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


al authority Of that Court. Yet ii will still
survive, and be proudly looked u pom as The
guardian of the peoples rights, long after its
assailants have passed irlo oblivion. Afar
tive pHrmurs of reckless demagogues, and
unseduceG by The Establishments Of place or
power, tina, fearless ard independent judici.
ary, which has always been the glory Of our
free aud happy country, will still continue
10 perform its acknowledged constitutional
functions and enuncia,s those great princi.
pies Of government upon which our nation.
al fabric was founded.
Ii is not our purpose, in thus expressing our
views and opinions, 10 attempt a vindicatiou
of the Supreme Court of The United States,
or its decision. We feel satisfied that time
will prove the soundness of the latter, as well
as the wisdom oi It's authors. Believing,
however, that the majority report does not
present the case which originated this dis
cussion in fair and proper light, it BECOMES
our earnest duty TO examine, as briefly as
possible, the important question introduced
into this body by the resolutions now under
consideration.
What are the facts in this cases The rec.
ord shows the following "Dr Emmerson,
surgeon IN The army Of the United States,
while stationed al Jefferson barracks in the
year 1884, held negro slave, named Dred
Scott, under the laws of Missouri. In that
year, Emmerson took Scott from Missouri 10
the military post at Rock Island, ir the free
State of Illinois, and held him there as
slave ill 1886. AT the time last mentioned,
Scott was removed by his master 10 the mil.
itary post at Fort Smelling, in the Territory
of Minnesota, situated on The west bank of
the Mississippi river, IN the Territory known
as the Upper Louisiana, acquired by the
United States from France In The year 1885,
Major Taliafetro, of the United States army,
took female slave, named Hauiet, TO Fort
Smelling, the military post before mentioned:
and sold her 10 Or. Fmmerson, and in the
following year she married The said Scott
with the consent and appreciation of his
were The fruits of that marrage-lhe one
born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north
of the north line of the State Of Missouri, on
the Mississippi river, and the other al Jeffer.
son barracks, in Missouri. In 1898, DR.. EN-
merson removed Scott and his wife and
daughter, from Fort Smelling, back 10 the
Stale of Missouri where they have since re.
sided, and where their second child, Lizzie,
was born Before The commencement OF
this suit, Dr.. Emmerson sold and conveyed
tho said Dred Scott and his family, TO Mr.. J..
F. A. Sanford, as slaves, under the local law
oil Missouri, who subsequently, left that State
and took up his residence in New York. The
record, also, shows that at certain times MT.
Sanford, claiming 10 be the owner OF said
Scott and his family, laid hls hands upon the
latter and imprisoned them, dong in this re-
spect, however. 10 more than what he might
lawfully do If they were Of righ, his slaves"
After Sanford's removal to New York,
Scott instituted suit against him in ST. Lon
is county, Missouri, in the Circuit Court Of
the United States, under the judiciary act Of
1889, in the form of an action al common
law, for trespass VI et armis and false imprs-
onment. The Court decided the suit against
The plaintiff, and on an appeal the case was
taken 10 the Supreme Court of the United
States. Alter an able and elaborate arsu-
meni on both sides, The opinion of the Court,
tha
by Chief Justice Taney, and concurred in
by five of his olleagues-namely: Justices
Wayne, Calron, Grier, Daniel and Campbell.
1t is source OF much regret that We have
net before US an authorized copy of the oPin-
ion, and in ls absence we are compelled 10
take The report as it appeared in the daily
journals. Upon an examination of that de-
cision we discover two leading points, viz:
First. That negroes, whether slaves or
free-lhat is, men of the African race-are
not citizens of the United States within the
meaning Of the second section OF the fourth
article of the Constitution.
Second That the legal condition OF a
slave is not affected by his temporary sojourn
in any other State in this confederacy; but
on his return, into a slave State, his former
condition Of slavery, to all inlents and pur-
poses, re.atlaohes 10 him.
/. The first point decided is one OF vast
importance to the people of this Union, and
cannot fail 10 exert a powerful influence
throughout the United States. In The major-
ily report we find this proposition stigmalized
as "novel and startling" and "contrary 10 all
past history and judicial precedent" This
assumption We hold 10 be entirely unfounded,
and assert that our "past history" establishes
just the reverse. In sustaining this position
the Chief Justice argues the question in the
following manner:
"They who framed the Declaration OF In
dependence were men Of too much honor,
education and intelligence 10 say what they
did not believe; and they knew that IN no
part Of the civilized world were the negro
race, by common consent, admitted 10 the
rights Of freemen. They spoke and acted
according 10 the practices, doctrines and
r. Il