Weekly hawk-eye and telegraph. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1855-1857, 1857-03-25
Opiasss % - UnissA ssases srprsas
CoaR;.

0paasss % sAs UnissA ssases srprsne
CsaF;.
pEfIvExxn M CHIEF JUSTICE TAsEY,
MARCH FIFTH
Chief Justice fancy, in delivering the opin-
ion Of the Conft. said that this case, after mr.
gument at the last term. owing to the differ
ence Of opinion existing among members Of
the Court, and in order TO give the subject
more mature deliberation.
There were two leading questions first,
had the Circuit Court Of the United States
for the District of Missouri, jurisdiction in
....s else; and Jurisdiction, was its decision
erroneous or not?
The defendant denied, by plea in atate
mcnt, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Cont OF
the United States, on the ground that the
plaintiff is negro Of African descent. his
ancestors were of pure African blood, and
were brought into this country and sold as
slaves, and therefore the plaintiff lis not u
citizen of the State of Missouri" TIE this
plea the plaintiff demnrred, and the Court
sustained the demurrer Thereupon the de-
PENDANT pleaded over, and justified the tress-
pass on the ground that the plaintiff and his
family were his negro slaves; and state
ment Of facts argued to by both parties, was
read in evidence.
The Chief Justice, having stated the facts
in the case, proceeded lin tone almost in
audible) to say, in substance, that the ques-
ton first to be decided was, whether the
plaintif was entitled to sue in a Court of the
United States. This was peculiar question,
and for the FIRST time brought before the Court
under such circumstances but it had been
brought here, and it was the duty OF the
Court to meet and decide it. The question
was simply this, can negro, whose ances-
tors were imported and sold as slaves be
come member of the political community
formed and brought into existence by the
Constitution Of the United States, and. as
such, become entitled to all the rights and
immunitics of a citizen, one Of which rights
if suing in the Courts of the United States in
cases therein specified In discussing this
question we must not confound the rights of
a citizen which State may confer within its
own limits, with citizen of the United
States. No one can be citizen of the Uni
ted States unless under the provisions OF the
Constitution; but it does not follow that a
man, being citizen of one State, must be
recognized as such by every State in the
Union He may be citizen in one State
and not recognized as such in another. Pre-
yious to the adoption of the Constitution. cv-
cry State might confer the character of q
citizen, and endow a man with all the rights
pertaining to it. This was confined to the
boundaries ola State, and gave him no rights
beyond its limits. Nor have the several
States surrendered this power by the adop-
ton of the Constitution Every State may
confer the alien or on any other class of per-
sons, who would, to all intents and purposes,
be. a citizen OF the State, but not citizen in
the sense used in the Constitution of the
United States He would not thereby be
come citizen of the United States, and
therefore. could not sue in any Court in the
United States, nor could he enjoy the imn1u-
mites OF a citizen in the other States His
rights would be confined strictly to his own
State The Constitution gives Congress the
power to establish IA uniform rule of natu-
ralization;'' consequently, no State, by nat
uralizing an alien, could confer upon him
the rights and immunities of all the States
under the General Government 1t is very
clear therefore, that no State can, by any
act, introduce a new member into the politi-
question then arises, whether the provisions
Of the Constitution of the United States in
relation to personal rights to which citizen
African race, at that time in the country or
afterwards imported, or made free from any
State; and whether it is in the power Of any
State to make such one citizen OF the
State and endow him with full citizenship
,e%i,o H.
Does the Constitution of the United States
actupon him and clothe him with all the
rights of citizen? The court thinks the
affirmative cannot be maintained; and il not
the plaintiff could not be citizen of Missou-
ri within the meaning of the Constitution,
nor citizen Of the United States, and con-
sequently, not entitled to sue in its Courts.
1t is true that every person, and every class
and description of persons at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution regarded as citi-
zens of the several States became citizens of
this new political body, and none other. 1t
was for them and their posterity, and for no
body else; and all the rights and immunities
were intended to embrace only those ofState
communities, or those who became members
according to the principles on which the Con-
stitution was adopted. 1t was union of
those who were members of the political
communities, whose powers, forcertain speci-
flied purposes, extended over the whole terri
tories of the United States, and gave each
citizen rights outside his State which he did
not before possess, and placed all rights of
persons and property on an equality.
) 1t becomes necessary, therefore, to deter
mine who were citizens of the several States
when the Constitution was adopted. In or
der to do this, we must recur to the colonies
when they separated from Great Britain,
formed new communities, and took their
place among the family of nations. They
who were recognized as citizens of the States
declared their independence of Great Britain,
aud defended it by force of arms. Another
class of persons, who had been imported as
slaves, or their defendants, were not recog-
nized or intended to be included in that me-
morable instrument-the Declaration of In
dependence. 1t is difficult at this day to
realize the state Of public opinion respecting
that unfortunate class, with the civilized and
portion of the world, at the time
Of the Declaration Of Independence and the
adoption of the Constitution; but history
shows they have for more than century been
regarded as beings Of an inferior order, and
unfit associates for the white race, either So
cially or politically, and have no rights which
white men We're bound to respect; and the
black man might be reduced TO slavery, !
bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary
article of merchandise This opinion at that
timo, was fixed and universal with the civil
lied portion of the white race. 1t was re-
garded as an axiom in morals, which no one
thought of disputing, and every one habitual.
ly acted upon it. without doubling for a mo-
ment the Correctness of the opinion. And in
no nation was this opinion more fixed or more
generally acted upon than in England, the
subjects of which Government not only seiz-
ed them on the coast of Africa, but took them
rs ordinary merchandise to where they could
make profit on them. The opinion thus
entertained, was universally impressed on
the colonists this side of the Atlantic; ac-
cordingly, negroes of the African race were
regarded by them as property, and held, and
bought, and sold, as such, in every one of
the thirteen colonies which united in the
Declaration Of Independence, and afterward
formed the Constitution. The doctrine of
which we have spoken was strikingly en-
forced by the Declaration of Independence
It begins thus: