Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-01-14
bred Scott Decision.

bred Scott Decision.
[The following was received by member of
the Legislature during its recent session
The second section of the third article of the
Constitution of the United States provides that
" the Judicial power of the United States shall
extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this Constitution" One of such cases is
specified in tbs last clause of the second section
of article fou-th of the Constitution, in terms
as follows =" No person, held to service or la
Dor in one State, under the laws thereof, escap-
ing into another, shall, in consequence of any
law or regulation therein, be discharged from
such service or labor but shall be delivered up
on claim of the party to whom each service or
labor may be due.''
A person, held to service in South Carolina,
escapes into Vermont. One claiming to have
been his holder in the former State pursues him
into the latter finds person therein which he
claims for that fugitive servant, and who admits
that he was held, by some one, as a servant pri-
or to his escape presents his claim before the
Inferior Court (ndmely, the Commissioner for
the district indicated) ohich has been ordained
and established by Congress in accordance to the
grant in the first section of article third of the
Constitution Can the claim be tried by such
Inferior Court?
This Court is legitimate branch of the Gen
eral Court in which is vested all the Judicial
power giveni in the Constitution and the trial
of the CLAIMS particuiarizes in the Constitu-
ton as one 70 which such power extends, as has
been seen. Then, the single question to be de-
cidedIis, whether the parties to the trial are
competent for a hearing.
In the first place, there must be more than
one party to the suit, else there can be no cause
of action. The very term party, signifies d.
rision into parts, the division being the cause
with reference to which each part acts.
The parties which may, and no other than
such can, be heard before the several branches
of the United States Court as designated in
the first clause of the second section of article
third of the Constitution they are ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, persons con-
nected Nth the maritime service, the United States,
haring controversies one State in controuosy
,oiM another State; a State in controversy Nth
a citizen Of another State; citizen Of the same
State in controversy for title to lands under grant
Of a different State: and State, or the citizens
hereof, in constorersy Nth q foreign States cit
liens or subjects.
Neither party in the case supposed is an en-
bassador or other public minister, or consul, q
person in the maritime service, the United
States, a foreign State or citizen or subject of a
foreign State. There is no citizens of one State
claiming land under grant of another State.
No one of the Unitid States is party; for
South Carolina, in her State capacity, offers no
demand and Vermont has not made any laws or
regulation dscharging from service the person
escaped into her territory from South Carolina
None of the actual citizens of Vermont are
party; for none have intcrfered or have offered
to interfere in the effort towards the recovery
of the fugitives. The former holder in South
Carolina of the person escaped is a citizen of
that State, and is competent to act as party
But the fugitive. though an inhabitant of Ver-
ment, is yet not citizen of that State, because
he is of African descent, phose ancestors uerc
imported SLAVES, or because he is upon his opn
admission shown to be himself still slaue, and
elnnot for the reason be party therefore the
Commissioner must dismiss the suit for want of
jurisdiction therefore the claimant is forced to
give up his title to his personal property
RIO the Legislature of Vermont, the above is
offered consideration and it is suggested wheth-
err they might not do well to frame a rule max
ing penal the delivery up of fugitives thus con-
trary to Judge Taney's U. s. Constitution.