The Washington union., 1857-05-27

But in this case it dos eear that the plaintiff was born
slave and If the facts upon which he relics have not
made him Free then it appears aatiyely the record
that he is not citizen and consequently his suit against
sandford was not suit between citizens of different
States and the court had authority TO pass any judg
ment between the parties The suit ought in this view
Of it, to have been dismissed by the circuit court and its
Judgment in favor of Sandford is erroneous and must be
reversed.
1t is true that the result either way by dismissal by
Judgment for the defendant makes very little any,
difference In "a pecuniaTy personal point of view to
either party But the fact that the result would be very
nearly the to the parties in either form of judgment
would not justify this court in snctoning error in the
Judgment which is patent on the record and which il
sanctioned, might be drawn into precedent, and lead TO
serious mischief and injustice in some future suit,
We proceed therefore, TO inquire whether the facts
lied ON by the plaintiff entitled him to his freedom
The case he himself states it, the record brought
here by his writ Of error, is this
The plaintiff negro slave, belonging to DIR. EN-
erson, who was surgeon in the army of the United
States In the year 1884 he took the plaintiff from the
State of Missouri TO the military post at Rock Island in
the State of Illinois, and held him there slave until
the month of April May, 1886 AT the time last
toned said DR. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said
military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort
Smelling, situate the west bank of the Mississippi
river, in the territory known Upper Louisiana,
qued by the United States Of France and situate north
of the latitude of hrysx degrees thirty minutes north
and north of the State of Missouri Said DIR. Emerson
held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Smelling from
said aforementioned date until the year 1888.
In the year 1885 Harriet who Is named in the second
count Of the plaintiff declaration, the negro slave
of Major Talaferro who belonged to the army of the
United States. In that year. 1885, said Major Taafeo
took said Harriet to said Fort Smelling military post
situated hereinbefore stated and kept her there
slave until the year 1886 and then sold and delivered
her slave at said Fort Smelling unto the said DR.
Emerson herenbefore named. Said DIR. Emerson held
said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Smelling until the
year 1888.
In the year 1886 the plaintiff and Harriet ntermarred
of DIR NyhO
then claimed to be their master and owner Eliza and
Lizzie named in the third count OF the plaintiff declar
ton the fruit of that marriage Eliza is about four
teen years old, and born board the steamboat
Gpsey north of thenorth line of the State of Missouri
and upon the river Mississippi Lizzie is about seven
years old and born in the State of Missouri at the
military post called Jefferson Barracks
In the year 1888 said DR. Emerson removed the plain
tiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza from
said Fort Smelling to the State of Missouri where they
have since resided.
Before the commencement of this suit said DR. Emer-
sold and conveyed the plaintiff, and Harriet Eliza,
and Lizzie to the defendant slaves and the defendant
has since claimed to hold them and each Of them
slaves
In considering this part of the controversy ques
tions arise l. Was he, together with his family free in
Missouri by of the stay in the territory of the Uni
ted States hereinbeore mentoned2 And q If they
not is Scott himself free by of his removal to Rock
Island in the State of Illinois, stated in the above ad
missions
We proceed to examine the first question.
The act of Congress upon which the plaintiff relies de-
clares that slavery and involuntary seitude except
punishment for crime shall be forever prohibited in all
that part of the territory ceded by France, under the
Of louisiana which lies north of hiry-sx degrees
thirty minutes north latitude and not included within the
limits of Missouri And the difficulty which meets us at
the threshold of this part Of the inquiry s whether Con-
gress authorized to pass this law under of the
powers granted to it by the constitution for if the
thorty is not given by that instrument it is the duty of
this court to declare void and imperative and ncapa
O NhO il ~ "A
slave under the laws of any one of the States.
The counsel for the plaintiff has laid much stress upon
that article in the constitution which concrs Congress
the power to dispose OF and make all needfu rules and
regulations respecting the territory other property be-
longing to the United States Z; but in the Judgment Of
the court that provision has no bearing on the present
controversy and the power there given whatever it may
be, is confined and intended to be confined to the
territory which at that time belonged to- claimed
by the United States and within their boundaries
settled by the treaty with Great Britain and have
influence upon territory afterwards acquired from for
egn government II was special provision for known
and particular territory and to meet present emergen
cy, and nothing more.
brief summary of the history of the times as we'll as
the careful and measured terms in which the article
framed will show the correctness of this proposition
II will be remembered that from the commencement
of the revolutionary serious difficulties existed be-
tween the States in relation TO the disposition of large and
unsettled territories which included in the charter
ed limits of of the States and of the other
States and especially Maryland which had no un-
settled lands insisted that the unoccuped lands If
wrested from Great Britain would their preservation
to the purse and the sword the money
arising from them ought to be applied in just proportion
among the several States to pay the expenses OF the war;
and ought not to be appropriated TO the of the State
in whose chartered limits they might happen to lie to the
exclusion of the other States, by whose combined efforts
and common expense the territy defended and pre-
served against the claim of the British government
These difficulties caused npen uneasness during the
war; while the issue IN degree doubtful and the
future boundaries Of the United States yet to be defined
by treaty il we achieved our independence.
The majority of the Congress of the Confederation OBJ
viousy concurred in opinion with the State of Maryland
and desired to obtain from the States which claimed 1t
cession Of this territory in order that Congress might
raise money on this security to carry the This
appears by the resolution passed the 9th Of SepteL
ber $780, strongly urging the States to cee these lands
to the United States both for the sake Of peace and
union among themselves and to maintain the public
credit and this followed by the resolution of octo
Der TO- 1880, by which Congress pledged itself that if
the lands ceed recommended by the resolution
above mentioned they should he disposed Of for the
benefit Of the United States, and be settled and
formed into distinct republican States which should be-
members of the federal Union and have the same
other States.
But these difficulties became much more serious after
peace took place. and the boundaries of the United States
established Every State that time felt severely
the pressure of its debt but in Virginia. and some
other States, there large territories of unsettled
lands the sale of which would enable them discharge
their obligations without much inconvenience while
other States, which had such resource saw before
them many of heavy and .bIrensorne fayation