Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1857-03-26

the personal rights, and this extends to the
Territories as well as TO the States. Con-
gress not authorize the Territories to do
what il canno. do ,itself; it cannot confer
on the Territories power to sviolate the pro-
visions o. the Constitution.
1t seems, however, that there is supposed
20 be difference between slaves and other
property. The people, in the forma,i ton Of
the Constitution, delegated to the General
Government certain enumerated powers, and
forbade the exercise of others. 1t has no
power over persons and property of citizens
except those enumerated in the Constitution
If the Constitution recognize the right of
master and slave, and fmakes no difference
between slaves and other property no tribun.
al, acting under the authority of the United
States, can draw such distinction an
deny the provisions and guarantees secured
against the encroa hment of the Govern
ment. As We have already said, the right
OF property in slave is expressly conferred
IN tbs Constitution, and guaranteed to every
State This is language too plain to be mis-
understood; and n" words can be found in
the Constitution giving Congress greater
power over slaves than sver any other de-
scription vi property.
1 II is therefore, the opinion of this Cour,
that the act of Congress which prohibits
citizens from holding property of this char.
acter north OF certain line is not warrant
ed by the Constitution, and is therefore void;
and neither Dred Scott or any of his fami Y
Is made free by their residence in Illinois.
lhe Pialnti1 was not citizen of Missouri,
Out was still slave, and therefore had no
right to sue in Court of the United States.
4 The Court having examined the case as
it stands under the Constitution, proceeded
to other points, saying, as Scott was slave
when he was brought back to Missouri from
iillnois, he was under the law of the former
and not oil the latter. 1t has been settled
by the highest tribunals that an individual
does not acquire his freedom unl Ter such cir
cumstances. As it appears TO the Court
that the plaintiff is not citizen of Missouri
nor citizen of the United States who could
sue in the United States Courts, this Cour,
could give no Judgment, 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 argument of the Court below mus,
be attlrmed. Having stated the Case, sub.
stantlaiiy, as above, he proceeded to ex.
anime 1t on its merits. The question was
, whether the removal of the plaintiff, with
, his master, to Illinoris, with view to 9
temporary residence, and after his return ie
, Missouri, was such residence in a free
: State as worked emancipation He main
tanned that 1t did not. Such questions be
!onged to the States to decide for themselves
As to whether Missouri will recognize o
give effect to the laws of Illinois on the sub
E ject of slavery, is for Missouri herself t.
: determine, nor is there any constitutions
| power :lghtfu'ly to control her. Every
: State or ation possesses exclusive soverei
: gnty and jurisdiction within her own Terri
r tory, and her laws affect and bind all pro
perry within her limits. No State or ma
tion Can affect or bind persons or property
: outside of her Territory. The question i,
Y fully Established that it belongs to the SOW
e ereign Stat of Missouri to determine the
r question Of slavery within her own jurisdic
tlon, subject on ly to such limitations as maj
be found in the Constitution This is tht
, result Of the independent and sovereign
E character of the Stale. 1t is equally up
!, PlIcable to the other States belonging 10 tn,
J ConeGeracy. 1t must be admitted rha
; Congress possesses no power tu create fc
j abolish slavery in State, and if Congress
D possesses power under the Constitution t,
e abolish slavery i'll the Territories, it mus
e necessarily possess the power to estabIis!
: it. This he denied, and then proceeded l,
r show that tie question was one depending
5 solely on the law of Missouri, concludin!
t with the remark that the judgment Of III,
: CGurs below should be affirmed.
t Associate Justice Catron also stated tn
c history of the Case, and said that if tn,
I court has no power to decide the question
e further than to dismiss it. it had no right t.
discuss its merits; but he held that lh
f Court has jurisdiction to decide the merit
r OF the case, which he proceeded 10 examine
n Ii was now too late TO question the powe
;. TO govern the Territories as incipient STATE
and fit them for admission. The ONLY cues
e tion was, how far the power of Congress i
e limited as to the Northwest Territory -
5 Virginia had the right to abolish slavery
there, and did so, by an agreement, in 1887
: with the other States; but this did not pre-
e vent new States being admitted with o
; without slavery. Subsequently North Care
e lima and Georgia ceded their lands for tn,
e common benefit; and Congress had no NOR,
: power to legslate slavery oct of those ces
Fl sions than it had to legislate slavery in thu
e Territory north of the Ohio. There wa
i no power to legislate on slavery IN eithe
: case. The inhabitants stood protected afte
: as they did before the cessions were made
n In Louisiana slavery was not only lawful
t but was most valuable. At the date of tn,
treaty the inhabitants we're left free to enio,
S their property freedom and liberty, and wer,
Y to be protected therein until they came int,
r the Union as a State. The Missouri lin,
: oil $3.50 was an &C: Of aggression. Con
j.. gross cannot do indirectly what it canno
e perform directly. If Southern man can
s not 60 to the Territories with his slaves, i
e follows that Northern farmer or mechanic
0 cannot bring with him his implements o
O toll. If Congress could prohibit any specie.
OF lawful property throughout Louisian,
q when it was acquired, SO it could eyclud,
f all descriptions of property. The right tc
f legislate in the Territories depends on the
: contract of cession. His opinion was tha
he third article of the treaty by which
e Louisiana was acquired stands protected by
. the Constitution, and cannot be repealed b,
Congress, and that the act Of 1920, known
as ;be Missouri Compromise, violates the
a ieaalng features of the Constitution, or
D which the Union depends, land which secure.
to all citizens common rights. He there
. fore held that the act was void, and con.
, CURED with his brother Judges that the
, plaintiff, Dred Scott, is slave. and was