The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1857-03-26

|, ,hs Dsea scott Vas,.
as., - WASHINGTON. Marh q, 1857.
The opinion 81 the supreme Court In th
Iirsl scNt cee was deliwrwl today b,
Chief Jasti,v T,srY, II was full an,
elaborate statement ofthe views Of thu Court
They have dcriiei the iollowing important
, points
! F6a That negroes, whcthc slaves o,
/, tfw'. that h. men al tive African rwcve ar
not c,tisaw Of the uuitei S,asea, by the
t'onsiita,iou,
Nroai. That the ostlim,,oe II | 3s7 had
M tmlcps,mlcn constitutional t,rc Or lcyal
eiI,vt subsequently IA tho adoption of thu
Consultation, ANIL could not operate of itself
10 conkv ttssviom ar citizenship within thu
Northwest Territory, on nrgr@~ 10, citizens
hy the Constitution.
f. 1kird Thai ikc provision ai the act oi
is2O, commonly csll~l ihe Missomrl com
promise. In ~ iar M Il upjer,ook Ia excluslc
negro slavery ftyn, and communicate ftrs,-
ium and citizenship 10 mvr@~ h thu north.
ern part ofth louisiana cs~sio1. was leg
isla,lc act eSc~sinv tho powers ot Con
an~s, and void, al'd VI M hgd cilect
TO that end. in deci,lilg thes main points
thc Supreme Court ,ic,rrmhmsi the hllow
ing Incidental points,
lst-~'lhe e,prs,~uon Territory. amd other
proptty VI tho Union ~ the Consultation,
applies In terms only "a such Territory NJ
the Union pcsac.s,si NJ tho time ~ the a'lop.
tioa NJ tho Constitution,
2ml The rights of citizens oi tho u. \.
emisra,ing 30 any Federal Territory. anl
the power of ,lm federal government thcr
depenia on the general provisions Of the
Caastitntlon which ,leiin. III this. ~ In all
other rvpcois, ,he power II Cm,emss.
M.-.As Cohgrrss does not poxa~s power
Itself to make M enactment relative to pr
sa or property ~ citisrna of the United
States, In f'slera Territory, othw than such
as the Consultation soni,,p. ~ Il cannot
cousiitutim,ally dcIogais any such powers
10 u Territorial eoyernmrnt organized by u
ateisr the Consultation
t,h-~I'hr legal condition ol slave In tho
lstate of Missouri. Ia not Affected by tetapo'
rary spiourn of such slave inauy other State,
hui IN bs minrn hta condition still depends
an thu laws of Misouri As the plaintiff
wns not u citiwu of Mi.souri. and therefore,
could mol sur IN tir Courts VI ihe uniici
States, tho s,it must w. dismissed for want
Of Jurisdiction,
The delivery of this opinion occupied
nhmt thre honrs, AMI u was lIste,,si Ia
with nofoapl attention by crowded court
room. Among ihe auditors wcre many
gentlemen Of legal ability, and due pro-
portion Of ladies,
Jusiir NnSos ptatci the merits of the
caso. Thw question hring whether M mt
tlc removal of Anrr from Missouri, with
his master, 20 Illinois, with view of tein.
pomry r~idrnce. worked his emancipation.
lie maintained that lhe question derrndod
who'll, IN The Iawn II Missouri. anil Tor that
r,suon the Judgment of the Court below
should be affirmed,
Jnsiica clrHos bclieycd The Supreme
Court has Jurisdiction 10 decidr the mrrits
of the ear liz argued that CongTss
could mol do directly. what Il could moi 'io
indirectly " |, conla exclude cse species
Of property. il eoaid another. With regard
10 the Territories eeisi. Congress could
eosern them with the restriction of the
s,ats~, The Missouri act ~ 1890 viola,el
the la,libg fraturys of tle Constitution. IL
40. tl.er,.f,,ss void lIe .,ot,,.uyv,si with hix