Bedford inquirer and chronicle. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1854-1857, 1857-06-12

question Of jurisdiction was not before the
Court. Taney, Wayne, Daniel and Curtis
held, Pertonsrd, that, as the Courts of the
United States were Of limited jurisdiction,
the question of jurisdiction was always in
order. Grier, Nelson and Campbell were
silent OF this point.
Three Judges-Taney, Wayne and Dan
iel-held that, although the Court below
had no jurisdiction and the case must be
dismissed on that ground, it was still COM
petent for the Supreme Cour. to give an
opinion on the merits of the case, and on
all the questions therein involved. M'Lean
and Curtis dissented from this view. In
their opinion, any doctrines laid down un-
der such circumstances must be regarded
as extra-judiciai. They based their right
of going into the merits on the assumption
that the Court below had jurisdiction, a
view in which they were sustained by Ca
tron and Grier. Nelson and Campbell, as
they had avoided any expression Of opinion
on the question of jurisdiction, did the same
on this point Of judicial propriety; but Nell
son, by con6ning himself, in his opinion, to
the single point Of the revival of Scott's
condition of slavery BY his return to Mis-
souri,, seemed to concur in the view Of udi-
cial propriety taken by M'Lean and Curtis.
Three Judges-Taney, Wayne, aud Dan.
iel-beld that negro of African descent
was incapable of being citizen of the Uni
ted States, or even OF sueipg in Federal
Court. From this doctrine M'Lean and
Curtis expressly dissented, while Nelson,
Grier, Campbell and Catron avoided any
expression Of opinion upon it.
Taney, Wayne, Daniel and Campbell
held that the Constitution conferred no pow
er on Congress to legislate for the Terrific
ries, the power to make all needful rules
and regulations being confined solely to the
disposition Of the lands as property, and
even that authority being limited to the
Territories belonging to the United States
| Il. e. the territory northwest of the Ohio;
when the Constitution was made. They,
however, seemed to admit certain power
of legislation in Congress, based on the
fact Of acquisition and growing out of the
necessity Of the case. M'Lean, Catron and
Curtis held, on the other hand, that under
the authority to make needful rules and
regulations, as we'll as by the necessity of
the case, Congress had full power of leg
islaton for the Territories, limited only by
the general restraints upon its Legislative
power contained 10 the Constitution. Nell
son expressed no opinion on this point; nor
did Grier, except the implication in favor
of the first view from his joining in pronoun-
cling the Missouri prohibition of 1920 un-
constitutional, though on what particular
ground he held it to be so does not appear.
Taney, Wayne and Daniel held that the
Ordinance of 1877 though good and binding
under the Confederation, expired with the
Confederation, and that the act of Congress
passed to confirm it was void because Con-
gross had no power to legslate for the Ter
ritories MLean, Catron and Curtis held,
per contra, that the re-enactment of the
Ordinance of 1857 was a valid exercise of
the power of Congress while Campbell ad-
mitted-and in this Catron concurred with
him Daniel coafra, the others silent that
the Ordnance Of l787, having been agreed
to by Virginia, became thereby part of
the compact of cession permanently binding
on the parties. and was so regarded by the
Convention that framed the Constitution.
Five Judges, majority of the Court
Taney, Wayne, Daniel, Campbell and Grier
held that the Missouri prohibition of
1920 was unconstitutional and void, while
Catron argued that it was void because it
confieted with the French treaty for the
cession Of Louisiana. M'Lean and Curtis
held the prohibition constitutional and valid.
| Nelson silent.
Five Judges-Taney. Wayne, Daniel
Campbell and Catron--a majority of the
Court, held that slaves were property in
general sense, as much so as cattle, or at
least were so reconized by the Constitution
of the United States and as such might be
carried into territories, notwithstanding any
Congressional prohibition. MLesn and
Cnrtis held per contra, that slaves are rec
oguized property only locally and BY the
laws of particular States, being out of those
States not property, nor even slaves, except
in the single case of fugitiyes. Grier and
Nelson silent.
1t was held by six Judges-Taney, Wayne
Daniel, Campbell, Catrou and Nelson--that
| whatever claim to freedom Scott might have
had (if any which most of them dcniedl, he
lost it by his return to Missouri. This opin-
! ion, on the part of Taney, Wayne, aud Dam
iel, was based on the law Of Missouri, as
recently laid down by the Supreme Court