Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-03-16

an act of the States In the exercise of their political
power at the time; and these representatives OF
the same States under the new government oid
not think proper to depart from any essential prn
ciple and did not attempt TO undo any thing tnat
was done.
As to territory acquired without the limits OF the
United States, it remains territory until admtt'd
into the Union. No power is given in the Const-
tuition to acquire territory to be held and governed
in that character; and, consequently, there cannot
be found in the Constitution any definition oil pow
err which Congress may lawfully exercise before it
becomes State. The power to acquire territory
until il is in condition to become State on equal
footing with the other States must necessarily rest
on sound discretion, and il becomes the duty OF the
governments 10 administer the laws of the United
States for the protection of personal rights and
property therein.
Whatever territory is acquired is for thecommon |
benefit of the people of the United States, which is
but Trustee. At the time territory was obtained |
from France it contained no population to be admit
ted as State and it therefore became necessary to
hold possession of il until settled and inhabited by
civilized community, capable OF selfgoVernment |
and for admission into the Union. But, as we be- |
fore said il was acquired by the Federal Govern |
ment as the representative and trustee of the peO
pie of The United States and must be held for their
common and equal benefit for it was the acquisi-
ton of the people of the United States, acting |
the common benefit until it should become sssocis
ted as a member of the onion. Until that time
arrived it was undoubtedly necessary that some
government be established to protect the inhabit
ants in their person and property. The power to
acquire carries with it the power to preserve The
form OF government necessarily rests on the discre
ton of Congress. 1t is their duty to establish the
best suited for the United States and that must de-
pend on the number of inhabitants, and the char
acter and situation of the territory. What govern
ment is the best must depend on the condition OF
the territory ct the time to be continued until II
shall become q State. But there can never be a
mere discretionary power over persons and prop
erty. These are plainly defined by the ConstiIu-
| ton. The Constitution provides that Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishments OF
religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abrdging the freedom of speech, OF the pres
or the right of the people peaceably to ass embe,
and to petition the government for a redress OF
| grievances" &c. Thus the rights of property are
united with the personal rights, and this extends
to the territories well to the States Congress
cannot authorize the territories TO do what 1t can
not do itself; it cannot confer on the territories
power violate the provisions of the Constitution
II seems, however that there is supposed to be
difference between slaves and other property
| The people in the formation of the Constitution,
delegated to the General Government certain emu
merated powers and forbade the exercise OF others
Ii has no powers over persons and property of cit
liens except those enumerated in the Constitution.
If the Constitution recognizes the right OF master
| and save, and makes no difference between slaves
and other property no tribunal acting under the
authority of the United States draw such dis
tinction and deny the provisions aud guarantees
/ secured against the encroachment Of the govern
| ment. As we have already said, the right OF prop
erty in a slave is expressly conferred in the Con-
1 sttutior and guaranteed to every State. This in
language too plain to be misunderstood; and no
words can be found in the Constitution giving
Congress greater power over slaves than over auy
other description of property.
1t is therefore, the opinion of this Court that
the act of Congress which prohibits citizens from
holding property of this character north of GER
tain line is not warranted by the Constitution, AMI
is therefore void and neither bred Scott any OF
bis family is made free by their residence in Hin
Oh. The plaintiff is not citizen OF Missouri, but
was still slave and therefore had no right to sue
in Court OF the United States.
The Court having examined the as it stands
under Constitution proceeded to other points, say
ing, as Scott was a slave when he was brought back
to Missouri from Illinois, he was under the law Of
the former and not of the latter 1t has been tiled
by the hghes tribunals that an individual does not
acquire his freedom under such circumstances. As
it appears to the Court that the pliltif is not
citizens of Missouri citizen OF the United
States who could sue in the United States Courts,
| this Court could give no judgement, and hence the
suit must be dismissed for want Of jurisdiction.
| Associate Justice Nelson stated the grounds on
which he had arrived at the conclusion that the
gument of the Court below must be affirmed
Having stated the case substantially, as above, he
| proceeded to examine it on its merits The quts-
ton was, whether the removal of the plaintiff, with
his master to Illinois, with view to temporary
residence and after bis return to Missouri was
Co.. rlraA
cipation. He maintained that it did not. Such
questions belonged to The States to decide for them
selves As to whether Missouri will recognize or
give effect to the laws of Illinois the subject of
Slavery is for Missouri herself TO determine, nor is
there any constitutional power rghfully TO control
her. Every State or nation possesses exclusive
sovereignty and jurisdiction within her own terri
tory and her laws affect and bind all property with
In her limits No State or nation affect or bind
persons or property outside of her territory The
question is fully established that it belongs to the
sovereign State OF Missouri to det rhine the ques
ton of slavery within her own jurisdiction, subject
only to such limitations may be found in the Con-
sttution. This s the result Of the independent and
sovereign character of the State. Il is equally
applicable to the other States b. longing to the Con-
federscy II must be admitted that Congress pos
a sesses no power to create abolish slavery III a
State, and if Congress possesses power under the
mus. necessarily possess the power to establish it.
This he denied and then proceeded TO show that the
question was one depending solely on the law OF
Missouri concluding with the remark taht the
Ii Judgment oil the Court below should be affirmed.
Associate Justice Catron also stated the history
OF the case and said that If the Court has no pow
er to decide the question further than to dismiss L.
il had DO right to discuss its merits; but he held
that the Court has jurisdiction TO decide the mer-
its Of the case, which be proceeded to examine. II
was now too hate to question the power to govern
the Territories incpent states, and 6s them for
admission. The only question was, how far the
power Of Congress is limited as to the North Invest
Territory. Virgins bad the right to abolish slave
ly there, and did so, by agreement, in 1857,
With the other Sates bat this did not prevent new
States being admitted with or without slavery.
Subsequently North Carolina AID Georgia coded
their lands for the common benefit and Congress
had more power to leg>late slavery out of those
cessons than il had TO legslate slavery in the ter
ritery north OF the Ohio. There no power "a
legisl, te on slavery in either case. The iubab-
tants stood protected after they did before
the cessions made. In Louisiana slIverJ
was not only lawful, but was most valuable
At the date of the treaty the inhabitants were left
free to enjoy their property freedom and liberty
and were TO be protected therein until they came
into the Union as State. The Missouri line Of So
80 was an act Of aggression. Congress cannot DC
indirectly what il cannot perform directly. II
southern man cannot go TO the Territories with hii
slsves, it follows thss Northern fArner or M,
chanic cannot bring with him his implements oftoil
II Congress could prohibis any species Of Lawful
property throughout Louisi ana when il was scqur
cd, so IL could exclude all descriptions Of property
The right to egislAIe In the Territories depends OF
the contract OF eessiou. His opiaioI shat the
third article of the treaty by which LouisitnA wa
acquired stands protected by the Constitution anS
cannot be repealed by Congress, and that the &C
of 1920, known as the Missouri Compromise, vic
lal,s the leading features Of the Constitution, OF