Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-03-25


with the personal rights, and this extends to the
Territories as well as States. Congress cannot
authorize the Territories to do what it cannot
do itself; it cannot Confer on the Territories
power to violate the provisions of the Constitu-
ton.
1t seems, however, that there is supposed to
be difference between slaves and other prop
erty. Tie people, in the formation of the Con-
stitution, delegated to the general government
certain enumerated powers and forbade the ex-
ercise OF Others 1t has no powers over persons
and property of citizens except those enulnera-
ted in the Constitution. II the Constitution
recognizes the right of master and slave, and
makes 10 difference between slave and other
property, no tribunal action under the authori
ty Of the United States can draw such dis
tinction and deny the provisions and guarantees
secured against the encroachment of the gov
crnment. As we have already said the right of
property in slave is expressly conferred in the
Constitution, and guaranteed to every State
This is language too plain to be misunderstood ;
and no words can be found in the Constitution
giving Congress greater power over slaves than
over any 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 q certain line, is not warranted by the Con-
stitution, and is, therefore, void and neither
Dred Scott, nor any one of his family, is, or
were made free by their residence in Illinois.
Tie 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 case as it
stands under tie Constitution, proceeded to
other points, saying, as Scott was 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 settled by the highest
tribunals that an individual does not acquire his
freedom under such circumstances. As it ap-
pears to the Court that the plaintiff is not
citizen of Missouri, nor a citizen of the United
States who could sue in the United States
Courts, this Court could give no Judgment, and
hence the suit must be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
Associate Justice Nelson stated the grounds
OH which he had arrived at the conclusion that
the argument of the Court below must be Of
ferct. Having stated the case substantially, as
above, lie proceeded to examine it on its merits.
The question was, whether the removal of the
plaintiff, with his master, to Illinois, with
view to temporary residence, and after bis re-
turn 10 Missouri, was such residence in free
State as worked emancipation. He maintained
that it did not. Such questions belonged to the
States to decide for themselves. AS to whether
Missouri will recognize or give effect to the
laws Of Illinois on the subject of Slavery is for
Missouri herself to determine, nor is there any
constitutional power rightfully to control her.
Every State or nation possesses exclusive SOW.
ereignty and jurisdiction within her own terri
tory. and her laws affect and bind all property
within her limits. No State or nation can af-
feet or bina persons or property outside OF her
territory. The question is fully established that
it belongs to the sovereign State Of Missouri to
determine the question of slavery within her
own jurisdiction, subject only to such limitations
as may he found Ill the Constitution. This is
tic result Of the independent and sovereign
character OF the State 1t is equally applicable
to the other States belonging to the Contedracy.
1t must be admitted that Congress possesses 10
power to create Or abolish slavery in State,
and if Congress possesses power under the Con-
stituton to abolish slavery in the Territories,
it must necessarily possess the power to cstab-
li,h it. This lie denied, and then proceeded to
show that the question involved i'll the case
now before the Court, was one depending sole
IL on the law of Missouri, concluding with the
remark that the Judgment OF The Court below
should be affirmed.
Associate Justice Catron also stated the his
tory of the case and said that if tie Court has
no power to decide the question further than
to dismiss it, it had Ilu right to discuss its mer
its bm. he held that the Court has jurisdiction
to decide the merits of the case, which lie pro-
l. = 1,tn f,
question the power to govern the Territories aS
incp.nt States, and lit them for admission.
Tic only question was, how far the power OF
Congress is limited as 10 the Northwest Terri
tory. Virginia had the rig int to abolish slavery
there and did So by al agreement, in 1857,
with the other States; but this did not prevent
new States being admitted with Or without
slavery Subsequently North Carolina and
Georgia ccded their land for the common bcne
lit. and Congress had no more power to lcgis-
late slavery out Of those Ce>sions than it had to
legslatc slavery in the territory north Of the
Ohio There was no power to lcgiSlate on sla-
very in either case. The inhabitants stood pro-
teclcd after us they did before the cessions were
made. In Louisiana slavery was not only law
full, 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 $500
w;lS an act of aggression. Congress cannot do
Indirectly what II cannot perform directly. Ii
Il Southern man cannot go to the Territories
with his slaves it follows that Northern far
mer or mechanic cannot bring with Inn his i'm
plciuents Of toll. If Congress could prohibit
any species of lawful property throughout Lou
Si;lna when it was acquired, so it could exclude
all descriptions Of property. The right to leg
slate in the Territories depends OIL the contract
of cesson His opinion was that the third ar
ticlc of the treaty by which Louisiana was ac-
ourc,l stands protected by the Constitution,
and cannot be repealed by Congress, and that
the act Of 1920, known Us the Missouri Com
promise, violates the leading features of the
Constitution, OH which the Union depends, and
which secures to all citizens common rights.
lie therefore held that the act was void, and
concurred with his brother judges that the plain
till, Dred Scott, is slave, and was one when
this suit was brought.
WASHINGTON, March Judge Mclean de-
liyercd his views in the Dred Scott case to-day,
arguing that slavery is limited to the range of
the state where it is established by municipal
law If Congress deem slaves or free colored
persons injurious to territory, they have the
power to prohibit them from becoming settlers
thereon. The power to acquire territory car
ries the power to govern it. The master does
not carry with him to the territory the law of
the state from which he removes hence the
Missouri Compromise was constitutional, and
the presumption is in favor of freedom Dred
Scott and his family were free under the deci