Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1857-06-23
MINERAL POINT, JUNE la,lS57.
The Dred Scott Case.
DRIED SCOTT AGAINST Il. F. IL. SANFORD.

'>oAA |At'AiNSL f. H. S-ANIO ID
Notwithstanding much has been sale
and written about the above entitled cause
not long since decided by the Supreme
Court of the Z. S., it would seem that the
Importance of the principles involved in
the decision, has not been duly considered
by the generality of readers; therefore
we propose to review, briefly, some OF
the more important points of tho case
and as some may be unacquainted with
the facts, let 1t be promised that the fol-
lowing statement of facts was agreed to
by both parties:
In the year 1884 the plaintiff was a
negro slave belonging to DIR. Emerson,
VINO was surgeon IN the army of the
States. IN that year Dr. Emerson tool,
the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to
the post of Rock Island, in the state of IL
linois, and held him there as d slave until
the month Of April or May, 1886. AT
I the time last mentioned, DR.. Emerson
! removed the plaintiff from Rock Island 10
the military post at Fort Smelling, situate
on the west bank of the Mississippi river.
/ IN the territory known as Upper louisa
Ma, acquired by the United States of France.
and situate north Of the lattude of 36 de-
grees 80 mlnntes north, and nor.h of the
state of Missouri. Dir. Emerson held the
, plaintiff III slavery at Fort Smelling, from
The last mentioned date Until the year
/ 1888.
In the year 1888, Harriet, who is
named IN the second count Of the plain
tllf 5 declaration, was the negro slave Of
Major TalIaferro, who belonged to the
army of the United States. In that year
Major Taliaferro took Harriet to Fort
Smelling, military post situated as here
Inbefore stated, and kept her there as a
slave unIl the year 1886, and then
sold and delivered her as a slave, at Fort
/ Smelling, unto DR.. Emerson, who held
her IN slavery, at that place, until the
year 1888.
In the year 1896 the plaintiff and
Harriet were married at Fort Smelling,
with the consent of DR.. Emerson, who
claimed to be their master and owner
Eliza and Lizzy, named in the third count
Of the Plaintiff declaration, are the fruit
of that marriage. Eliza is about II years
old, and was born on board the steamboat
GlpSey, north of the norlh line of the state
of Missouri, and upon the river Missis-
sippl. LIZzy is about seven years old
aud was born In the state of Missouri, at
the military post called Jefferson Bar
racks.
In the year 1898 Dr.. Emerson re-
moved the Plaintiff and said Harriet and
( their daughter Eliza from Fort Smelling
10 the state of Missouri, where they have
ever since resided.
=" Before the commencement of the suit
DR.: Emersln sold and conveyed the plain
tiff, Harriet, Eliza and Lizzy TO the de-
/ fendant rs slaves, and he has ever since
continued to hold them as slaves.
> AT the TIM mentioned in the plain
thi S declaration, the defendant, claiming
to be owner, laid his hands upon said
plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and Lizzy, and
imprisoned them; doing in this respect,
however, no more than he might lawfully
do if they were of right his slaves at such
times"
On the trial of the suit in the CIRCUIT
Court of Missouri, the defendant fled the
following plea to the jurisdiction, which
/ was, however, OFerfuleQ:
That said causes of action, and each
and every of them, if any such accrued to
tie said Dred Scott, accrued out of the
jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the courts Of the
state of Missouri, for that, TO wit, said
plaintiff, Dred Scott is not citizen of the
state Of Missouri, as alleged IN his decla-
ration, because he IS a negro of Afrifan
| descent, has ancestors We're of pure Afri-
can blood, and were brought into this
country and sold as negro slaves"
Chief Justice Taney pronounced the
opinion of Ca majority of the Court
He said the first question to be decided
was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to
sue in the courts of the United States, put
ting the question thus; Scan a negro,
whose ancestors we're imported and sold
as slaves, become a member Of the polti-
cal community formed and brought into
existence by the cQnstltHtion of the United
States, and as such become entitled 10 all
the rights and immnnities Of citizen,
one of which rights is suing in courts of
the United States, in cases therein speci-
fed" In answering this question he
says: No one can be citizen of the
United States unless under the provisions
Of the constitution but it does not follow
that man, being citizen Of one State,
must be recognized as such III another"
Let US place IN Juxtaposition with this IrsI
p1NIr of Judge fancy, the 2nd section of
article four of the constitution, which reads
as follows: g The citizens of each State
shall be entitled TO all the privileges and
inmunities of citizens in the several
States"
We would ask. in the name of common
sense and all established rules of interpre-
tation, what this clause in the constitution