The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-12

State, but it was agreed that slavery should
the future from territory lying north of SO
degrees and 30 minutes the southern bound
airy line of Missouri. Kansas lay just north
of this line, and the efforts which were then
making to introduce slavery in that Terri
tory had caused deep feeling throughout the
country. 1t was und r these circumstances
that the bred Scott decision was rendered.
bred Scott was negro slave owned by DR..
Emerson, a surgeon in the regular army.
In 1884 bred and his family were taken by
his master from Missouri first to Rock
Island H., where they remained two years,
and then was taken to Fort Smelling in the
Territory then known as Upper Louisiana,
now Minnesota. OF course, this was far
north of the Missouri Compromise line In
1888 bred was brought back to Missouri.
Subsequently he and his wife and two chill
dren were sold to one John Sanford
Shortly after this sale bred brought suit in
the United States Court in Missouri to es-
tablish the freedom of himself and family,
on the ground that they had become eman-
cipated by being taken north of the sc de-
grees and 80 minutes line. His master
pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction
because the plaintiff being a negro and
slave, was not citizen of the State of Mis-
souri,. To this plea the plaintiff demurred
and the court sustained the demurrer. as
sorting it's jurisdiction. The defendant APP
pealed to the Supreme Court The court at
that time consisted of Chief Justice fancy,
of Maryland, and Associate Justices Nelson.
of New York; Daniel. of Virginia; Grier. of
Pennsylvania; Campbell of Georgia:
Wayne, of Georgia; Catron, of Virginia.
Mclean, of Ohio, and Curtis, of Massachu-
sets. OF the nine judges seven were either
distinctly in favor of the slave system or
believers in it's constitutional right to pro-
lection and extension. They were Demo-
Gratis of the old school. AS the case in
volved the double question of citizenship of
negro slave and the constitutionality of
the Missouri Compromise, it was almost a
fcregone conclusion that the court would
decide against bred Scotts contention.
Such a decision was political neces-
sity of that period, when every power
of the Constitution and government
was used to support and extend
slavery. On the main questions the court
decided seven to two. Some of the Judges
gave separate opinions on collateral points.
but seven of them agreed that a negro slave,
or once slave, could not be a citizen of the
United States. and therefore could not bring
suit in a United States Court, and that the
Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional
The case was argued in the Supreme Court
twice. and the opinion of the court was
very Ions covering the whole question of
the constitutionality of slavery, the status
of negroes, the right of Congress to prohibit
slavery in the Territories. etc The spirit
Of the decision may be inferred from the
following extract from Chief Justice Taney's
opinion:
In the opinion of the court, the legislation
and histories of the times, and the language
used in the Declaration of independence.
show that neither the class of persons who
had been imported as slaves. nor their de-
scendants, whether they had become free or
not, We're then acknowledged as Il part of
the people. nor intended to be included in
the general words used in that memorable
instrument. They had for more than q
century been regarded as beings of an in
ferior order, and altogether unfit to asso-
c1ate with the white race. either in social
that they had no rights which the white
man was bound to respect; and that the
negro might Justly and lawfully be reduced
to slavery for his benefit
There is great deal of this kind of argu-
mcnt in the opinion of the court. and it
added immensely to the existing irritation
and the growth of the anti-savery senti-
ment. bred Scott, like John Brown. builded
better than he knew, for in the hands of
Providence they both contributed in their
humble way to the election of Lincoln and
the abolition Of slavery
That part OF the decision which the anti
eXpansionists are trying to use occurs in
the discussion of the constitutionality of the
Missouri Compromise act. All the judges
agreed that Congress possessed some power
to govern territories acquired from foreign
governments, but they differed respecting
its source and extent. Judges fancy, Camp
bell, Daniel and Wayne derived whatever
authority Congress possessed to legislate
respecting such territories from the con-
stitutional power to admit new States-the
power to acquire necessarily carrying with
it the power to preserve and apply to the
purposes for which the acquisition was
made. Judges Catron, Mclean and Curtis
derived the power of Congress to Iegislate
for the territories from the plain provision
that The Congress shall have power to dis
pose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other
property of the United States"
The discussion on this point related entire
ly to the right Of Congress to legislate for
the territories, and neither the decision of
the court nor any member of ii denied the
right of the government to acquire new ter
ritory. -Four of the judges, a minority
seemed to imply that new territory could
only be acquired with the ultimate purpose
of creating States. but this point was not
before the court and was not decided. 1t was
obiter dictum So the infamous and obso-
lete bred Scott decision furnishes no argu-
ment for the anti-expansionsts.
The killing of a sixteen-year-old boy yes
terday by the custodian of Greenlawn Gem
etery is u deplorable affair. 1t should be