The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1857-03-25

, Smelling unto said DIR. Emerson, herein
before named and said DR.. Emerson helc
said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Smell
3 ling until the year 1888.
"In the year 1886, the plaintiff ant
I said Harriet, at said Fort Smelling, with
the consent of said DR.. Emerson, WHIT
then claimed to be their master and own.
err, intcrmarried aud took each other fol-
husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzie,
named in the third count of the plaintiff
declaration, are the fruit of that marriage,
Eliza is about IA years old, and was born
on board the steamboat Gipsey, north Of
the north line of the State of Missouri
and upon the Mississippi River; Lizzie is
about seven years old, and was born in
the State of Missouri, at the military DOS
called Jefferson Barracks.
ain the year 1898, said DR.. Emerson
removed the plaintiff and said Harriet,
and their said daughter Eliza, from said
Fort Suelling to the State of Missouri
where they have ever since resided.
"Before the commencement of this. suit,
said DR.. Emerson sold aud conveyed the
plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie,
to the defendant as slaves, and the de-
PENDANT claimed to hold each of them as
slaves.
CAT the times mentioned in the plain
tif's declaration, the defe ndant, claiming
to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands
upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and
Lizzie, and imprisoned them doing in
this respect, however, no more than what
he might lawfully do if they were of right
his slaves at such times"
The Chief Justice proceeded to exam
inc the statement, assuming that this
part of the controversy presented two
questions.
Firstly: Was he (Scott) and all his
family free in Missouri; and
Secondly: IF not, were they free by
reason Of their removal to Rock Island,
Illinois.
The act of Congress on which the plain
tiff relies contains the clause that slavery
and involuntary servitude, except for
crime, shall be forever prohibited in that
part of the territory acquired by treaty
from Louisiana, and not included within
the limits of the State of Louisiana. The
difficulty which meets us at the thresh-
old is, whether Congress is authorized to
pass such a law under the powers gran
ted to it by the Constitution? The
plaintiff dwells much on the clause which
gives Congress power "to make all need
full rules and regulations respecting the
Territory or other property of the United
States" But this provision has no bear
ing on the present controversy. The
power there given is confined to the Ter
ritory which her belonged to the Uni
ted States, and can have no influence on
Territory which was acquired from for
eign Governments. The Justice then
referred to the c~essions of land by Vir-
ginia and other States, saying the only
object was to put an end to existing con
troversies, and to enable Congress to dis
pose of the lands for the common benefit.
Undoubtedly the power of sovereignty
and eminent domain was ceded in the act.
This was proper to make it essential
There was then no Government in exis
tence with enumerated powers. What
were called the States were thirteen in
dependent Colonies; which entered into
confederation for mutual protection. 1t
was little more than a Congress for EN-
bassadors, in which all had a common
concern. 1t was this Congress which
accepted the cession from Virginia.
They had no right to do so under the
articles Of the Confederation, but they
had a right, as Independent powers, to
accept the land for the common benefit;
and it is clear, having no to superior con-
troll them, they had a right to exercise
absolute dominion, subject only to the
restrictions which Virginia imposed
The ordinance of 1877 was adopted, by
which the Territory should be governed,
and among other provisions was one that
slavery or Involuntary servitude should
be prohibited, except for crime.
This was the state of things when the
Constitution was formed. The Terrific
ry ceded by Virginia belonged to the
several confederate states as common
property. The States were about to dis
solve the Confederation, and surrender a
portion of their power for the formation
of a new Government and the Ian
guage used limited and specified the
objects to be accomplished. It was
obvious that some provision was now
necessary to give the new government
the power to carry into effect every
object for which the territory was ceeded.
1t was necessary that the lands should
be sold to pay the war debt, and that
power should be given to protect the
citizens who might emigrate, with their
rights of property, arms, military stores,
Gas well as ships of war; were the com
mon property of the States existing in
their independent character, and they
had a right to take their property to the
territory, without the authority of the
States" The object was to place these
things under the guardianship of a new
Government, which gives Congress the
power sto make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or
other property of the United States
1t applied only to property held in com
mon at the time, and not with reference
to any property which the sovereignty
might subsequently acquire. 1t applied
to the territory then in existence and
known as the territory of the United
States-then in the minds Of the trainers
of the Constitution. It refers to the
sale or raising of money. This is differ
ent from the power to legislate over the
territories. With the words fsto make
all needful rules and regulations respect
ing the territory" are coupled the words
sand other property ofthe United States"
And the concluding words render this
construction irresistible: "And nothing
in this Constitution shall be so construed
as to prejudice any claims of the United
States or of any particular State"
It is obvious that Congress, under the