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

Bell, 2 Howard, 397. It is intended TO es-
tablish, by these authorities, that The same
tribunal which decraed the Dred Scott ease
against The citizenship of the negro, admit.
led the point in permitting him TO be plain.
,if in the cases cited. This conclusion is
not warranted by the premises, and is found.
ed on an erroneous impression OF the powers
and jurisdiction OF the Court in which the
errors, complained Of, originated. These
cases were not taken from any United States
court existing within the limits of any ofthe
sovere ign States OF this corfederacy, but
arose in United States court, holden ia and
for the District OF Columbia, in The county
of Washington. The courts of the United
States, within the limits ofthe several States,
arc courts Of limited jurisdiction. With
some exceptions. not material TO the ques-
ton, in order, to sustain an action in these
tribunals, il is necessary that the plaintiff
should be citizen Of different State from
the one in which the action is brought II
he be not citizer Of different Slate, the
State courts have jurisdiction; for the respec.
i've States have the general powers of soy.
ereignty within their own limits. But the
Uniled States courts, when sitting within the
District of Cou nba, OF within any of the
Territories, are courts of unlimited jurisdic.
tion. No State sovereignty exists there 10
interfere with their jurisdiction. Such Uni.
led States conrls have, therefore, all the pow
,rs OF the State cours and the Uriled States
courts combined, subject only 10 the inhereH,
powers granted 10 them by The act of Con.
gress which created them. II follows, thai
1, is not necessary, in any United States court.
either within The District OF Coumbis, or
within any Territory, for the plaintiff either
10 aver, or prove, tha, he is citizen Of any
State, or of the United States. He may main.
tain his action in such courts withou: being
a citizen. A nego may, therefore, maintain
a suit in the United States court for the Dis
iric, of Columbia. No question Of citizen
chip can arise TO defeat the jurisdiction. The
cases cited in the majority report, where ne
groes have been permitted 10 maintain &C
tions at law, are all from the District OF Co.
lumbia. They have, therefore, no applica'
iion, whatever, 10 the question. They utter
ly fail TO prove the doctrine for which they
are cited. No one, having proper ucquainI.
ance with the constitution of our National
and State governmeus. would present them
for the purpose of proving hat negro is
citizen Of the United States, compeen, 10
maintain an action in q courl where such
citizenship was necessary 10 give jurisdic-
sion.
After careful examination Of the whole
subject, we are forced 10 conclude, that a
negro, free or slave, is not a citizen of the
United States within the Intent aud meaning
of the cd section of The oh article OF the
constitution. Guided by the "pasl history"
of our government and enlightened by the
'judicial precedens" enumerated, The minor
ity of our commiuee clearly recognize The
wisdom and sound policy Of tho recen, de-
cision of the United States Supreme Court in
reference 10 The first point raised in this is
sue.
Q The second question decided by the
Cour,, is suscep,iole OF just as clear and
logical demonstration. II il necessary for us
al this time, TO enter info any examination
Of The rise aud progress of negro slavery in
the United Safes. How ii came here, or
what is its moral or political influence upon
society, are matters with which we have
nothing 10 do. That il exists i1 fifteen States
in this Union, is an indisputabIe fact, and
that The right of properly in a slave is recog-
nized by he Constitution and guaranteed to
every State: is jusl.as positively settled and
established. "Ths," says Chief Justice Ia.
ney, "is in language too PLAIN 10 be misun-
derslood"
In taking historical view Of This question,
we find that in England, this particular point
engaged TIE attention OF The courts as far
back as he'year l749. At lha, period Lord
Chancellor Hariwicke, sitting IN u high court
of ohancery, held, that ga slave coming from
the West Indies, either with or without his
master, 10 Great Britain, doth not become
free, and lha: his masters property or right
in him, is no, thereby determined or varied"
The next case adjudged in the English courts,
was the celebrated Somerset case, in which
Lord Mansfield delivered the famous opinion
that has couneeled his name inseparably with
,ba, important trial. The facts in this causes
which may be found al length in 20 Howell
Stale Trials, l-sO, are by no means the
same which occur in the Dred Scott issue
Somerset, negro save, raised in Virginia,
was taken by his master 10 England, and
while in London, where black slavery did
not exist, on a writ of habeas corpus, was set
a, liberty by Lord Mansfield. tHis Lord
ship" says an intelligent writer upon this
subject, discharged hm IN England unde I
the local law of that country. As 10 whether
Somerset would have been entitled 10 his
discharge il he bad Eot been taken from
England into slave territory, was not before
the court. He did not pretend to decide
whether slavery, under such circumstances,
wonld have re-altached, because that ques-
iion could not be raised upon the facts."-
Again, we fiud this point reviewed in the
case ofthe slave Grace, before the High Ad.
mirality Court Of England, and with Lord
Slowel on the bench, reported in Hazards
British Admiralty Reps. The facts were