Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-05-19
WHEELING, VA .asATURDAY MORNING

suits In the State Courts. That is, II
plaint.f alleges in his declaration That Il
itfendant unhiwIully and wrongfuIly at
sat lted and heat him.. To This the dtfeE
dart 9 nera!Iy pleads that the -phtintiff =
his slave. wherefore he ChtsEsed .,ind rel
STAINED m he lawfully m ght for tn (,
rar sc. Then plaintiff nssrrts tnat he
) not Cef,nd"nt's slave, and so nm issue
, made Ip and tried y III jury who find .
ficts one way or the other. Rnt in a
cIse The defendant disputed. on paper !
jurisdiction ofthe Court. His plea is
the following words:-"Dred Scott ".
John f. A. Sanford; PLsA TO The JURIsDIl p
TEON OF THE COURT, Al ri term 1854 Au
the said John F. A. Sanford, in his ow =
proper person, comes and says that til 3
Court ought not to have or IKE lurtht :
cOgnizaEce of the action nforesaid, becans !
he says that said causes of action and .eac /;
and every one ofithem tif any such ha, s
accrued to the said Dred Scottl accru
ed to the said sDred Scott out Of.
the Jurisdiction of this Court anil
/ texcluuSively within the Jurisdiction
the Courts of the State of Missouri fu
that to wit: the said plaintiff. Dred Scot,
is not citizen of the State of Missouri, q /
alleged in his declaration, because he is /
negro of African descent; his ancestor I
were of pure African blood, and wer
brought into this country and sold as ne.
gro slaves, and this the said Sanford i,
ready to verify. Wherefore he pruysi
| judgement whether this Court can or will
take further cognizance of the action
aforesaid. John T. A Sanford. To this
plea there WITS demurrer. which til
Court sustained; thereby affirming its ow,
Jurisdiction ofthe case, and the ability
the plnintif, ASA citizen of Missouri, II
sue in the Courts of the United Suites, the
defendant being n citizen of a different
State. For | may as well observe in
passing, for. the benefit of non-profession-
al readers, that the Federal Courts, except
in-very peculiar and special cases, have no
power tn take Jurisdiction oi suits he.
tween citizens of the same State. Butth
dumurrer being overruled aud the iuris-
dictiCnn nssrrtedthe defendant then putinthe
usual plea of negro slave, his property &c.
Then the case went to the jury on the
Hgrecd statement containing the facts
herein before briefly set forth. The jury
under the instruction of the Court. t2pRd
and the Circuit Court gave judgement on
that verdict in favor of Sanford against
Dred Scott for the costs of suit. am not
jnkiug about this judgement in favor of RI
supposed master against his own slave fof
costs. 1t is asserted Oh the authority G /
Chief JusticeTauey and would scarcely bt
credited on amy inferior authority. From
the Circuit Court Of the District of Nilsson
ri the case wns removed bY writ of error
to the Supreme Cont of the United States.
AS the decision of this case is now sun
posed by some persons to form an import
ant item in our national constitutional
law. it may be well TO spend few minute
in considering the functions and power o /
the Judiciary in the creation and cOnstrnci
ton of llwS. First, it is to he observed
thnt the inriocs have mn tittIe of Legislative,
rower All tho legislative uOwpr of the
..r....I4l ~, .I,,, .>.,-.itution, to
House of Representatives. In -.<----,and,
vidunI States all Legislative power Isl
Granted to their State Legislatures, gener-l
ally consisting of Senate and House OF
Renr.orn,ntives. The functions of the;
indgas nrc essentially iudicial When al
'.omnc1ent pInintifr in the prescribed
f,rns brings II competent defendant be-
forc them. they ought TO declare such
,,riuciDI,.s ms nre required hy the cxigency
ot thr ease: that is. such principles as will
decide tho controversy between the par
+ins sc,tIe their rights and terminate their
.Iitiwation. AS was once observed by
Rr6okr President of the Court of Ap.
,,o,,1s of Virginia. it is their business to
I'LL LII tho cases in their courts. much more
,i,,T ,n settlc or nnsettle the law. Thnt
= ,he sottGcmcn, of the law hy means OF
H. ;mt Se'.'e' serordory incidental and
.,,I,a.1;rnto ."I'' ~ lin decision of cascs.-
Hn'no ,1.i,o, cos. ;s hrouGht before the
t.v"Ss {, t,','S p" S.,,,, ~, ni,irfiF competent
.. .',o ooo;ns+ defendant competeut 10
~, ~ s,,o1 tI'o noirts necessarily decided in
ID 10 HE adjudication of the case,
IT.. IT, 10 ro,,IrJcd nv inferior tri-
,ui ous"S fxing the law until the
/ oun"'' ";n,s Shall he recousidered
S"'1' H arrrnIod r% Nv the Snpreme Court,
",'" NH ,be law Itself shall be repealed
Or oi,cred bv The sovereign law making