The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1857-03-11
THE DAILY DISPATCH.
"Wednesday Morning, March II, ISa,
IHs DRIED SCOTT CASE.
The Important Decision Of tho u. 4. su-
preme Conrt.


of Missouri juris fiction In the casea and II 1t had
jurisdiction, was its decision erroneous or not'
| The defendan, denied, by plea In abatement
the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United
States on the ground that the plaintiff "ls resro
of African descent his ancestors ere of pure Az
rican blooi aud were brought into this country
and soli as slaves and therefore the plaintiff 'is
rot a citizen of The State of Missouri" To this
slea the plaintiff demurred, and the Court sus-
tanned the demurrer Thereupon the defendant
plead over, aud justified the trespass on the ground
that the plaintiff and his family were bis negro
slaves; and statement of facts agreed TO by both
| parties, was read in evidence.
The Chief Justice having stated the facts in the
case proceeded to say In substance that the ques.
| ton first TO be decided was whether the plaintiff
was entitled 10 sue in Court Of the United States
This was peculiar question and for the first time
brought before the Court under such circumstances
but II had been brought here, and 1t was the duty
Of the Court to meet and to decide it. The question
was simply this-can negro, whose s,ors
were imported aud sold as slaves become q MEM
! Der of the political community formed and brought
| into existence by the constitution of the United
States and such become entitled to all the rights
and immunities of a citizen one of which rights
ID suing in the courts of the United States In cases
| therein spesifedi In discussing this question we
| must not confound the rights of q citizen which
| State may confer within its own limits with the
rights of citizen within the limits of the United
| States No one can be a citizen of the United
States unless under the provisions of the consti,u.
ton; but it does not follow that q man, being a cit.
izen OF one State, must be recognized as such BY
every State in the Union. He may be a citizen In
| one State and not recognized as such In another
Previous to the adoption of the constitution eyery
State might confer the character of citizen and
endow a man with all the rights pertaining to it
This was confined to the boundaries of State and
| gave him no right beyond its limits Nor have the
several States surrendered this power by the adop
| ton of the constitution
Every State may confer the right upon an alien
or on any other class or descriptions of persons
who would to all inten,s and purposes, be citizen
of the State, but not citizen in the sense sed in
the constitution of the United States. He would
not thereby become citizen of the United States
| and therefore could not in any court in the
| United States sor could he enjoy the immunities
| Of citizen in the other States His rights would
be eonhued strictly to his own State. The cons.is
| tuition gives Congress the power 10 establish -
uniform rule of naturalization :" consequently no
State, by nataraiizirg an alien, could confer upon
| him the rights and immunities of all the States
| under the general government. 1t is very clear,
therefore, that no State can, by any act introduce
| new member into the political union created by
he constitution The question then arises whether
| the provisions of the constitution of the United
| States in relation to personal rights, TO which
citizen of State is entitled embrac ced negroes of
the African race, at that time iu the country, or
afterwards imported, or made free from any STATE;
| and whether it is IN the power Of any State to
| make such one a citizen of the State and endow
| him with full citizenship in any other State with
out their consents Does the constitution of the
| United States act upon him, and cl0ihe him with
| a the rights OF a GitiZent The Court think the
| affirmative cannot be maintained; and If not the
plaintiff could not be citizen of Missouri within
the meaning Of the constitution, a citizen of
| the United States and, const quenty, not entitled
! to sue in the Courts
| 1t is true that every person, and every class and
description OF persons, at lhe time Of the adoption
of the constitution, regarded citizens of the
yera States, became citizens Of this political
| body, and none other. 1t was formed for them aud
| their posterity, and for nobody else; and all the
| rights and immuuities were intended to embrace
| only those If State communities, or those who be-
| came members according TO the principles on
| which the constitution WAS adopted 1t was a
| union of those Who were members of the political
| communities, whose power, for certain specified
| purposes, extended over the whole territories OF
the United States, and gave each citizen rights out
side his Stale which he did not before possess, and
placed all rights OF persons and property on an
equality.
| Ii becomes necessary therefore, to determind
| WHO were citizens OF the several States when the
constitution was adopted. In order to de- this We
! must recur 10 the colonies when they separated
| from Great Britain, formed Rew communities and
| took their place among the family of nations -
| They who were recognize ed citizens of the
States declared their independence of Great Bri-
| tain, and defended IL by force of arms. Another
|
| or their descendants, were not recognized or in
| tended to be included in that memorable instru
ment-the Declaration Of Independence. 1t is
difficult this day To realize the state OF public
| opinion respecting that unfortunate class, with
the civilized aud enlightened portion of the world,
at the time of the Declaration of Independence
| and the adoption of the constitution; but history
| shows that they have for more than century
been regs rded as beings of an inferior order, and
| unfit associates for the white race, either socially
or politically, and had 40 rights which white men
| were bound TO respect and The black man might
be reduced TO slavery bought and sold, and treat-
| ed ordinary article OF merchandise This
| opinion, at that lime, was liked aud universal
| with the civilized portion of the white ace. Ii
| was regarded axiom 10 MORALS which no one
thought OF Gisputing, and every one habituaily
| acted upon il, without doubling for q moment the
correctness of the opinion. Anu In no nation
| was this opinion more fixed and generally acted
| upon than in England the subjects OF which gov
ernment not only seized them on the coast or Affi-
| ca, but took them as ordinary merchabdise TO
where they could make proht on them Ihe
opinion thus entertained universally impressed
the Colonists this side OF the Atlantic; accord
| ingly, negroes of the African race were regarded
| by sIhem as properly, and held ard bought and
sold sucn il every of the thirteen Colon les
| which united in the Declaration of Independence,
a nd afterwards formed the constitution.
The doctrine of which we have spoken was
strkpgiy enforced by the Declaration OF lndepen-
dence. Ii begins thus: when In the course OF
human events it becomes necessary for one people
| to dissolve the political bonds which have connect
| ed them with another, and to assume among the
| powers of the earth the separate and equal sta
tion TO " which the laws of nature and of natures
God enttie them, decent respect TO the opinions
| Of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them TO the separation; and
| then proceeds We hold these truths TO be self
| eviden'-that all men are created equsi; that they
are endowed, by their Creator, win certain una
liena5 rights; that among these are lite, liberty,
aud the pursuit of happiness that to secure these
| rights governments are Instituted among men, de-
| irving their just powers from the consent of the
| governed, &c" The words before quoted would
| seem TO embrace the whole human family; and II
| used iu a similar instrument 1t this day would be
under But 1t clear for dispute that the
| ensIaved African race were not intended to De In
| GUIDED for in that case the distinguished men VINO
| framed the Declaration of Independence would be
| hagrantiy against the principles which they as
| serted. They who framed the Declaration OF In
| dependence were men of too much honor, educa'
| tion and intelligence 10 say what they did not be-
| iieve; and they knew that in no part Of the eivi
| lized world were the negro race, by common
| consent admitted TO the rights of freemen. They
! spoke and acted according to the practices, doc
| trines, and ussges Of the day. That unfortunate
race was supposed TO be separate from the whites,