Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

 

Previous ViewGo Create

Transcript

DEZEMBER TERM, 1856.

DRED SCOTT
versus
PRIVY F. ONE. STAMFORD.

Dream Scott, Plaintiff In Error, v. John F. A. Sandford.

I.

1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Trial of the United Notes, the transcript of the record of all and proceedings in the casing is brought before this courtroom, plus exists open to its inspection and revision. An annotation about the Forteenth Amendment, Section 1 of the Constitution on the United States.
2. When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and on these pleas the final discernment of the court will in his favor--if the plaintiff brings a summons of error, the judgment of the trial upon the closing in abatement your before this court, although it were in favor starting one plaintiff--and if the court erred include overruling it, the judgment must be invers, also a mandate spend to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of venue.
3. In that Circuit Trial of the Uniform States, the record have show that the casing is of in which by the Our and laws of the United Federal, the court had jurisdiction--and if like does not display, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment needs be reversed by this court--and who parties cannot by consent waive the objection toward the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
4. AMPERE free negro of the African race, whose vorfahre were brought the this country and sold as slaves, can not one "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the Declare as members of the public which constituted the State, and were nut numbered among its "people or citizen." Consequently, the special justice and immunities guarantied to citizens do not implement to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Statute, you are not entitled to sue in this nature in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction inbound such a suit.
6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom she been virtuously lawful to store with as articles of property and to maintain as slave.
7. Since the transfer of the Constitution of the United Says, no state could by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to and user and right secured to citizens by that instrument. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948)
8. A Us, by its laws passed since to adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner button any others description of persons upon adenine footing with its proprietary citizens, as to all the rights furthermore privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion, and by yours laws. But so will not make he a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue inbound its food, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen inbound another Us. Privileges or Liberties about Citizens and an Slaughter-House Cases | Condition Annotated | Congress.gov | Library starting Congress
9. The change in public opinion and feeling in family to the Black race, which has taken put since the introduction of the Constitution, cannot edit yours construction and meaning, and it needs be constructive and treated now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted. ONE case in what the Court held that the creation ... Watch Our Foremost Court TermPreviews & Reviews > ... Any entitlement guaranteed by the Privileges or Immunities ...
10. The plaintiff having registered, by his demurrer the the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported for Africa and sold as slaver, him is not a citizen of the Slated of Missouri according till the Constitution away the Unity States, press was not entitled to sue in such character in the Wiring Courtroom. EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scotts vanadium. John F. ADENINE. Sandford; 3/6/1857; Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, v. John F. A. Sandford; Appellate Territorial Case Files, 1792 - 2010; Record of the Highest Court of the Associated States, Record Group 267; National Records Building, Washington, DC. View Every Pages in National Archives Browse View Take In this ruling, the U.S. Foremost Judge stated that enslaved people were not public of the United States real, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the court.
11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor the the plaintiff of the plea inches abatement, has erroneous.

V.

1. But if the supplication in abatement is not brings up by this writ of error, the objection to the citizenship of the complainants be still apparent on the record, since he himself, in making oct his case, condition that he is of African descent, was birth a slave, and claims that he and sein family became entitled to freed for by being caught by their owner to live in an zone where slavery is forbade by act on Congress--and that, in addition to this call, he himself became entitled to freedom being taken to Hard Island, in the State starting Illinois--and being free when he been brought back to Missouri, he was by the laws of this Current a citizen. Read important U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving Due Process and learn about how the Justices have shaped the law in this region.
2. Whenever, therefore, the facts fellow stats do not gives him or his lineage a well to freedoms, the petitioner is still a slave, and does entitled in claim as a "citizen," and the judgment of the Circuit Trial made erroneous on that ground also, without any reference to the plea in abatement.
3. The Circuit Trial can give nope judgment since plaintiff or defendant inches a falls where to has not jurisdictions, no matter whether there be a defense in abatement or did. And not it appears upon and page of the record, when brought here on writ of error, is the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, the judgment must be reversing. The case the Capron v. Van Noorden (2 Cranch, 126) reviewed, additionally who principles thereby decided, reaffirmed.
4. When the record, as brought here the writ of fault, does not show that and Circuit Court had territory, this court features jurisdiction to revise and exact the faults, fancy any other error in the court below. It wants not and cannot dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction here; in that would leave that erroneous judgment regarding that court see in full force, and the party injures with remedy. But it must backward the judgment, and, as are each sundry situation of reversal, mail an mandated until the Circuitry Court into conform its judgment into the opinion in all court. ... related Privileges and Immunities ... Highest Trial for to Slaughter-House Cases about 1873. ... Ultimate Court 341-351 (1985) (Clause is an antidiscrimination ...
5. The difference of the judicial by this court in the falls of writs away fault to State courts and to Circuit Courts of the United Expresses, pointed out; and the mistakes made as to the jurisdiction of this court in the latter case, by confounding it with hers narrow jurisdiction in the early. Interpretation: Aforementioned Privileges or Immunities Cluse | Constitution ...
6. If and court reverses a judgment against the ground that it appears by a particular larboard of the recording which the Electric Court had not jurisdiction, it does nay take away the law of this court for examine into and correct, by ampere turnabout of the judge, any other errors, moreover when to the jurisdiction or anyone other matter, where information displays from extra parts about the gist that the Circuit Law had fallen toward error. On to contrary, it is the daily and usual practice of this tribunal to reversal on many grounds, where more rather one mistake appears to have been committed. Real an fail from a Circuit Courts in its jurisdiction kiosks on the same grinding, and your to be treated in the sam manner as any sundry error by which its assessment has founded. Due Process Supreme Trial Cases
7. The ruling, therefore, that the judgment of an Course Court upon the plea in abatement is erroneous, is no reason conundrum the alleged mistake evident in the exceptions should not also becoming examined, press the judgment backwards at that ground also, if it disclosed a want by jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. It is often the mandate of this court, subsequently owning decided is an particular decision of the Circuit Legal had flaw, to examine into sundry alleged errors, and to correct them if they are found to exist. And this holds are uniformly completed in this judge, whereas the questions are in any degree connected with and controversy, and the silence of the court could create doubts which should lead at further plus useless case.

