The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-01-01
THE FREEDOM CASE IN THE SUPREME
COURT.

| CUUhI.
To the Editors of the National bateAigsncer:
GENTLEMEN: From an imperfect knowledge
of the circumstances attending the suit for
freedom before the Supreme Court, prosecuted
by bred Scott, Ia negro,) several correspond
ents of the New York press have made sug'
gestions tending to mislead public opinion:
| One intimates that the suit was contriyed
case to operate on the late Presidential election,
by bringing under the review and Judgment OF
the Supreme Court the questions which have
| so stirred the public mind since the repeal OF
the Missouri Compromise. Another surmises
| that selfish motives influenced certain dlstin-
| guished members of the bar in declining the
request to lend me their assistance In behalf of
my clients cause; and third seems to sus
pect my own in regard to conducting it,alone.
| AS the peculiar attitude of political affairs at
| this moment gives much interest to the case,
1 will be pardoned for giving brief narrative
of it, aud especially as the simplest statement
of the facts will vindicate the gentlemen whose
motives have been impugned for unwilingness
| to appear in the cause, and at the same time
vindicate the cause itself from the imputation
of having been brought to subserye a party
purpose.
| This case is suit for the freedom of the
| plaintiff, bred Scott, and of his wife and two
children. In 1884, bred Scott was taken by
his former master, DR.. Emerson, a surgeon in
the army, to reside at the military post at Rock
Island in the State of Illinois, and afterwards,
in 1886, to reside at Fort Smelling, on the other
side of the Mississippi river, in that part Of Lou
isisna Territory north of $50 30/. Harriet was
taken to Fort Smelling in 1885, and was there
married to bred. Their eldest child, Eliza, was
born north of $50 3O/, on boat, whilst descend
Al. Il.
Lizzie was born at Jefferson Barracks, after
they were taken to Missouri, in 1885, The suit
was first brought by the administrators of DIR.
Emerson in the Circnit Court of st. Louis CO.,
in the State of Missouri, and that Court, follow
ing the uniform decisions on such facts of the
courts of Missouri ever since it was an organ.
lied Territory, gave Judgment for the plaintiff.
An appeal was, however, prosecuted, and q
majority Of the Supreme Court of the State, at
the March term of 1852, reversed the Judgment
of the Circuit Court, because I" the times, now
are not as they were when the former decisions
on this subject were made. Since then, not
only individuals, but States, have been possess
ed with dark and fell spirit in relation to Sla-
very, whose qualification is sought in the persuit
of measures whose inevitable consequence must
be the overthrow and destruction of our Govern
ment. Under such circumstances, it does not
countenance to any measures which might
countenance this spirit"
When the case was remanded, under this
opinion, the plaintiffs attorney dismissed the
suit in the State court, and Major Sanford a
citizen of New York, having in the mean time
purchased bred and his family, an action for
trespass for false imprisonment was brought
against Sanford in the Circuit Court Of the Uni
ted States on the I'd of November, 1858, by
bred Scott, as a citizen " Of Missouri. The
defendant denied the Jurisdiction of the court,
on the ground that bred was q negro, and there
fore not a Citizen" But the Circuit Court
held that he was o citizen, if free, within the
meaning of that section of the Constitution
which provides for the maintenance of suits in
courts of the United States between citizens of
different States The defendant then denied
that bred and his family were free, and on the
18th of May, 1854, the court decided that they
were slaves, because the Supreme Court Of the
State had so decided on the same facts. From
this judgment, bred appealed to the Supreme
Court of the United States, to the December
torn of 1854
was in California when the record of this
case was filed in the Supreme Court. The
efforts made to obtain counsel for the plaintiff
prior to my return had not met with success.
On my return, l received letter from Mr..
souri,, and one who never, during the fifteen
years have known him, manifested any inter
est in politics. requesting me to present the
case to the court.
In Missouri, and generally, believe, in the
Southern States, almost every lawyerfeels bound
to give his services, when asked in such IA case
arising in the community to which he belongs.
Having risen at that bar, considering myself
still citizen of MissOSSi, although for the pres
ent pursuing my profession at the seat of Gov
ernment,) / did not hesitate to become the
counsel for the plaintiff here, as | should have
done there.
AS / perceived that the cause involved impor-
tant issues, which might possibly be engulphed
in the great political controversy then Just
emerging in relation to the power of Congress
over the territory of the United States, felt it
my duty to seek assistance, especially as when
/ found arrayed against me the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. Geyer) and the late Attorney
General, Mr.. Johnson,) among the first men
of the profession, of the East and the West.
sought to obtain the support of one of the ablest
men at the bar in the South, and he had almost
consented to yield it. His inclination was sur
rendered, not, | well know, from the selfish
motive given in the press. l then applied to
leading members of the profession in the North,
and with the same result. The mercenary
motive imputed for the reluctance shown to
engage in it il equally unjust to all. The truth
while some gave it up because their previous
engagements interrupted, and others because
the late application did not give time to make
preparation, all perceived that, from the nature
of the case, it must assume aspect more or
less affecting the party struggles impending,
and were unwilling, on all accounts, to add to
this embarrassment of the cause or that of the
party with which they stood connected, by i'm
plicating either themselves or it by their action
in the result While do myself deprecate the
state of things which brings political and
partisan influence to act upon the public mind
in connection with this case, and while willing
to avoid it as much as possible, yet felt it was
my duty tc call to its support all the aid l could
command. When first opened the case, there
fore, announced to the court the regret felt
in not having prevailed in getting an associate
in the cause, and | repeated the expression Of
my solicitude on opening the Feargument at
the present term; and | am happy to acknowl
edge its good effect in enlising the great ability
and learning of Mr.. Curtis, of Boston, to main
tain the constitntionality Of the power exerted
by Congress, on which the freedom Of my client
depends. l am, with great respect, your ODE
dent servant, M. BLAIR.
ANNUAL MESSAGE OF THE GOVERNOR OF
MISSISSIPPI.
The annual message of Governor McRae, of
Mississippi, was transmitted to the Legislature
Of that Sfata on ba Lot; Tho Narr n.