The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1857-05-27

leading case" of Rachel VS.. Martin, a MIS-.
souri, Rep. $50, June term, 1850 Ia refer
ence 10 il they state that 1t is 'subs,aniialIy
the same in every particular as the Dred Scott
case," Every one who examines the case
cited, will find lhatthe majority err in apply.
ing it's principles 10 the Dred Scott decision.
The facts are not The same, and the principles
involved are by no means identical. In Ra-
chsl vs. Martin, il appears that J. B. w. Stock
ton, an officer in the army of the United
States residing at Fort Smelling, in the Mis-
feouri Territory, wherein slavery was not pro-
hibitsd by the Missouri compromise sent into
slare State, and purchased the slave Rachel.
From The State of Missouri she was taken TO
the military post, aforementioned, and held
there by her master as his "servant." Stock
ton lived 10 free Territory when he bough,
her, and neuer keldher under the local la,os of a
slaUe STATE. "ln this case" say Judge Mo.
Girk, in delivering the opinion OF the Court,
"the officer lived in the Missouri Territory al
the time be, bought the slave, he sent to a
slaveholdipg territory and procured her; this
was his voluntary act, and done without any
other reason than that Of convenience, and he
and those claiming under him must be hold
| en- 10 abide the consequence OF Introducing
slavery both in Missouri territory and Michi-
gan, contrary to law" No one will dispute
the soundness OF these conclusions: but in
the Dred Scott case different state Of facts
oppeaTs on the record. Scott was held by his
master in Missouri, under the local laws of
that State, which recognized the institution. Of
slavery, was removed 10 free Territory where
his master Temporarily resided, and was afer-
wards taken back 10 the slave State OF Mis-
souri,. Stockton, or those who held under
him, could moi rest their claim on the lea loci
OF Missouri, for he was resident of free
territory when Rachel became his property
The principle decided IN The Dred Scott case
did not arise in Rachel u.s. Martin, and like the
point in the Somerset case, has no bearing
upon the question. The Judge, in dec idins
the case, after reviewing The application OF
The ordinance Of 1887 10 the question before
him, remaIked-'In the case Of Lagrang Us.
Msnard The coun will raise other exceptions
than those expressed in the ordinance; the
case OF Lagrang was on, where the owner
lived in illinois and had his slave employed
in Missouri, and the slave made occasional
court declared that this did not work an
emancipation" We, therefore, dismiss this
branch of the subject, and after careful and
elaborate investigation OF the decision of The
unqualified assent 10 the vital principles il
contains and the great doctrines il eDunci-
ales.
Having thus disposed Of the two leading
points in the Dred Scott decision, we might
leave the question without further comment,
were il not for the unwarranlable position as
sumed by the majority of the committee in
the conclusion of their report. Tsey com.
plain upon the questions of the unconstu-
lionol,y Of The Missouri compromise and the
effect Of the removal of Dred Scoltinto free
State where his master hud temporary rosi-
denee, the court travelled beyond the case
before them, and had no jurisdiction and
therefore they argue, that upon these points,
the decision was "extra judicial, corom non
judice, imperative and void" All of the
judges, however, tMcTean and Curtis ex-
ceped) seem 10 have regarded these points
as essentially involved in the case, and even
Judge Mclean, in his dissenting opinion
takes The ground that the plea TO jurisdiction,
that is the one involving citizenship, was not
before the court because the demurrer TO the
plea OF jurisdiction had been sustained in the
court below; and the defendant, iha, is The
master, had pleaded over and justified the
iiespass on The ground that the plaintiff tcas
his sloue. On this plea the case was decided
against the slave ia the court below, and'up-
| on il the writ of error in behalf of Dred Scott
was then prosecuted. Upon this U,e,o of Me
case Judge Mclean proceeds TO argue, as does
Judge Curtis, the very points which the ma
! jority OF the committee complain OF as having
been extra judicially decided.
The fact is apparent that upon The plead
ings in this case, as taken up TO the Supreme
Court of the United States, the naked qnes-
lion of citizenship was not as necessarily in.
volved as were the other parts in regard 10
the slavery Of The plaintiff. AS appears by
the record, the defendant, who was master,
denied BY plea in abatement, this jurisdiction
oil the Circuit Court Of the United States, on
the ground that the plaintiff "s negro ol
African blood, and were brought into this
country and sold as slaves" and, therefore,
the plaintiff "is not citizen OF the State OF
Missouri To this plea the plaintiff demur-
red aud The court sustained the demurrer
Thereupon, the defendant pleaded over and
justified The lrespass, solely on the assump.
tion that the plaintiff, DrsG Scott, and his
family, scers in fact hs negro SLAVES. Upon
these pleading the court went 10 jury, and the
only question before them was the slavery OF
freedom Of the plaintiff. The jury decided
that he and his family fvere slaves, and the
writ Of error then prosecuted was not based
upon the question Of citizenship, or jursdic.
lion of the court, for that had. been decided
in his favor, but upon the instruction 10 She
jury, that his temporary removal with his
master, frs, into free State and next into q
free Territory, did not work his emancipation