Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1857-03-19

:
ferred citizenship upon them; for all those
| States at that time established police regu.
lations for the, security of themselves and
families, as we'll as of property. In some
minor cases, there were different modes OF
trial, and it could not be supposed that those
States would have formed or consented to a
Government which abolished this right, and
took from them the safeguards essential to
their own protection. They have not the
right to bear arms, and appear at public
meetings to discuss political questions, or
urge measures of reform which they might
deem advisable. They cannot vote at cleo
tions, nor serve as jurors, nor appear as
witnesses where whites are concerned
These rights are secured in every State to
white men. It is impossible to believe that
the men of the slaveholding States, who took
so large share in the formation of the
Constitution, could be SO regardless of them
selves and the safety of those who trusted
and confded in them.
Every law of naturalization confines citi-
zenship to Dhate persons. This is marked
separation from the blacks. Under the Con-
federation, every State had a right to decide
for itself, and the term s.free inhabitant,"
the formality Of form, certainly excluded the
African race Laws were framed for the
latter especially. Under the Constitution
the word tscitizen'' is substituted for 'efree
inhabitant" After further elaboration on
this point, the Chief Justice said, from the
best consideration, we have come to the con-
clusion that the African race who came to
this country, whether free or slave, were
not intended to be included in the Constitu-
tion for the enjoyment of any personal rights
or benefits; and the two provisions which
point to them treat them as property, and
make it the duty of the Government to pro-
tect them as such. Hence, the Court is of
opinion, from the facts stated in the plea in
abatement, that bred Scott is not citizen
of Missouri, and is not, therefore, entitled
to sue in the United States Courts.
The following facts appear on the record:
Gin the year 1884, the plaintiff was negro
slave belonging to DR.. Emerson, who was a
surgeon in the army Of the United States
In that year Q834) said DR.. Emerson took
the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to
the military post of Rock Island, in the State
of Illinois, and held him there as slave
until the month Of April, 1886. At the
time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson re-
moved the plaintiff from said military post
at Rock Island to the military post at Fort
Smelling, situated on the west bank Of the
Mississippi river, in the territory known as
Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United
States of France, and situated north of the
latitude of $50 30> north, and north of the
State of Missouri. Said DR.. Emerson held
the plaintiff in slavery at Fort Smelling un-
til the year 1888.
'sIn the year 1885, Harriet, (who is nam
ed in the second count of the plaintiffs de-
claration, was the slave Of Major Taliafer-
70, who belonged to the army of the United
States. In that year, (1835, said Major
Smelling, a military post situated as herein
before stated, and kept her there as slave
until the year 1886. and then sold and de-
livered her as slave at Fort Smelling unto
said DR.. Emerson, hereinbefore named and
said DR.. Emerson held said Harriet in sla-
very at said Fort Smelling until the year
1883.
'In the year 1886, the plaintiff and said
Harriet, at said Fort Smelling, with the con-
sent of said DR.. Emerson, who then claimed
to be their master and owner, intermarried
and took each other for husband and wife.
Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count
of the plaintiff declaration, are the fruit of
that marriage. Elizais about fourteen years
old, and was born on board the steamboat
Gipsey, north of the north line of the State
of Missouri, and upon the Mississippi river;
Lizzie is about seven years old, and was
born in the State of Missouri, at the military
post called Jefferson Barracks.
''In the year 1888, said DR.. Emerson re-
moved the plaintiff and said Harriet, and
their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort
Smelling to the State of Missouri, where they
have ever since resided.
Before the commencement of this suit,
said DR.. Emerson sold and conveyed the
plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie, to
the defendant as slaves, and the defendant
claimed to hold each of them as slaves.
cat the times mentioned in the plaintiff
declaration, the defendant, claiming to be
owner as aforesaid. laid his hands upon said
plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie, and i'm
prisoned them; doing in this repsect, how
ever, no more than what he might lawfully
do if they were Of right his slaves at such
times.
The Chief Justice proceeded to examine
the statement assuming that this part of the
controversy presented two questions.
Firstly. Was he (Scott) and all his fami-
~ free in Missouri: and
Secondly. If not, were they free by rea-
son of their removal to Rock Island, Illinois
2 The act of Congress on which the plain
tiff relies contains the clause, that slavery
and involuntary servitude, except for crime,
shall be forever prohibited in that part Of