Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1857-03-18

Decision OF the Supreme Court of the Unite
States in the bred Scott Case.
Chief Justice zaaeys Opinion.
Chief Justice fancy, in delivering the opinion o
the court said that this case after argument at tn
last term was directed to be re-argued at the pres
ent term, owing to difference of opinion ex'stht
among members of the court, and in order TO CIV
the subject more mature deiberation.
There were two leading questions: frst. nao tnt
circuit court of the United States for the district Of
Missouri jurisdiction in the case, and it had Juris
diction, was its decision erroneous or not!
The defendant denied, by plea in abatement, the
jurisdiction of the circuit court OF the United otaes
on the ground that the plaintiff Ms negro OF ART
can descent his ancestors were OF pure African
blood, and were brought into this country and sold
as slaves and therefore the plaintiff 's not citi
zen of the State of Missouri" To this plea the
plaintiff demurred and the court sustained the de.
murer ThereupoE the defendant pleaded over, and
justified the trespass the ground that the plain
tiff and his family were his negro slaves; and a
statement of the facts, agreed to by both parties,
was read in evidence.
The Chief Justice having stated the facts in the
case proceeded to say that the question first to be
decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to
sue in a court of the United States. This was
peculiar question, and for the first time brought be-
fore the court under such circumstances but it had
been brought here, and it was the duty OF the court
to meet and to decide it. The question was simply
this: Can a negro whose ancestors were imported
and sold slaves become member of the political
community formed and brought into existence by
the constitution of the United States and such,
become entitled to all the rights and immunties of
citizen, one of which rights is suing in the courts
OF the United States in cases therein specified?
In discussing this question, we must not confound
the rights of citizen which State may confer
Ifc sfo ~ 1f
within the limits of the United States 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 re-
cognised as such by every State in the Union. He
may be citizen in one State and not recognised
such in another. Previous to the adoption of the
constitution, every State might confer the character
OF citizen, and endow a man with all the lights
pertaining to it. This confined to the boundaries
OF State, and gave him no rights beyond its limits.
Nor have the several States surrendered this power
by the adoption of the constitution.
Every State may confer the right upon alien
or on any other class description of persons who
would to all intents and purposes, be citizen of
the State but not citizen in the used in the
constitution of the United States. He would not
thereby become a citizen of the United States and,
therefore, could not sue in any court in the United
or other States His rights would be confined strict
ly to his own State The constitution gives Con-
gress the power to establish "a uniform rule of natu
ralizaton;" consequently, no State, by naturazing
an alien, could confer upon him the rights and i'm
muntes of all the States under the general govern
ment 1t is very Clear therefore, that no State can
BY any act, introduce new member into the polt.
ical Union created by the constitution
The question then arises, whether the provisions
OF the constitution of the United States in relation
to personal rights to which citizen of State is
entitled, embraced negroes of the African race at
that time in the country, afterwards imported or
m od 10 froo frOv,H Ckok&. Il IL
power of any State to make such one citizen of
State, and endow him with full citizenship in any
other State without their consent? Does the con-
sttuton OF the United States act upon him, and
clothe him with all the rights of citizen? The
court think the affirmative cannot be maintained:
and if not, the plaintiff could not be citizen Of
Missouri within the meaning of the constitution nor
citizen of ne United States and, consequently not
entitled to sue in its courts.
II IS true that every person, and every class and
description of persons at the time of the adoption of
the consultation regarded citizens of the several
states, became citizens of this new political body,
and none other. 1t was formed for themselves and
their posterity, and for nobody else and all the
rights and lmmunities were intended to embrace
only those OF State communities or those who be-
came members according to the principles on which
the constitution was adopted. 1t was Union of
tnose who were members of the political communi.
ties, whose power for certain specified purposes
extended over the whole territories of the United
States and gave each citizen rights outside his
State which he did not before possess and placed
aii rights OF persons and property equality.
1t becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who
were citizens of the several States when the const
tuition was adopted. In order to do this, we must |
to the colonies when they ated from Great
Britain, formed new communities, and took their
place among the family of nations. They who were
recognized as citizens of the States declared their
independence of Great Britain, and defended it by
oEce OF arms. Another class of persons. who had
'eeh imported as Slaves or their descendants, were
lot recognised or intended to be included in that
lence. >p'''
IL is DIFFICULT at this day to realize the state of
pubic OPINION respecting that unfortunate class with
he civilized and enlightened portion of the world at
ne time OF the Declaration Of independence and the
oop'ien u tne constitution; but history shows they
ave- 1or more than century, been regarded as
eings OF an inferior order, and unfit associates for
ne "nte race either socially politically and had
10 rlgnts which white men were bound to respect.
no tne black man might be reduced to slavery,
ought and sold, and treated an ordinary article
. merchandise. THIS opinion, at that time, was
lxed and universal with the civilized portion Of the
Vnite race. 1t vas regarded as an axiom in morals
Snich no one thought of disputng, and every one
laoltuaily acted upon it, without doubling for mo.
nent the correctness Of the opinion. And in no
'auon was this opinion more fixed and generally
s.ea upon tnan In England the subjects of which
government not only seized them on the coast of
africa, but took them, ordinary merchandise. to
Fhere they could make profit on them, The opin.
On thus entertained was universally impressed on
ne colonists this side of the Atantic accordingly,
eeroes OF the african race were regarded by them
properly ana held, and bought, and sold, as
UGH, in every one of the thirteen colonies which
nited in the Declaration of Independence and ae
erwards formed the constitution. The doctrine Of
'h'eh We have spoken was strikingy enforced BY
ne Declaration of Independence. 1t begins thus:
hen, in the course Of human events, It becomes
ecessary Tor one people to dissolve the political
'onos winch have connected them with another
no 70 assume among the powers of the earth the