Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-03-25
nprn SCOTT cAsE-DIssENTING OPINIONS
or IIInGES MCLEAN AND CURTIS

npED SCOTT CASE-DISSENTING OPINIONS
OF Judges MCLEAN AND CURTIS.
Associ.te Justice Mclean proceeded to express
h;s views in the case of bred Scott against Sanford
After stating the facts relative to the subject the
ne. "A to jurisdiction is radically defective. had
never been held necessary that to constitute ct'-
.an man should have the qualification Of an cleo,
tor Females and minors may sue in the Ieoe'a'
courts and so may an individual who has ms oom'
ell in the State in which he may sue The most
general definition of q citizen is freeman. Inc
nlea does not show bred Scott to be slave IL
does not follow a man is not free whose ancestors
we're slaves. It was said colored citizens are not
agreeable members Of society; but this was more
matter of taste than of law Several OF the States
have admitted such persons to the right OF suffrage,
and recognised them citizens; and this has been
done in slave as well in free States On the sub
iect of citizenship have not been very astidious
Under the late treaty with Mexico, we have made
citizens of all grades combinations and colors The
same was done in the of Louisiana and Florida.
No one ever doubted, nor court held, that the
inhabitants did not become citizens under the trea
ties. They have become citizens without being
naturalized.
Throughout the continent of Europe, without ex-
cepon it has been held that slavery exist only
in territory where it has been established, and be-
yond that the master cannot sustain himself save oy
some express stipulation. There is no nation IN
Europe which considers itself bound to return the
master
law of nations. The slave is held to be free where
there is no treaty obligation, OR contract to return
him to his master. In the of Prigg against the
State of PENNSYLVANIA the state of slavery is deem
ed to be a mere municipal regulation, founded and
limited to the range Of the State which enacts It.
This was the decision in the case of Somerset, IN
England, which was decided before the American
revolution. Congress has no power to Interfere
with slavery in the States, or to regulate what IS
commonly called the slave trade among the several
States. We know that James Madison-that great
and good man-was particular to regard slaves es.
Gaping from service or labor as 'persons," and not
as 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 cxer-
cised the right of suffrage when the constitution
was adopted; and it was not doubted that its ten
dency would be to amelorate the condition of that
race. Many of the States took measures to abolish
slavery; and it is ellknown fact that the belief
was cherished by leading men, both of the South
and the North that the institution Of slavery would
gradually decline, until it should become extinct
All slavery has its origin against natural right
If in making the necessary rules and regulations
respecting the public lands, territorial or tempo
rary government is requisite, Congress has tie
power to establish it. The power to acquire c,rries
with il the power to govern. Congress can exercise
no power prohibited by the constitution, has it
power to regulate the internal concerns of State
If Congress deem slaves or free persons Of color
Injurious to Territory, it has the power to prohibit
them from becoming settlers therein. Where ter
ritorial government has been established on slave
territory, it has uniformly remained in that cond-
ton; SO when the territory was free; and this was
attended with satisfactory results The sovereignty
of the federal government extends to all territory
of the United States. If We have the right to &C.
quire territory, we have the right to govern it and
this has always been exercised. The constitution
was framed for the whole country, and the prohibit
ton Of slavery north of $3.50 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 Territory, does not car
~ with him the law Of the State from which he re-
moves. Slavery, he repeated, property in human
beings, does not arise from the international or
common law, but from mere municipal regulation.
There was no just ground for the argument that
this was exclusively Missouri question. bred
Scott and his family free under decisions given
within the last twenty-eight years. A slave who
acquires his freedom by his removal to another
State cannot be reduced to slavery by his returning
to the State from which he emigrated. So far from
this being merely Missouri case, it is one which
comes under the twenty fifth section of the Judicial
~ act, and therefore, may be brought for the re-
vision of this court from the supreme court of the
State of Missouri.
Associate Justice Curtis gave his reasons for dis
senting from the majority of the court The ques-
lion is, whether person Of African descent can be
. citizen of the United States. The constitution
uses the language, "ctzen of the United States at
the time of the adoption of that instrument-re-
ferring to those who were citizens under the confed-
Grafton. 1t may, therefore, be safely said, the c-
of the several States under the confederation
were citizens of the United States under the const-
tuition 1t is a fact that all the free native-born
subjects of New Hampshire Massachusetts,, New
York, and North Carolina, descended from the Afri.
can race, were not only citizens but possessed the
franchise of electors on equal terms with other or
white citizens. Those co!ored persons were not
only included with the body of the white persons in
the adoption Of the constitution, but had the power
to and did act in its adoption Under the consttu-
ton every free person born on the soil of State
and made citizen by force of its constitution and
laws is citizen Of the United States Having
stated the ground of his opinion, and explained the
provisions OF the constitution, he said that every
citizen at the time Of the adoption of that instrument
was SO recognised, 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 constitution was made exclusively by and for
white people. The preamble openly declares that
the constitution was formed in order to secure to
the people of the United States and their posterity
the blessing of liberty and as for the coored cti.
zens in five of the States, they were among those
for whom the constitution was ordained and estab
lshed. Color, in the opinion of the trainers of the
constitution was not necessary to constitute citizen
ship under the constitution of the United States
and it might be added that the power to make col.
ored persons citizens has been acted upon in repeated
instances-in the treaties with the Choctaws, the
Cherokees, and that Of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in is4s
And he arrived at the following conclusions
l. That the free natve-born citizens Of each State
at the formation Of the constitution became citizens
of the United States. Q. That free colored persons
born within of the States and citizens Of those
States, also citizens of the United States.
That every such citizen, residing in any State, has
the right to and to be sued in the federal court
of the State in which he resides. 4. As the plea to
jurisdiction in this shows no fact except as to
African descent, and as this fact is not inconsistent
with citizenship of the United States the decision
of the circuit for Micc1 IIo