The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1866-04-26


born aud reared in the United States
from coming within the borders of ou
State. not because they have committed
anv crime and without any reference t.
their moral department, or even ability
to support themselves. In fact, tn,
case at bar shows that the plaintiff wa
laboring for his living, and comes int
/ this court to enforce the contract TO
his wages.
! Congress by late act, commonly call
I ed '.The Civil Rights Act has declared
/ that s.Ali persons born in the United
| States, and not subject to any foreig,
power, excepting Indians not taxed, ars
hereby declared to be citizens Of tn,
United States Now, it is not fo
i this court to discuss the expediency o
| this declaration on the part OF Congress
We are to administer the law, and en-
force It's provisions so long as it in nc
manner conflicts with the powers of thu
/ Government or Constitution of the land
/ The Constitution of the United States
expressly delegates to Congress the pow
| er ITO establish q uniform rule OF Natu
| ralization In the case of Chirae vs..
! Chirae. Whea ton, 261, the Supreme
| Court of the United States says, That
the power of naturalization is exclusive
ly in Congress does not deem to be and
certainly ought not to be controverted. y
A State may authorize foreigners tn
hold real estate within its Jurisdiction, to
exercise the right of suffrage, and do
many other things which citizens may
do. but it has no right to naturalize for
eigners, or make them citizens. Con-
gress may do this either by a uniform
rule of naturalization, by special enact
ment in particular case, or by special
enactment embracing q collected mum
Der of persons as in the case of cession
of Louisiana, by treaty, where it was de-
clared '.that the inhabitants Of the ced
ed territory shall be incorporated into
the Union. and enjoy all the advantages
of citizens of the United States. This
point is too clear to admit Of controver-
sy, and needs no further elaboration.
But there may be some doubts wheth
er the Civil Rights act is in force, the
same not having been published by au
thority. at least to the knowledge of the
court. Let us therefore examine the
question as unconnected with the act of
Congress.
The celebrated Dred Scott case was
decided against the plaintiff upon the
from A friea aud sold as slaves, and he
was not therefore a citizen of the Uni
ted States. In other words the ques-
ion before the Court, as stated by
Judge Taney, was Gould a negro.
whose ancestors were imported into this
and sold as slaves, become a
member of the political community
formed and brought into existence 10y
the Constitution of the Upited States,
and as such become entitled to ali the
rights, privileges, and immunities, guar
antied by that instrument to the citi
zen One of which rights is the privi
lege of suing in a court of the United
States in the cases specified in the Con-
stitution :
1t is apparent from the reasoning of
the Court in that case that the decision
would have been the same, whether
Dred Scott had been freeman or a
slave. 1t was enough that he was a ne
gro, and that African slavery existed in
cur country. In fact, Judge Taney, in
delivering his opinion, saws: ''The ques
ton before us is, whether the class de-
scrihed in the plea of abatement com
pose = portion of this people, and are
members of this sovereignty?
w e think they are not, and that they are
not included, and were not intended to
be included under the word "citizens'
in the Constitution. and can therefore |
claim none of the rights and privileges. |
which that Instrument provides for, and |
secures to citizens of the United States. |
On the contrary, they were at that time |
as a subordinate and inferior |
class OF beings, who had been subjuga |
led ~ the dominant race, and. whether |
or not, yet remained sub |
ect to their authority. and had no |
tights or privileges. but such as those |
who held the power and the Govern |
nent might choose to grant them"
Judges Mclean and Curtis. in very |
,bie opinions, dissented from the ma
oiitv of the court. besides which their |
Judgement was criticised by the press, |
md able jurists all over the land. In |
act, it may be truly said that the Amer |
can people pronounced their verdict /
gainst that decision. 1t is not neces-
,arv. however. that we should attempt |
o controvert anything said by the court /
IN that occasion; but admitting every |
1osisition assumed 10 be correct at the /
ime, the basis upon which the iudg-
nent of the court was founded, has been |
swept away. Slavery. by the late amend
nent to the Constitution of the United
states. has been abolished. That vile |
'vstem which brought this country to
he verge of ruin. and so long stained
Is fair character, no longer exists, and
With its overthrow all the wrongs and
expressions built upon the wretched in
'titutiou must cease. The reason upon
which the judgment in the Dred Scott
,ase was founded no longer obtains. and
therefore the law as expouuded by the
Court of the United States must
all to the ground.
Vattel. in his law of Nations. saws
The inhabitants. SIS distinguished from
.itizens, are foreigners, who are permit
ed to settle and stay in the country"
3ook l, Chap. 10, p. lo1. Foreigners
I'VE no allegiance to the country, and
ire not bound to military duty Negros
sorn in the United States owe allegiance
o the Government, are bound to mill
ary duty, and are subjected to be draft
Il into its service in times of war or