Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-03-21

case of bred Scott. Inasmuch as it prom
ises to be the pivot upon which the future
discussion Of the subjects embraced by it,
will hinge, we here give condensed state
ment of all the material facts involved init.
In 1884, bred Scott was slave owned
by DR.. Emerson, of the U. S. Army, then
stationed and residing in Missouri In that
year he was removed by his master to the
military post at Rock Island, in Illinois.
and was there held as slave until April,
1886. In 1886, DIR. Emerson removed
from Rock Island to Fort Smelling, on the
west bank of the Mississippi river, in the
territory of the United States north of
Missouri, and north Of the line of sc deg
and 80 min, usually known as the nilsson
ri Compromise line." DR.. Emerson remain
ed at Fort Smelling until tire year 1898,
still holding Scott as slave.
In the year 1886, Major Taliaferro, an
officer of the U. S. Army, also removed to
Fort Smelling carrying with him a negro
woman, Harriet, likewise slave, and in
1896. sold her to Dr. Emerson. Thereaf-
ter. and while at Fort Smelling, bred
/ and Harriet were married, with the con-
sent of their owner, DR.. Emerson. In 1888,
their master returned to Missouri, bringing
with him bred and Harriet as well as a
child Eliza, born in the meantime to them
still holding them as slaves--another child,
Lizzie being born after their return to Mis-
souri,.
Between the year 1888 and the time of
the fling of this suit, DIR. Emerson sold and
delivered the said negroes, bred, Harriet,
Eliza and Lizzie, as slaves to the claimant,
Sanford, who claimed them as slaves.
Scott first commenced proceedings to OBJ
tain freedom in the State Courts of Nilsson
ri; but having failed to establish his right
to be free in these, he filed the present suit
in the Circuit Court of the U. s. for the
District of Missouri, claiming his own and
the freedom of his wife and two children,
above named
To the declaration of the plaintiff, the
defendant, Sanford, filed a plea in abate-
ment, alleging want of jurisdiction in the
court on the ground that the plaintiff lis
a negro of African descent, his ancestors
!
were of pure African blood, and were
brought into this country aud sold as slaves;
and that the plaintiff is not a citizen of the
State of Missouri; and therefore, not emit
tied to sue." To this plea, the plaintiff,
Scott, demurred, and the Court sustained
the demurrer. Thereupon the defendant
pleaded over, justifying the alleged trespass
on the ground that the plaintiff and his
family were his negro slaves The facts as
above detailed were then agreed upon
and the court instructed the jury TO find
for the defendant, which they accordingly
did on the 18th May, 1854. Defendant
excepted to the instructions of the Court,
and prosecuted writ of errcr to the De-
cember term, 1854, of the Supreme Court
Of the United States.
At the December term 1855, the case
was deliberately argned, and held under adj
visement by the Court until the December
Term 1856, when it was reopened for ar
gumeDt, and was again argued with great
ability and Laboratories. On the 9th Of
March, 1851, the Court announced its de
cision, which we have already placed be-
fore our readers in the Patriot of the 10th
inst.
OF the Importance Of this decision to the
country at large, there is no room for cavil.
Upon the main points in the controversy
between the North and South. the opinion
is full unequiyocal and well sustained; and
considering that it was concurred in by
seven of the nine judges on the Bench, it
may be:esteemed as settling and putting to
rest the very grave and exciting questions
which it adjudicates--atle least so far as that
tribunal, as at present constituted, is con-
cured. SO far as Chief Justice fancy inti-
mates the power off State to make citizens
Of aliens, independently Of Congressional
legislation, we think he travelled beyond
the record, and that such intimation, was,
as a question Of law, erroneous. We may
also add, that. under more strict rule Of
practice, the single question on the demur-
rer to the plea Of defendant, would have
been amply sufficient for a decision Of the
case. We do not, however, impugn the
power of the Court to express an opinion
upon the entire merits Of the case. 1t has
that power, and in the expression it has
given we heartily concur; and cherish the
hope that the great body Of the people every
where, will adhere TO aud sustain it. II
embodies the doctrines of constitutional lib
erty, and so long as the Constitution shall
continue TO be respected, we think the de-
cision ought to be likewise, respected and
observed as just and conclusive precedent
1t would thus become strong and power
full support to the permanence and peace
and glory ofthe Republic; and the Supreme
Court would become what it was intended
to be, strong nnyielding break-water a
against the outside storms Of wild populal
tumult and fanatical Madness while th'
States and sections, great andsmall, bOuyeC
and sustained by the Constitution. woult
ride the political seas in security anC