continued to be slave all the time? And if
the Court goes out Of its way TO give on opn-
ion on this point, could palmer instance be
found of an opinion on point pot necessary
20 the determination Of the rights of the par
ties.
"The Court, then. has not decided that the
Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
"TnIRDLy. This case is often spoken of as
deciding that master may take his slave to
free State and there hold him us slave
This is simple mistake there is no such
point decided. But
"FoURrnLy. The doctrine is here estab-
lisheI, that if slave BE taken by his master
to free State, and does not there claim his
liberty, but consents to return with his mas
Ter to slave State, lie may be held as q slave
there, if the highest Court Of that State con-
si,,ers him still to be O slave In other words
the Dred Scott case does not decide that
negro is slave in free State, because ho
wls q slave in the State from which he was
brought, nor, that a slave carried from q slave
TO free State and brought back, is free be-
c.u'e he might have claimed his freedom in
the free State; nor that he is necessarily a
slave after his return but leaves his freedom
or slavery to be settled by the laws of the
slave State to which ke returned with his
master"