DRED SCOTT CASE. One of the most im portant 11\ the suprerw unit of the United `state.. It calve up from the loeee r cf•urt on an agreed statement of fact. t hie Drol a slave owned by Dr. Emerson. of the regular army. a resident of :Missouri. had in 131 been taken by his owner into Illinois. a Lommom‘caltli where slavery was prohibited, and had later ( 1:N3f; ) been taken into what is now linnesota—a part of the Louisiana Pur chase. in which slavery w;t-a (Apre—ly prohibited by the Missouri Compromise of Is_) hilt- on free territory t 1s36). Scott had been to marry, his wife being a slave, also owned by Dr. Fanersfin; and, later—in 1A:Isi with his wife MO a child born to them on free soil. he was taken back into In 154A he resolved to sue for this freedf on, and in this pur pose he was gratuitously- aided by prominent lawyers of free-soil beliefs. The chid ground of his contention was that. through his residenee in territory where slavery was prithibited• he had lost his status as a slave. and acquired that of a freeman. The Supreme Court of :Missouri. how ever. held 0s521 that upon being brought back into territory when slavery was legal, the status of slavery reattached to him. and that he had no standing before the court. As involving a question under the Federal laws and Constitu tion. the ease W a brought in 1`;51 before the Federal Circuit Court, which held that Scott was a citizen of Missouri, and could be a party in a suit before a Federal court, but decided the case against him. The case was then taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of the Vnited States. where the chief legal question war as to the correctness of the lower court's decision that the Federal court might take jurisdiction of a case brought by a person of such a status as was that of •-;•tatt. The ease was argued at length in l•-.55 and 1.;56. and the decision was not finally handed down until March. 1S157. The Supreme Court 11(.111 (Curtis and MeLean dis senting) that the Circuit Court hail erred in time suit. because Seott was not a citizen, and therefore wa- not entitled to any standing in the courts: that at the time of the formation of the Constitution. negroes from slaves were not, and eould not be. citizens in any of the States: and that there was DO power in the existing form of government to make citizens of such persons. This point was so derided by a majority of the court. In the course of lei- decision. Judge Taney used the following language: ''It is difficult. at this day, to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate rave which pre vailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of 111.• Doelmnition of Independence. and when the Constitution Wa: framed and adopted. But the piddle history of every European nation it in a manner ton plain to be mist:II:fn• They had for more than a e•ntury before been regarded as beings of an inferior order. and altogether unfit to
with the white race. either in social or political relations: and -0 far inferior 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. lie• was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article Of merchandise and traffic, henever a profit could be made by it. 1 he 01)11110D was at that time fixed and mu‘ersal in the civilized portion Of the white the single sentence, rights which the white MUD was bound to respeet.” has often been quoted apart from its eonneetion, though it was de si,nacd merely as a statement of opinions preva lent when the Constitution was adopted. A dis senting opinion, lofwever, was read L. Mr. .Ins lice Curtis, showing the error of Chief Justice Taney's Historical argument against the possi bility of such persons attaining citiza 'Ishii., and forcibly contending that as nothing had been shown except that Scott was a negro and was descended negroes who had Is -have-. his claim to citizenship had not been seriously controverted. Not content with deciding the only question of law involved, the Chief dustiee. in an obit, r dictum which ha- become historic. went further. and undertook the discussion of matters generally considered foreign to the case and not necessarily involved in the decision of the lower court. Taking up the subject. at that time of vital importance. of the power of Congress over the Territories. the majority of the court held that the .Nlissouri Compromise was un constitutional: that the power of Congress to gov ern the Territories was subordinate to its obliga tion to protect. private rights in property: that slaves were property, and, as such, were protectol by the eonstitutional guarantees: that Congress had no power to prohibit a citizen of any state from carrying into any Territory slaves or any other property; and that Congress had no power to impair the constitutional protection of such property while thus held in a Territory. By this dictum (from which Curtis and ..NleLean wholly, and Capon partially, dissented) one of the extreme doctrines of the pro-slavery party was affirmed as correct, and even the dogma of 'popular sovereignty' was discountenanced. The decision. eoming immediately after the inatignra tion of Buehanan, aroused intense feeling. made still more clear the issues which were to he de •ided in the impending crisis, and impressed upon the North the seriousness of the task of the party of freedom. when opposed both by the executive and by the judicial departments of the National Government. The full text of the de is vol. of 'Howard's nit ed Slates B. poets. Consult also Tyler. Life of B.
Tam y I Balt imore. Is721 and T. Curtis, Memoirs and Writings of Benjamin liras I Bo-ten.