The true Democrat., 1857-03-31
The Dred Scott Case.
Opiuions of Judges M'Lean and Curtis.
 WASHINGTON Saturday March 2


 associate-Justice Mclean proceeded to ex- ,ross his views in the case of Dred Scott
 aa,ainst Sanford After stating the facts rela
 ,Te to the subjecs the plea as to jurisdiction is
 s,d;cally defective. It had never been held
 socessarv that to constitute a citizen a man
 sbonld have the qualification of an elector Fe-
 olas and minors may sue in the federal courts,
 Dad SD may an individual who has his domicil
 ;r tbe State in which he may sue. The most 2 .naral definition of citizen is freeman. The
 7I.o does not show Dred Scott to be slave
 r. Ioes not follow a man is not free whose an
 ,ors were slaves. It was said c0lored citi-
 - arc not agreeable members of society: but
 L; was more matter of taste than of law
 c'roral of the States have admitted such per
 s to the right of suffrage, and recognized
 sVn T"on, as citizens; and this has been done in
 'us Isr. IS well as in free States. On the subject
 '4,;izenship we have not been very fastidous.
 ,r15sr the late treaty with Mexico we have
 oIe citizens of all grades, com binations and
 .Ios The same was done in the cases of
 yan;s;ana and Florida. No one ever donhted
 lor court held, that the inhabitants did not
 hocome citizens under the treaties They have
 become citizens without being naturalized.
 Throughout the continent of Europe, with # ,rt execution, it has been held that slavery can
 onlv exist in territory where it has been estab-
 J.bed and beyond that the master cannot sus-
 taip himself save by some express stipulation. ,# There is no nation in Europe which considers
 ;tsalf hound to return the master his fugitive # slave under the civil law or the law of nations. 8 The slave is held to be free where there is no z treaty obligation, or contract to return him to
 his master In the case of Pngg against the
 S+oto of Pennsvlvania, the state of slavery is
 deemed 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 deci- ded before the American revolution Con-
 press has DO power to interfere with slavery in the States, or to regulate what is commonly V called the slave trade, among the several States. & We know that James Madison-that great and N good man-was particular to regard slaves es- 2 caping from service or labor as "persons," and # not as property. While he (Judge McLean( agreed that this government was not made for q the coored race, yet many of them in the New q England States exercised the right Of suffrage # when the constitution was adopted; and it was 5 not doubted that its tendency would be to ameorate the condition of that race Many of the States took measures 10 abolish slavery; and it is well known fact that the belief was q cherished by leading men, both of the South s and the North, that the institution of slavery would gradually decline, until it should become extinct.
 If, in making the necessary rules and regu- lations respecting the public lands, territorial or temporary government is requisite, Congress has the power to establish it. The power to acquire carries with it the power tc govern.- Congress can exercise no power prohibited by the Constitution, nor has 1t the power to regu- late the internal concerns of State If Con- greSs deem slaves or free persons of color in furious to Territory, it has the power to pro- . hblt them from becoming settlers therein- l Where territorial government has been es- s tabllshed on slave territory, it has uniformly remained in that condition; so when the terri tory was free; and this was attended with sat lstactory results The sovereignty of the fed eral government extends to all territory of the United States. If we have the right to acquire territory, we have the light to govern it: and this has always been exercised. The Constitu- ton was framed for the whole country and the prohibition of slavery north of 36 deg and 30 minus was constitutional. Where there is no local laws establishing slavery, the master can not control the will of the slave by force, and the presumption is in favor of freedom The N, { with him the law of the State from which he removes. Slavery, he repeated, or property in ] human beings, does not arise from the interna- tionaI or common law, but from mere munich pal regulation There was no just ground for . argument that this was exclusively a Missouri question. Dred Scott and his family were free under decisions given within the last twenty eight years. A slave who acquires his freedom by his removal to another State, cannot be re- duced to slavery by his returning to the State from which he migrated. So far from thi, being merely Missouri case it is one which comes under the twenty-ffth section of the judiciary act, and therefore, may be brought fol the revision of this court from the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
 Associate Justice Curtis give his reasons for dissenting from the majority ofthe court. The question Is whether person of African descent can be q citizen of the United States The Constitution uses the language, "citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption" oi that instrument; referring to those who were cltlZeus under the Confederation It may. therefore, be safely said, the citizens of the several States under the Confederation were citizens of the United States under the Cons tltutlon. It Is fact that all the free native born subjects of New Hampshire, Massachu- setts, New York and North Carolina. descended from the African 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 white persons in the adoption of the | Constitution but had the power to act and did act in its adoption. Under the Constitution every free person born on the soil of State and made citizen by force of its Constitution and laws, is a citizen of the United States IIav- Ing stated the ground of his opinion, and eX- piajned the provisions of the Constitution, he sad that every citizen at the time of the adop- ton of that instrument was so recognized and no power was conferred to discriminate between color or deprive any one of his franchise. IL lS not true in point of fact that the Constitution was made exclusively by or for white people. The preamble openly declares that the Consti- tuition was formed in order to secure to the people ot the United States and their posterity the bes- Slng of liberty, and as for the colored citizens in hve ot the States, they were among those for whom the Constitution was ordained and estab- llshed. Color, in the opinion of the framers of the Constitution, was not necessary to conS.i- tute citizenship under the Constitution of the United States; and it might be added that the power to make colored persons citizens has 0~Si dOVOu uPVH III lcllCdGcu lunGdHCco-Ii Cho treaties with the Choctaws, the Cherokees, and that of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in 1848. And he arrived at the following conclusions: l. That the free native born citizens of each State at the formation of the Constitution became citi- zens of the United States. ? That free color ed persons born within some of the States, and citizens of those States, were also ciuzens of the United States. 3. That every such citizen rnsdng in any State, has the right to sue and to be sued ill the federal court of the State in which he resides. 4. As the plea to jurisdic- ton in this case shows no fact except as to African descent, and as this fact Is not inconss- tent with citizenship of the United States the decision of the Circuit Court for Missouri was incorrect. He, therefore, dissented from the opinion of the majority of the Court, that a person oi the African race cannot be citizen Of the United States. He did not believe the opinion of the Court on questions not legiti- mately before i. to be binding He believed