The true Democrat., 1857-03-31

government, which gives Congress the mower " to make all needful rules and reouIations ro. sPectlng the territory or other property of the United States" It applied only to property heId Ill common at the time, and not with re- ference to any property which the sovereignty m'Sht subsequently, acquire. It applied to the territory then in existence and known as the territory of the United States then in the mind o' the iramers of the constitution. It refers to the sale or raising of money. This is diffe ienV rom the power to legslate over the terri torres. With the words to make all need iu. rules and regulations respecting the territo ry' are coupled the words "and oter Dronert,, ot the United States" And the cnncl,id;n1, words render this construction irresistibln.-
 And nothing in the constitution shall be so con- stfued as to prejudice any claims of the United States or 9 any particular State"
 It Is obvious that the Congress, under the new government, regarded the above clause as necessary to carry into effect the prin ciples and provlSlons of the ordinance of 1787. which they regarded as an act of the States in the eAercse "t their political power at the time: ana these representatives of the same States under the new government did not think pro peI 'o depart from any essential principle and done. "''
 ' co ,il0 territory acquired without the li- mus o' the united States, it remains territory uhui admitted into the Union. No power is gwen In the constitution to acquire terrtorv to be held and governed in that character. and consequently, there cannot be found in the con, shtution any definition of power which Con. gress may lawfully exercise before it becomes State The power to acquire territory until It Is Tn condition to become State on an equal footing with the other States must neces- saflly rest on sound discretion and it becomes the outv or the government to administer the laws oi the United States for the protection of personal rights and property therein.
 hatevcr terrltoryls acquired is for the con- mon oeheht oi the people of the United States. winch IS but trustee. At the time that terri tory was obtained from France it contained no population to be admitted as a State. and ii therefore became necessary to hold possession ot It until settled and inhabited by a civilized community, capable of self-government and for admission into the Union But, as we be- lore sad, It was acquired by the federal govern meht as the representative and trustee of the people of the United States and must he held Tor theF common and equal benefit; for it was the acquisition of the people of the United States, acting through their agents, and govern me held It for the common benefit until it should become associated as a member of the Union
 Unul that time arrived it was undoubtedly necessary that some government be established to protect the inhabitants in their person and property The power to acquire carries with It the power to preserve. The form of govern meht necessarily rests on the discretion of Con- gress, It Is their duty to establish the best suited for the United States. and that must depend on the number of its inhabitants, and the character and situation of the triritorv.- W hat government iS the best must depend on the condition of the territory at the time, to be cont'nued until 1t shall become State. But there can never be a mere discretionary power over persons and property. These are plainly dehned by the constitution.
 The constitution provides that "Congress snail make no law respecting an establishment ot religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridgiug the freedom of speech or ot the press; or the right of the people peace ably to assemble, and to petition the govern ment for redress of grievances" etc. Thus the rights of property united with the per sonal rights, and this extends to the territories as we'll as to the States. Congress cannot au- thorze-the territories to do what it cannot do itself; It cannot confer on the territories power to violate the provisions of the constitution
 It seems, however, that there is supposed to be difference between slaves and other pro- perty The people, in the formation of the constItutlon delegated to the general govern meht certain enumerated powers and forbade the exercise of others. l. has DO powers over persons and property of citizens except those enumerated ln the constitution. If the consti- tutioh recognises the right of master and slave and makes no difference between slaves and other property, no tribunal acting under the au- 0 no m ltal distinction and deny the provisions and guaran- tees secured against the oncroachment of the government.
 As We have already said, the right Of proper ty m slave is expressly couferrel in the con sututlon, and guaranteed to every State This Is m language too plain to be misunderstood: ana 10 words can b. found in tn. constitution glVlhS Congress greater power over slaves than over any other description of property.
 1t Is, therefore, the opinion of this court that the act of Congress which prohibits citizens from holding property of this character north Of a certain line is not warranted by the con- sttutIoh, and Is therefore void; and neither Dred Scott nor any one of his family was made free by their residence in Illinois The plain tIf was not citizen of Missouri but was still slave, and therefore hal no right to sue in court of the United States.
 He N"uit Hay llg JhlS examined the case as It stands under the constitution, proceeded to other points, saying as Scott was d slave when he Was brought back tc Missouri from Illinois. he Was under the law of the former and not of the latter It has been settled by the highest tribunals that individual does not acquire hls freedom under such circumstances. As it appears to the court that the plaintiff is not cItzen of Missouri nor citizen of the United States, who could sue in the United States court, this court can give no judgment, and hence the suit must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
 JUSTICE WILSON'S OPINION.
 Associate Justice Nelson stated the grounds on which he had arrived at the conclusion that the argument of the court below must be af- hrmed. Having stated the case substantially, as above, he proceeded to examine it on its merits. The question waS whether the remo- Val of the plaintiff, with h,S family, to Illinois, with a view to a temporary residence and af- ter his return to Missouri, was such residence in a free State as worked emancipation He maintained that 1t did not. Such questions be- longed to the States to decide for themselves. As to whether Missouri will recognize or give effect to the laws of lIIi~,is ou the subject of slavery ls for Missouri herself to determine nor Is there any constitutional power rishtfully to control her. Every State or nation possesses exclusive sovereignty and iurs fiction within herown territory, and her Laws affect and bind all property within her limits. No State or nation can aifec, or bind persons or property outside of her territory
 The question k fully established that it be-