The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-07-11

which point to this race, treat them as persons
whom ii was morally lawful to deal in as arti
cleS Of property and to hold as slaves.
Z. Since the adoption of the Constitution Of
the United States no State can by any subSe
quent law make foreigner or any other descrp.
ton of persons citizens of the United States
nor entitle them to the rights and privileges
secured to citizens by that instrument.
| .. A state by its laws passed since tho adop-
ton of the Constitution may put foreigner or
any other description Of persons upon a footing
with its own citizens, as to ali the rights and
privileges enjoyed by them within its domain
ard by its laws, But that will not make him a
citizen of the United States nor entitle him to
sue in its coures, nor to any Of the privilege
and the immunities of a citizen of any other
State.
8. The change in public opinion and feeling
in relation to the African race, which has taken
place since the adoption of the Constitution,
cannot change its construction and meaning,
and it must be construed and administered now
according to its true meaning and intention,
when it was formed and adopted
10 The plaintiff having admitted by his de-
murrer to the plea in abatement, that his an
cestors were imported from Africa, and sold as
slaves, he is not citizen O the State of Mis-
souri, according to the Constitution OF the Uni
ted States, and was not entitled to sue in that
character in the circuit court.
IL. This being the case the Judgment of the
court below, in favor of the plaintiff on the plea
in abatement was erroneous.
II.
l. But if the plea in abatement is not brought
up by this writ of error the objection to the
citizenship Of the plaintiff is still apparent on
the record, as he himself in making cut his
case states that he is of African descent, was
born OF slave, and claims that he and his fam
ily became entitled to freedom by being taken
by their owner to reside ina Territory whare
slavery is prohibited by an act of Congress; and
that in addition 10 this claim, he himself be-
came entitled to freedom by being taken to
Rock Island, in the State Of Illinois; and being
free when he was brought back to Missouri, he
was, by the laws Of that state, citizen.
2 If therefore, the facts he states do not give
him or his family right to freedom the PLAN
tiff is still slave, and not entitled to sue as
citizen; and the judgement ofthe circuit court
was erroneous on that ground also, without any
rn inr1Opa tn Ln r,1aa in hotn
3. The circuit court can give no Judgment
TOR the plaintiff or defendant in case where 1t
has not jurisdiction, no matter whether there
be plea in abatement or not; and unless it ap-
pears upon the face Of the record, when brought
here by writ Of error, the circuit court had
jurisd ction, then the judgment must be rever-
sed.
The case of Capron Us. Van Nordont2 Cranch
1866 examined and the principles thereby de-
cided, rcaifirmed.
4. When the record, as brought here by the
writ of error, does not show that the circuit
court has jurisdiction, this court has jurisdiction
to revise and correct the error, like any Other
error in the court below. 1t does not and cannot
dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction here;
for that would leaye the erroneous judgment Of
the court below in full force, and the party in
jured without remedy; but it must reverse the
judgment, and, as in other cases of reversal
send mandate to the circuit court to conform
its judgment to the opinion of this court
5. The difference Of the jurisdiction in this
court in the cases o writs of error to State
courts and circuit courts of the United STATES
pointed out and the mistakes made as to the
jurisdiction of this court in the latter case by
confounding it with its limited jurisd iction in
the former
6. The Court reverses judgment upon the
ground that it appears by a particular part Of
the record that the circuit court had no iuris-
diction, it does not take away the jurisdiction Of
this court to examine into and correct, by re-
versal of the judgment, any errors, whether as
to the jurisdiction or any other matter where it
appears, from other parts Of the record, that
the circuit court had fallen into error. On the
contrary, it is the daily and familiar practice of
tnlh CouIt W iefeiSe, oh SeNeIal Slouuusf
where more than one error on the same ground
and is to be treated in the same manner as any
ether error upon which its judgment is oun-
ded
7. The decision, therefore, that the Judgment
OF the circuit court upon the plea in abatement
is erroneous, is DO reason why the alleged error
apparent in the exception should not also be
examined and tho Judgment be reversed on
that ground also, if it discloses want oljuris
diction in the circuit court.
g. 1t is often the duty Of this court, after hav
ing decided that particular decision of the
circuit court was erroneous to examine into
other alleged errors, and correct them if they
are found to exist. And this has been uniform.
ly done by this court when the questions are in
any degree connected with the controversy, and
the silence OF the court might create doubts
which would lead to further and useless itiga-
tions.
/. The facts upon which the plaintiff relics
did not give him his freedom and make him a
citzon of Missouri.
2. The clause in the Constitution aut hori-
zing Congress to make all needlul rules and
regulations for the government of the territory
and other property of the United States, ap-
plies only TO territory within the chartered lin
its of some one Of the States when they were