The Tiffin tribune. [volume] (Tiffin, Ohio) 1848-1859, 1857-03-13

ITho pred scott Case---ne cision cf u
Supreme Court.
This all-impoftant case was decide,
on March 5,h Chief Justice fancy de-
! livering the law as follows,
AFRICANS Eor orruENs
. First, That negroes, whether slaves OF
free, that is, men of the African race
are not citizens Of the United States by
, the Constitution.
oaDrHANoE OF 1897 NULL AND vorD
Second, That the ordinance Of 1872
had no independent constitutional force
OF legal effect subsequently, to the adop
ton Of The Constitution, and could not
loperate Of itself to confer freedom or
citizenship within the north-west Terri.
tory, or negroes not citizens by the Con.
stitution.
MISSOURI COMPROMISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Third, That the provision Of the act
lof 1890, commonly called the Missouri
Compromise, is unconstitutional, so Gar
as il undertook TO exclude negro slavery
from, and confer freedom and citizenship
upon negroes in the northern part Of the
country. The louisiana cession was
Legislative act, excluding tho powers Of
Congress, and is void and Of no legal
effect to that end.
NO POWER IN CONGRESS on THE TERRIFIC.
RIAL GOVERNMENT TO EXCLUDE SLAVE
Rv.
In deciding these main points the Su-
preme Court determines the following
Incidental points.
First, The expression "territory and
other property Of the Union" in the
Constitution, applies ia terms only to
such territory as the Union possessed at
he time Of the adoption Of the Consti.
tuition.
Second, The rights cf citizens Of the
United States emigrating to any federal
Territory aud The power Of the Federal
Government there to defend them is do.
ermined by the general provisions Of the
Constitution which de6ues in this. as in
all other respects, the powers of Con-
gress.
Third, As Congress does not possess
power within itself to make enaclments
relative to the person or property Of cit
liens Of the Uated States in a federal
territory other than such as the Consti-
tuition confsrs. so it cannot Constitution
ally delegate any such powers to terri
torial government, organized by thunder
the Constitution.
SLAVERY LAWFUL IN the FREE STATES.
Fourth, The legal condition Of slave.
in the State of Missouri. is not affected
by a temporary sojourn of such slave in
any other Stare, but on his return his
condition still depends on the laws Of
Missouri. AS the plaintiff was not a eli
izen of Missouri AS the plaintiff was
nota citizen Of Missouri, and, therefore,
could not sue in the Courts Of the United
States, the suit must be dismissed for
want Of Jurisdiction.
MISSOURI LAW GOVERNS IN ILLINOIS AND
OTHER FREE STATES.
Justice Nelson stated the merits Of the
case, the question being whether or not
the removal Of Scott from Missouri.
with his master to Illinois, with a view of
temporary residence, worked his eman-
oipation. He maintained that the ques-
ton depended wholly on the law of Mis-
souri,, and for that reason the judgement
Of the court below should be affirmed.
SLAVE PROPERTY AS SACRED IN ALL THE
STATES AND TERRITORIES As PROPERTY
IN HORSES
Justice Catron believed the Supreme
Court has Jurisdiction to decide the mer-
its Of the case. He argued that Con-
gress could not do directly what it could
not indirectly. If it could exclude one
species Of Of property, it could another.
With regard to the territories no deci-
ded Congress could govern them only
with the restriction of the States. The
new act Of 1890 violated the leading fea-
lures of the Constitution, and was there
fore, void. Ho conceded with his BROTH
er Judge that Scott is a slave, and was
50 when the suit was brought.
JUDGE MCLEAN DissENTs
Washington, March 7.
In the U. St. Supreme Court this
morning, Justice Mclean delivered his
views, arguing that slavery is limited to
the range of States when established by
mere municipal law. If Congress d ,em
slaves or free colored persons Injurious to
the territory, they have the power to
prohibit them from becoming settlers
therein The power to acquire terrific
ry brings with it 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 Nilsson
ri Compromise is constitutional and the
presumption is in favor of the freedom Of
Dred Scott and his family who were free,
under decisions for the last twenty eight
years.
W. nrn ~ thnriuod ii .,.....,.., ~