The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1888-06-19
FAMOUS DRIED SCOTT.
A st. Louis Case Which was
Heard All Over the World.
The Negroes Daughters Yet Living in st.
Louisa Brief Review of IL Most I'm
portant Trial.
70 m the 81. Louis Republic.

cCOruS scarcely less fascinating tDt0 the study
Pompeiian records to the antiquarian. One
Of the most notable cases ever adiucated in an
American court, and one which best serves to
illustrate the painstaking care with which
learned judges prepare elaborate and phlo-
sophical opinions on subjects that amount to
absolutely nothing, had its incipiency and eli
max here in st. Louis, though during Its trial
every court from the state circuit to the United
States circuit got whack at IL. American
history was made with every step taken by bred
Scott, "a Missouri negro, who fought for the man
omission Of himself, his wife and their two
children, year after year, in every tribunal that
southern friendship could suggest and New
England money reach, only to find after Chief
Justice fancy had decided against his claim,
that the man Sanford whom he was serving,
had never owned him, and that he was the
property OF Massachusetts congres5man's
wife-an active abolitionist. No sooner did this
fact become known than the four negroes were
manumitted by their New England owners
The case, besides being Of local interest, is
curious one from beginning to end, and is
worth Reviewing.
Dred 81 OFT was born a slave about the year
1900 in Virginia, and in 1894 he was taken by
his master, Dr. Emmerson surgeon i'll the
United States army, to Fort Smelling III the
Upuer Louisiana territory, where he was kept
til 1888. Here he married his wife, Harriet
belonging to the same master. Two children
were born OF the union, and they are now resi-
dents Of st. Louis county. The elder. Eliza,
was born on the steamer Gypsy on the Upper
Mississippi The second child, Lizzie, was born
at a military post. These two pckannnies,
born in bondage, taken no more notice OF by
those who owned them than would have been
blooded colt or an extra breed of bird dogs,
were written down in the book OF late to be-
come historic characters and attain fame OF
which few public men boast.
About tho year 1852 bred Scott reappeared
In st. Louis, from which place he had been la
ken by Dr. Emmerson, now, however, with his
wife and children III the hands of John f. y &.
SANFORD. Dr. Emmerson had in the mean
time died. bred had always been body SER
want, and his life had been q comparatively
easy one. He had never even dreamed OF a
state OF affairs under which he could call him
self his own man, and 1t is more than proba-
bic that had not the instinct of patcrnaL love
asserted itself, The innate desire for independ-
ence would haze slept so latent in his breast
that would never have brought suit for his
freedom.
Sanford had not been in st. Louis week be-
fore his negroes were urged by semi-abolition-
lists 10 bring All action for their manumiss! Oh
or rath an action against him for restraining
them of therlhoir-on the ground that by taxi
ing them into q free territory DR. Emmerson
had tactly, set them free Suit was according
y brought by the negro Scott, on behalf of
himself and family, in 1883 III the circuit court
of the county of ST. Louis, Judge Hamilton
presiding, and Judgment was rendered in his
favor. Tho usual legal steps, such rs motion
for new trial, a motion i'll arrest, affidavit for
appeal, etc, wero taken, and the case went to
the state supreme court, where 1t was reversed
on technicality and renanded for IA new trial.
by this time il had become cause cole
bre, and tho eyes OF the world were turned
toward St. Louis, where it was thought the
question of SCOTS right 30 himself and family
would be finally determed in 1854. Northern
money Golfers fairly vomited forth their treas.
ures to aid in making the fight against Sanford,
aud more than enough money TO buy hum
dred negroes and set them free was spent in
establishing this interstate and intorterritorial
question OF how far the right TO property III
man could extend beyond the owners DOM
icil.
The case came on for trial again in 1854, this
time under different circumstances. Sanford
was tried before jury, and one of the counts
in the charge against him was that he had un-
lawfully laid his hands ON "tho said bred
Scott, Harriet Scott Eliza Scott and Lizzie
Scott, free residents of the state of Missouri"
The counsel first appearing in the case had
long since been displaced by lawyers of greater
fame, II not Of more ability This last point is
an open question, fer on the first trial Died won
his case, whereas this time ho lost it. Here is
the verdict of the jury:
I'VE, the jury, find that AS the first issue
Joined in this case the defendant is not guilty.
and as to the issue secondly above Joined we
PENDANT so restrained plaintiffs Of their liberty
the said bred Scott, Harriet Scott, Eliza Scott
and Lizzie Scott We're negro slaves, the prop
| erty Of defendant"
Judgment was, therefore, rendered for de-
| PENDANT The finding is one of many "curi-
osities of judicature" TO be found among mus
| ty, cid records in the ST. Louis city court
| house.
Montgomery Blair was one of SCOTS legal
advisers and no time was lost in taking the
case to the United States supreme court on n
writ of error. "Dred Scott ct al, plaintiff in
| error; John +. A, Sanford, defendant in error
Blair 4 Curtis for the Scots, Gcyer y john
son defendants" An agreed state OF facts was
submitted and full bench passed upon the case.
The decision, delivered by MIR. Chief Justice
| fancy for whom what is now the banner re-
publican county of Missouri was named-such
| is the irony of iatel, sounded the death knell
| of free soilism, and the only hope for the re-
straint of negro slavery by not in an effort to
| prevent its extension, but i'll its complete cxtir-
| patton Justice fancy declared that bred
| Scott and his family had no case in court for
they were not citizens under the constitution.
| lie is said also 20 have i'll an extra judicial
| way used these memorable words on which the
charges were rung all through the Lincoln
campaign: "a negro has no rights which a
white man is bound to respect"
Mr. Justice Mclean and Curtis disSentod.
These opinions, covering l25 pages Of law re-
| ports are much read by literary antiQuarians
who are hahitues of the St Louis law
! library
Now comes the most curious part OF the
whole case, and one which offers n sorry com
ment on the so-called perfection OF the
English law.
The bar of st. Louis had watched the pro
ceedings with interest from the start. and after
the opinion of tho higher court went agains,
bred many Of tho local attorneys, though
nearly all southerners, and Of proslavery pred.
Elections, expressed sympathy with him. They
| believed chat, whatever might be the moral
/ right of ono man 10 own another, Tancy's de-
/ CiSion was bad law, One of them, still an &c.
/ tive aud permanent lawyer Of this city, began
10 look around for some means of cvading the
decree. He began at the foun;ainhead and
Investigated the right of title Sanford had in
| the man and women, rs The law stood. He
! hunted over the records and found that i'r
| EmmerSon, who took bred 20 Fl. Smelling
! had never sold him. but thar ON his deathbed
he had made n will bcQueathng bred and
/ Harriet and their children 10 his wife during
| her life. with remainder 20 his daughter. Hen.
riotta Emmorson, Sanford was executor ol
the will. When confronted, he Acknowledged
that all the property interest that he had in the
| ncgroeS was that given 10y the Will. Now the
| question was, where is the daughter" Attci
q long time She was located IN Boston, where
she had accompanied her mother, who had
! long since laid aside her widows weeds and