Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1857-03-19

NO. H..
ernment and for admission to the Union
But, as we before said, it was acquired by
the Federal Government as the represents
tive and trustee of the people Of the United
States, and must be held for their common
and equal benefit: for it was the acquisition
| of the people Of the United States, acting
through their agents, and Government holds
it for the common benefit untilit should be-
come associated as member Of the Union.
Until that time. arrived it was undoubtedly
necessary that some government be cstab-
lished to protect the Inhabitants IN their
persons and property. The power to ae-
lquire carries with it the power to preserve
The form of government necessarily rests
ION the discretion of Congress. It is their
duty to establish the best suited for the
United States, and that must depend on the
number of inhabitants, and the character
and situation Of the territory. What gov
ernment is the best must depend on the
condition of the territory at the time, to be
continued until it shall become a State--
But there can never be mere discretiona-
Try power over persons and property. These
are plainly defined by the Constitution
The Constitution provides that Congress
shall make no law respecting an establish
+ment of religion or prohibiting the free ex-
ercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or Of the press or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for redress of grievances"
&c. Thus the rights of property are united
with the personal rights and this extendst to
the territories as well as to the States.-
Congress cannot authorise the territories
to do what it cannot do itself; it cannot con-
fer on the territories power to violate the
provisions of the Constitution. 5ae
It seems, however, that there is suppos-
ed to be difference between slaves and 9TH
Ter property. The people in the formation
of the Constitution, delegated to the Gene
raj Government certain enumerated powers
and forbade the exercise Of others. It has
no power over persons and property of citi-
zens except those enumerated in the Con-
|stitution. If the Constitution recognises
the right of master and slave, and makesno
difference between slaves and other proper-
ty, no tribunal acting under the authority
Of the United States can draw such a dis-
tinction and deny the provisions and guar
antees secured against the encroachment of
the government. AS we have already said
the right of property in a slave is expressly
conferred in the Constitution, and guaran-
teed to every State. This in language too
plain to be. misunderstood and no words
can be found in the Constitution giving Con,
gress greater power over slaves than over
any other description Of property. 4
It is, therefore, the opinion of this Court
that the. act Of Congress which prohibits ei-
tizens from holding property Of this charac-
ter north of a certain line is not warranted
by the Constitution; and is therefore void;
and neither Dred Scott or any of his family
is made free by their residence in Illinois.
The plaintiff is not a 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 the Constitution, proceed 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 freedom under such Cir
cumstances. As it tappears 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 Court
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 con-
clusion that the argument of the Court be-
low must be affirmed. Having stated the
case, substantially, as above, he proceeded
to examine it on its merits. The question
was, whether the removal Of the plaintiff,
with his master to Illinois, with view to a
temporary residence, and after his return to
Missouri, was such a residence in free
State as worked emancipation. He MAIN
tanned that it did not. Such questions be-
longed to the States to decide for themselves.
As to whether Missouri will recognize or
give effect to the laws of Illinois on the sub
ject of Slavery is for Missouri herself to de-
termine, nor is thereany constitutional pow
er rightfully to control her. Every State or
nation possesses exclusive sovereignty and
jurisdiction within her own territory, and her
laws affect and bind all property within her
limits. No State or nation can affect or
bind persons or property outside Of her ter
ritory. The question is fully established
that it belongs to the sovereign State of
Missouri to determine the question Of slave
ry within her own jurisdiction, subject only
to such limitations as may be found in the
Constitution. This is the result of the in
dependent and sovereign character of the
State. It is equally applicable to the other
States belonging to the Confederacy. Il