Weekly hawk-eye and telegraph. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1855-1857, 1857-04-01


press his views in the caas Of Dred Scott
against Sanford. After seating ~ fscts re-
lstivs to the subject, ~ piea 6 % 5urisdic.
ion 10 radically defective. 1thad never been
b ED necessary that b constitute citizen. !
N an shield have the qualification of an cleo
tor Females and minors may sue in the
federal Courts, and % may an Individual who
has his domicil In the State in which be may
sue. The most general de6nitsoa 81 . citixen
il freeman. The pjea dos not show bred
Scott 10 be . slAvs 10 does NOT follow a
man il not free whose ancestors NerselAyes
Il was said colorcd citizens are ~ arrcca-
BILE members Of society; but this was more
III Of the States have admitted such persons
to the right Of suffrage, and recognized them
~ citizens; and this has been done in slave
- well rs in free States. On the subject Of
citizenship we have not been very fastidious.
Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have
made citizens Of all grades, combination and
colors The same was done in tho cases of
Louisiana and Florida. No one ever doubt
ed, nor q Court held, thatthe inhabitants did
not become citizens under the treaties. They
have become citizens without being natura
lized. ss
Throughout the continent Of Europe, with
out exception. It has been held that slavery
can exist only in territory where it has been
established, and beyond that the master can.
not sustain himself save by some express
stipulation. There 10 no nation in Europe
which considers itself bound to return the
master his fugitive slave, under the civil law
or the law Of nations. The slave is held to
be free where there is no treaty, obligation
or contract 10 return him to his master In
the case Of Prigg against the State of Penn
sylvania, the state Of slavery is deemed to be
a mere municipal regulation, founded and
limited to the range of the State which enacts
il. This was the decision in the case of
Somerset, in England, which wasdecided be-
fore the American Revolution. Congress
has no power to interfere with slavery in the
States, or to regulate what is commonly call
ed the slave-trade among the several States.
We know that James Madison--tbat great
and good man--was particular to regard
slaves escaping from service or labor rs "per-
SONS and not rs property. While he Judge
McLean) agreed that this government was
not made for the colored race, yet many of
them in the New England States exercised
the right Of suffrage when the Constitution
was adopted; and it was not doubted that its
tendency would be to ameliorate the condi-
ton of that race. Many Of the States took
measures to abolish slavery and it is well.
known fact that the belief was cherished by.
leading men, both the South and the North,
that the institution Of slavery would gradual
ly decline until it should become extinct
All slavery has its origin against natural
right
Fin making the necessary rules and reg
ulations respecting the pubic lands, terri
torlal or temporary government is requisite,
Congress has the power to establish it. The
power to acquire carries with it the power to
govern. Congress can exercise no power
prohibited by the Constitution, nor has it
power to regulate the internal concerns of
State If Congress deem slaves or free per-
sons of color injurious to a territory, it has
the power to prohibit them from becoming
settlers therein Where territorial govern
ment has been established on slave territory,
it has uniformly remained in that condition
so when the territory was free and this was
attended with satisfactory results The SOW
erignty Of the federal government extends to
all territory Of the United States If we
have the right to acquire territory, we have
tho right to govern it; and this has always
been exercised. The Constitution was fran
ed for the whole country and the prohibition
of slavery north of 49, 80 was constitutional.
Where there is no local law establishing
slavery, the master cannot control the will OF
the slave by force, and the presumption is in
favor of freedom. The master, in going into
n territory, does not carry with him the law
OF the State from which he removes Slave
ry, he repeated-or property in human be
IN ~ avis %Lo Il
or common law, but from mere municipal
regulation. There was nc. just ground for
the argument that this was exclusively
Missouri question. bred Scott and his fam
lily were free under decisions given within
the last twenty-eighty years A slave who ac-
qnires his freedom by his removal to another
State, cannot be reduced to slavery by his
returning to the State from which he emil
grated So far from this being merely
Missouri case, it is one which comes under
the twenty fifth section of the judiciary act,
and therefore may be brought for the revis-
ion OF this court from the Supreme Court Of
the State Of Missouri
Associate Justice Curtis gave his reasons
for dissenting from the majority of the court
The question IS, whether person of African
descent can be citizen Of the United States.
The constitution uses the language, Citizens
OF the United States at the time of the adop-
ton of that instrument; referring to those
who were citizens under the confederation
1t may, therefore, be safely said the citizens
OF the several States under the confederation
were citizens Of the United States under the
constitution. 1t is fact that all the free
native-born subjects Of New Hampshire, Mas
sachusetts, New York and North Carolina,
descended from the African race, were not
only citizens, but possessed the franchise of
electors on eqnal terms with other or white
citizens. Those colOred persons were not
only included with the body of white per-
sons in the adoption of the constitution, but
had the power to and did act in its adoption.
Under the constitution, every free person
born on the soil Of State and made citi-
zen by force of its constitution and laws, is n |
citizen of the United Statas Having stated |
the ground of his opinion, and explained the
provisions of the constitution, he said that
every citizen ut the time of the adoption of |
that instrument was SO recognized and no |
power was conferred to discriminate between
color or deprive any one of his franchise. 1t
is not true in point Of fact that the constitu-
ton was made exclusively by and for white
people. The preamble openly declares that
the constitution was formed in order to Sc
cure to the people the United States and
their posterity the blessings of liberty; and
as for the colored citizens in five of the States,
they were among those for whom the consti-
tuition was ordained and established. Color,
in the opinion of the trainers of the con
stituton, was not necessary to consti.
tute citizenship under the constitution of
the United States; and it might be added
that the power to make colored persons citi
aens has been acted upon in repeated instan-
ces--in the treaties with the Choctaws, the
Cherokess, and that OF Guadalupe Hidalso,
in ls4s. And he arrived at tho following
conclusions:
!. That the free nativeborn citizens of
each State at the formation of the constitu-
ton became citizens of the United States
=, That free colored persons born within
some of the States, and citizens of those
States, were also citizens Of the United States
5. That every such citizen residing in any
State, has the right to sue and to be sued in
the federal court of the State in which he re-
sides. 4. As the plea to jurisdiction in his
case shows no fact except rs to African des-
cent, aud as this fact is not inconsistent with
pitsyNpSbs,, %t>o Jr~ss,1 S%,tas ha f1priSiOD