New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-28

that the more reguIai O"N CT - oor
tho Indictment of the Court beN". 'u'A !" 80
6rmation of the Judgment below Sei. VI 'ua ca''O1
bed 70 be the only proper course, thur s'uins' -
far a. the ouestion Of jurisdiction was coh ''n.u'
with Curti. and Mclean, while even Gr1er mar .
m with the other four, majority OF the Cour')
went so far as 10 admit that the reco'u '"0"'D "
yrirra fdcie case Of jurisdiction.
M'Iean and Catron held that as there was ho
appeal from the Judgment of the Circuit court ou
the plea in abatement, the question OF JuriSdlcuon
was not before the Court. fancy, Wayne Daniel
and Curtis held per contra, that, as the Courts oi
tbs United States were Of limited jurisdiction, the
question Of Jurisdiction was always III order UFci
Nelson and Campbell we're silent on this point.
Three ,Judses-Taney Wayne and Danel-heId
that. although the Court below had no jurisdiction
and the case must be dismissed on that ground, II
was still competent for the Supreme Court TO give
an opinion on the merits of the case, and on all the
questions therein involved. MLean and Curtis
dissented from this view In their opinion, any
doctrines laid down under such circumstances must
be regarded as extra: judicial. They based their
right of going into the merits on the assumption
that the Court below had jurisdiction, view IN
which they were sustained by Catron and Grier.
Nelson and Campbell as they had avoided any ex'
preston of opinion on the question OF jurisdiction
did the same on this point of judicial proprey; oul
Nelson by combining himself, in his opinion TO the
single point of the revival Of SCOTS condition OF
slavery by his return to Missouri, seemed to concur
in the view of judicial propriety taken by MLean
and Curtis.
Three Judges-Taney, Wayne, and Daniel-hsld
that a negro of African descent was incapable OF
being a citizen of the United States, or even OF
suing as such in Federal Court From this doc
trine NJ Lean aud Curtis expressly dissented' while
Nelson, Grier, Campbell and CatrOn avoided any
expression Of opinion upon it,
fancy. WAYNE, Daniel and Campbell held that
the Constitution conferred no power on Congress
to legisate for the Territories, the power 10 make
all needful rules and regulations being confined
solely to the disposition of the lands as property
and even that authority being limited to the Terri
tories belonging to the United States q. e. the
territory northwest of the Oho) when the
Constitution was made. They, however, seemed
10 admit certain power of legislation in Congress,
based on the fact of acquisition snd growing out
Of the necessity of the case. MLean, Catron and
Curtis held on the other hand, that under the a'|
thority to make needful rules and regulations, az
well as by the necessity of the case, Congress had
a full power of legislation for the Territories, linn
tied only BY the general restraints upOn lts legls-
lative power contained in the Constitution. Nelson
expressed no opinion on this point; nor did Grier
except the implication in favor Of the first view
from his joining in pronOuncng the Missouri pro-
bbition of 1920 unconstitutional though On what
particular around he held i to be so does not
appear.
Taney, Ws3ne and Daniel held that lie Ordi-
nrnce Of l7o7, though good and binding under the
Confederation. expired with the Confederation, and
tha the act of Congress passed to confirm 1T was
void because Congress had no power to legsiate for
the territories M'Lea1, CatrOn and Curtis held,
per ccatra, that she reiDsstment OF the Ordihsnce
of Il z was a yalid exercise of the power of Con
eress while Campbell adm;tsed-and inthis Catron
concurred with him Daniel contra, the others ST.
lent)-that the Ordinance Of 1887, having been
agreed 20 By Virgins became thereby part of the
compact u cteElD-1 lrIIAFh-htIJ OihNibS WI WV
parties, ad wos regarded by the Convention that
famed the Constitution
Eve judges majority of the Court-Taney,
Wayne, Daniel, Campbell and Grier-held that the
Missouri prohibition Of 1890 was unconstitutional
and void while Cation argued that it was void be-
cause it c,n1icted with the French treaty for the
cesson If Louisiana. A'Lean and Curtis beld the
prohibition constitutional and valid. NelGoa silent.
Five Judges-TaBsy, Wayne Daniel, Campbell
and Catron-a majority Of the Court, Aeld that
slaves were property in general sense, as much
90 as cattle, or at least SO recOgn; ri by the
Constitution Of tbs United States; ar as such
might be- carried into territories, nOtw ahstandng
any Congressional prohibition. M'Lean md Curtis
held per contra that slaves recogniz property
only locally and By the laws of partic ar States,
being cut of those States not prOperty, nor even
slaves, except in the single Of fugi yes Grier
and n .lson silent.
II was held by six Jadges-Taney, yfayne, Dan
iel, Cimpbe, CatrOn and Nelson-ttI, whatever
claim to freedom Scott might have bad (if any,
" hich most Of them denied), he lost L by his re-
turn to Missouri. This opinion, g., the part Of
TsLey, Wayne and Daniel bias . solely on the
law of Missouri, recently laid down by the Su-
pr,ne Court of that State. Nelson and Catron.
bs.ed it on what they thought t. .preyailing eur
rcnt OF legal leeissA on the subj.3t' and Campbell
On the fact that no sufficient lomiciI either III.
lave or master appeared either in Illinois Min,
uesota. N teaA and Curtis Le.d, per contra, that
Scott had been made free By lis residence in Hi
NOS and Minnesota, and tina: he rules Of int IA
t.oial Ia respecting the emancipation Of sInves
hV ra.;i.ucp ,s-te a mart uf the Law of Masuur