Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1857-03-13


1903 and in the second the States pledge themselves
one to another to preserve the rights OF the master
and to deliver up slaves escaping TO their respective
territories By the first clause the right to purchase
ond hold this property is directly sanctioned and
tborzed by the persons who framed the constitution,
for twenty years and the States rleged themselves
to uphold the right of the master long The gov
eminent then formed should endure. And this shows
conclusively that another description of persons were
embraced in the other provisions of the constitution
These two clauses We're not intended 10 confer upon
them or their poselty the blessings OF liberty so care
fully conferred upon the whites None OF this class ever
emigraed to the United States voluntarily. They were
all articles of merchandise ne number emanclpa,
ted was few as compared with those who were held
in slavery and not sufficiently numerous 10 attract
uubc attention a separate class and were regard
ed as a part OF the slave population rather than Tree
II cannot b. supposed that the States conferred
citizenship upon them for all those States at that
time established police regulations for the security OF
themselves and families well as of property. In
some minor cases there different modes of trial.
and it could not be supposed that those States would
have formed consented to a government which
abolished this right and took from them the safe
guard essential to their protection. They have
not the right 10 bear arms, AID appear at public
meetings to discuss political questions or urge meas
ures of reform which they might deem advlsa BILE
They cannot vote at elections, nor serve as jurors,
nor appear as witnesses where whites concerned.
These rights are secured in every State TO white
holding States who took large share in the for
nation of the constitution, could be so regardless of
themselves and the safety Of those who trusted and
Conhded in them.
Every law of naturalization confines citizenship to
1yh7c persons. This is marked separation from the
blacks Under the confederation every State had a
right TO decide for itself and the term free inhabl-
tants, the ormality of form, certainly excluded the
African Laws were framed for the latter espe-
cialy Under the constitution the word ctizen' is
Eor ,bohiI far fnrkh
elaboration the point, the Chief Justice said from
the best consideration, have come to the con-
ClusiOn that the African who 10 this
country, whether free or slave, were not in
tended 10 be included in the constitution for
the enjoyment of any personal rights or bene-
fits; and the two provisions which point to them
treat them as property, and make it the duty of the
government 10 protect them such. Hence, the
court is Of opinion, from the facts stated in the plea
in abatement, that bred Scott is not citizen of Mis-
souri,, and is not, therefore, entitled TO sue in the
United States courts.
The following facts appear on the record -" In
the year 1884 the plaintiff was negro slave belong
ing to DIR. Emerson, who surgeon In the army
of the United States. In that year G834) said Dr.
Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri
to the military post of Rock Island, in the State OF
Illinois, and held him there slave until the
month of April, 1886. AT the time last mentioned
said DR.. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said mil
tary post at Rock Island to the military post at For
SneIling situated the west bank of the Mississp
p river in the territory known as Upper Louisiana
acquired by the United States of France, and Situa
ted north of the latitude of SO deg. 30 min. north
and north of the State of Missouri. Said DR.. Emer
son held the plaintiff in slavery at Fort Smelling until
the year 1888.
''ln the wear 1885, Harriet, (who is named in the
second count of the Plaintiffs declaration) the
slave ofMajOr Taliaferro, who belonged the army
of the United States. In that year, (1835,) sale
Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to Fort Smelling
military post situated as herein before stated anC
kept her there a slave until the year 1886, ant
then sold and delivered her slave at Fort Smell
ling unto said DR., Emerson hereinbefore named anC
said DR. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at For
Smelling until the year 1888.
" In the year 1876 the plaintiff and said Harriet
at said Fort Smelling, with the consent of said DIR
Emerson, who then claimed 10 be their master ant
owner intermarried and took each other for HUSBAND
and WIFE Eliza and Lizzie named in the third coun
of the plaintiffs declaration, the fruit of tina
marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years DID, and wa
born on board the steamer Gpsey, north of the nor
line of the State OF Missouri, and upon the Mlssis
sppi river Lizzie is about seven years old, and wa
born in the State of Missouri, at the military pos
called Jefferson Barracks
" In the yer 1888 said Dr. Emerson removed tn
plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Ell
from said Fort Smelling to the State of Missouri
where they have ever since resided
" Before the commencement of this suit said d.
Emerson sold and Jed the plaintiff, said Hal
riet, Eliza and Lizzie to the defendant slaves, an
the defendant claimed to hold each OF them as slaves
I" At the time mentioned in the plaintiffs declare
ton, the defendant, claiming to be owner as afore
said, laid his hands upon said plaintiff Harriet, Ell
"a and Lizzie, and imprisoned them doing, in TIL
respect, however, no more than what he 1mlght law
fully do if they were of right his slaves at such time
The Chief Justice proceeded 10 examine the stat
men assuming that this part OF the controversy PR
scented two questions:
Firstly Was he (Scott) and all his family free
Missouri and
Secondly. If not, were they free by reason Of the
removal 70 Rock Island, Illinois.
The act of Congress which the plaintiff re
contains the clause that slavery and involuntary Sc
vitude, except for crime, shall be forever prohibte
in that part of the territory acquired by treaty fro
Louisiana, and not included within the limits of II
State of louisiana The difficulty which meets
at the Threshold is, whether Congress is authorize
to pass such law under the powers granted to II
tie constitution The plaintiff dwelIs much on tt
clause which gives Congress power to make needt
rules and regulations respecting the territory or OF
er property of the United States" But this provi
aon has no bearing on the present controversy. ii
power there giv-n is confined to the territory Whlt
then belonged to the United States, and can have
influence on territory which was acquired from TO
eign governments The Justice then referred to Il
cessons of land by Virginia and other States, saylr
the only object to put end to existing contr
versies, and TO enable Congress 10 dispose of tt
lends for the common benefit. Undoubtedly Il
power of sovereignty and eminent domain was cedt
in the act This was proper to make it essential
There then no government in existence wi
enumerated powers. What was called the Stat
were thirteen independent colonies which enter
into confederation for mutual protection. 1t was Ii
tie more than congress of ambassadors, in wbi(
all had common conceIn. 1t was this COngre
which accepted the cession from Virginia. The
had right do so under the articles of the COZ
federation, but they had right as independent po'
ers to accept the land for the common benefit; al