The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1860-06-28

Louis County, and verdict and judg
mont was rendered iu his favor-a wri
Of error was sued out by the defendant
and upon hearing in the Supreme Court
Of the State of Missouri, the judgment
below was reversed, and the case was re-
mandcd back to the Circuit Court for q
new trial, where it was continued, tc
await the decision of the United States
Court, before whom another suit had
been brought for the same object as the
suit then pending in the State Court.
The form of action in the U. S. Circui,
Court was trespass II ct arms: Dred
Scott the plaintiff alleging in his declar.
alton that Sanford the defendant had
assaulted him and his family 70 this
the defendant filed plea to the jurisdic.
tion of the U. S. Court in the premises,
averring that Dred Scott was not citi.
zen of the State of Missouri, because he
was a negro of African descent and
because his ancestors were of pure Afri.
can blood, and were brought to this
country and sold as negro slaves, and
that therefore the U. s. Court had no
jurisdiction of the case. TO this plea,
plaintiff Put in demurrer in the usual
form, which was argued in April 1854
when the Court gave judgment that the
demurrer should be sustained.
For the benefit of those who are not
conversant with legal terms and state
ments, I would briefly say that this de-
murrer of Dred Scott, was simply this !:
I, Dred Scott, admit that | am negro,
of African descent, that my ancestors
were of pure African blood, and were
brought into this country and sold as
negro slaves, but in all this / see no rea-
son that l, claiming to be free man,
may not bring my action in this Court, to
substantiate my claim for freedom, against
one who claims to hold me and my family
as chattel property.
The Circuit Court considered that the
logic of Dred Scott was good, and decided
the demurrer in his favor, thus adjudg-
ing that he had a right to sue in the
Federal Court. Sandford the defendant
was then compelled to put in his answer
or plea in bar, which was, in short, Not
Guilty, and, that he had legal right to
lay hands on the plaintiff TIE issue
being thus made, TIE !: ial proceeded,
and the jury found verdict for the dc.
fendant, upon which judgment was rem.
dered the case was then taken up by
Dred Scott the plaintiff to the Supreme
Court of the United States on bill OF
exceptions. 1t was twice ably and elab
orateIy argued before that tribunal, and
the opinion Covering 6l pages of the
volume of Howard's Reports in which it
is reported) given to the world, at the
close OF which the judgment is stated,
which being very brief | give in the
language of Chief Justice fancy himself
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the iudgme
of this Court that it appears by the record before
us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen OF
Missouri, in the sense in which that word is
used in the Constitution and that the Circuit
Court of the United States for that reason. had
no jurisdiction in the case. and could give no
Judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendan,
must consequently be reversed and a mandate
issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction
In delivering the opinion of the
Court, Chief Justice Taney says that two
leading questions were presented by the
record.
l. Had the Circuit Court Of the Uni
ted States jurisdiction to hear and de-
terminc the case between these parties
and
2. If it had jurisdiction, is the judg,
ment it has given erroneous or not?
All this seems very plain, the state.
ment of the two leading questions is per
fectly fair, and it follows as a natural,
logical and legal sequence, that if the
first question be decided IN the negative,
the whole matter is disposed Of, and the
second question cannot be adiudicated
How does the case stand. On the first
question stated, which was, Had the
Circuit Court Of the L. s. jurisdiction
to try and determine the case y" it is
decided and given as the judgment OF
the Supreme Court that it had no such
jurisdiction, and that mandatory order
issue directing the suit to be dismissed,
the second question therefore could not
legally be determined. If bred Scott,
claimed as a slave, sued for his freedom,
aud had no right to bring his action,
and was not properly IN Court, the Court
could not, by any principle Of law, de-
eide ,chether he uas or ,ras not slare
or whether he was or was not the chatte
property of Sandf,rd or of any body else
nor could the learned Judges legal,
decide in case not properly before
them, or if they had no case before then
in which the question arose, whethe,
slavery was right or wrong-legal o1
illegal-protected or prohibited by th'
Constitution of the United States
whether or not Congress had power tt
prohibit slavery in the territories
whether the Missouri Compromise wa
constitutional or unconstitutional, or an,
other question or questions. And yet i
would seem that in the lengthy and elab
Grated opinion given by them, nearl.
every question relating to slayery-it
situs, its condition, its history and it
protection by the Constitution of tn
United States was fully and deliberatel,
examined, and the dictum of the learne,
Judges on all those points pronounce
win singular minuteness and spread up
on the record. Some of the most ;mnor
tant OF those dictums it is now propose
! to examine.
l. Persons, whose ancestors were ne
groes Of the African race, imported int
this country aud sold as slaves, canno