Kanawha Valley star. [volume] (Charleston, Va. [W. Va.]) 1856-1861, 1857-03-17
Decision Of The supreme Cssft In tn
J. bred Sestt case.

| Decision Of The supreme Cssft in inc
J. bred Stslt case.
WAsHrNorox, March 8.-The de.
cision Of the Supreme Court in the
bred Scott case was delivered to-day
by Chief Justice fancy.
Il was full and elaborate state
ment of the views CT the Court.
They have decided the following
all-important points: IL
! Fret: That negroes, whether
lslaves or free, that is, men Yof Afrl-
can blood, are not citizens OF the
United States by the Constitution.
Second: That the Ordiance OF IL.
/ Al had no independent constitutional
force or legal effect, subsequently, to
the adoption Of the Constitution, and
could not operate Of its self, to confer
freedom or citizenship within the
/ North. western Territory, upon ne
|groes, not citizens by the Constitu-
ftiOn. r. - =,
Third: That the provision Of the
act of 1850, commonly called the
Missouri Compromise, 10 30 far as It
undertook to seclude negro slavery
from, and communicate freedom and
citizenship to.Begroes iu ttenorthern
Dart Of Louisiana, was : legislative
act, exceeding the powers Of Con-
a,as. and consequently void, and of
no legal effect to that end in deciding
these main points. r. :
! The Supreme Court has determined
the following incidental points.
First-Tliat the expression Terri
tory and other properly" ofthe Union,
in the Constitution, is to be under.
stood Of such territory as the Union
possessed ct the time Of the adoption
Of the Constitution. -,
Second-That the rights Of citizens
T in the United States, emigrating to
any Federal Territory, depend on the
general provision Of the Constitution,
which defines in this, as in all other
respects, lthe power of Congress.
fhird-As7 Congress does not pos
sess powerlin itself to make enact
ments relative topersons or property
Of citizens Of the United States, in the
Federal territory, other than such as
1.-THE Constitutional confers. So it
cannot constitutionally delegate any
such powers to q territorial govern
ment, organized by it under the Con
stitution. :. -. L ...,
Fourth-That the legal condition
Of slave in the State Of Missouri is
not effected by atemporary sojourn
Of such slave in any other State. but
on his return, his condition still de.
pends npon the laws Of Missouri. As
the plaintiff was not citizen Of Mis-
souri, and therefore. could not sue in
| the Courts of the United States, the
enc .mnst be dismissed. for want OF
Jurisdiction. l. D..
The delivery Of this opinion oecu-
pied about three hours. 1t was lis
tened 10 with profound attention by q
crowded courtroom. Amongt the au-
ditors Were many gentlemen Of legal
ability, and . due proportion of Ia.
dies. ~.
Justice Nelson stated the merits Of
the case The question being, whether
or not the removal OF Scott from Mis-.
souri with his master to Illinois, with
a view to temporary residence,
worked his emancipation He main
tanned that the question depended
solely on the laws Of Missouri, and
for that reasonsthe Judgment of the
Court should be affirmed. 81
Justice Catrou believed that the
Supreme Cont has jurisdiction to de.
eide the merits of the case. He ar
gued that Congress could not do di.
rectly what it could not do indirectly
If it could exclude one species Of pro,
perry it could another. ~ 4
With+regard to territories, he deci-
ded that Congress could govern them
only with the restriction of the State
which ended them and, as the Mis-
souri, Act OF 1926 violated the leading
features of the Constitution, it was,
therefore, void. He lconcurred with
his brother Judges, that Scott is
slave. and was 90 when suit swae
brought.
Several other Judges are to deliver
theft views Tomorrow. n ~.