The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1857-03-25
ton of personal rights and property


therein.
Whatever territory acquired is for the
common benefit ofthe people of the Uni
ted States, which is but a trustee. At
the time that territory was obtained from
France it contained no population to be
admitted as q State, and it therefore be-
came necessary to hold possession of it
until settled and inhabited by a civilized
community, capable of self-government
and for admission into the Union. But
as we before said, it was acquired by the
Federal Government as the representa-
tive and trustee of the people of the Uni
ted States, and must be held for their
common and equal benefit; for it was the
acquisition of the people of the United
States, acting through their agents, and
Government held it for the common ben
eft until it should become associated as
a member of the Union. Until that time
some government be established to pro-
tect the inhabitants in their persons and
property. The power to acquire carries
with it the power to preserve. The form
of government necessarily rests on the
discretion of Congress. It is their duty
to establish the best suited for the Uni
ted States, and that must depend or the
number of its inhabitants, and the char
acter and situation of the Territory
What government is best depends on the
condition of the Territory at the time, to
be continued until it shall become a
State. But there can never be "A mere
discretionary power over persons and
property. These are plainly defined by
the Constitution. The Constitution pro-
vides that Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting tie free exercise thereof;
Or abridging the freedom of speech, or
the press or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievan-
ces," &c. Thus the rights of property
are united with the personal rights, and
this extends to the Territories as to the
States. Congress cannot authorize the
Territories to do what it cannot do itself;
it cannot confer on the Territories pow
er to violate the provisions Of the Consti-
tuition.
1t seems, however, that there is sup
posed to be a difference between slaves
and other property. The people, in the
formation of the Constitution, delegated
to the General Government certain emu
merated pawers, and forbade the exercise
of others. If the Constitution ~recogni-
yes the right of master and slave, and
makes no difference between slaves and
other property, no tribunal acting under
the authority of the United States can
draw such a distinction and deny the
provisions and guarantees secured against
the e~ncroachment of the Government
As we have already said, the right of
property in a slave is expressly conferred
in the Constitution, and guaranteed to
every State. This is in language too
plain to be misunderstood; and no words
can be found in the Constitution giving
Congress greater power over slaves than
any other description of property.
1t is, therefore, the opinion of this
Court that the Act of Congress which
prohibits citizens from holding property
of this character north of a certain line
is not warranted by the Constitution, and
is therefore void and neither bred Scott
nor any one of his family were made free
by their residence in Illinois. The plain
tiff was not a citizen of Missouri, but q
slave, and therefore had no right to sue
in q Court of the United States.
The National InteliJencer says:
'hr. JUSTICE nelson rcaa az "pinlop,
in which he did not enter into the %consti-
tutionality of the Missouri Compromise,
but held, and on that ground affirmed the
judgement of the Court below, that a
slave carried into a Free STATE, whatever
might be the laws of that State, remained
a slavo whenever returning to the State
in which his owner resided.
"Mr. Justice Catron also delivered m
opinion, in which the freedom of the
North West Territory was made to be the
act of the State of Virginia, which was
thc original proprietor of the Territory,
and which alone, and not Congress, had
the right to prohibit Slavery there. He
expressed himself in very decided terms
against the constitutionality of the Mis-
souri, Compromise"