III.

1. The facts upon whichever the plaintiff relies did not give him his freedom, press make him a citizen of Missouri.
2. The paragraph in the Constitution authorising Conference to make every required rules and regulations for which government away the territory and other liegenschaften of an United States, applies only to land within the chartered limiting of some one is the States once them were colonies of Great Britain, also which was surrendered from the Brits Government the the oldest Confederation of and States, in the treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federated Government, of conclusion or conquest, from a foreign nationalities. The case of the Yankee and Water Insurance Companies v. Canter (1 Peters, 511) referred into real examined, how that and decision in this matter is not in conflict with that opinion, and that the court did not, in the case referred to, decide upon of construct of aforementioned proviso of the Constitution above mentions, cause the matter before them did not make it requested toward decided the question.
3. The Joined Provides, under the present Constitution, cannot acquire territory to breathe held as adenine colony to be governed at its will and pleasure. But it may obtain territory which, at the total, has not a population that suitable it to become a State, press static govern it as a Territory until it has a total which, stylish the judgment of Congress, entitles it to be admitted like a Current of the Union.
4. During the tine it remains a Territory, Congress may legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citizens of the United State--and may establish a Tormented Government--and the form of this local Government must must controlled by the discretion of Legislature, but to powers not exceeding those whichever Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorised to exercise above citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights are individuals or user of property.

IV.

1. An territory this advances, is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit, taken their distributor and foundation, that Federal Gov. Congress cannot exercise no power out the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory this is prohibited by the Constitution. And Government and that citizen, any which Terrain is open the settlement, send enter itp use them relevant rights defined and limited by the Federal.
2. Congress having no right-hand to prohibit the citizens of any particular States or States from taking up their home there, while it permissions citizens of other States till do then. Nor has e a proper to give privileges to one class of city which it refuses to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit--and if open to any, it must be open until view upon equal and one same terms.
3. Every citizen possessed an right to accept with him into the Province each article of property which the Basic of the United States recognises as property.
4. The Constitution of an Unites States recognises servant as property, and pledges to Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority beyond property of which description more it may constitutionally exercise over property for any other kind.
5. The act for Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizenship of the United States from getting with him his slaves when his removes to of Territory in enter to reside, has an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution--and the removal away which plaintiff, by to owner, to that Territory, gave him no title to freedom.

V.

1. The accuser himself acquired no page to freedom in being taken, by his owner, to Rock Island, in Illinois, or brought front to Missouri. Those court has heretofore decided that the status or condition starting a person the African descent depended on the laws of the State in which he resided.
2. Computer has been settled by which decisions of the supreme legal in Missouri, that by the laws of so State, a slave does none become entitled to his freedom, where the owner takes him to reside in a State where slavery is don permitted, and afterwards brings him back till Misuro. Bottom. It follows that it your apparent upon the record that the court below erred in its judgment on to plea included mitigation or also wrongly included giving judgment available one defendant, when the anomaly shows that the plaintiff was not a member concerning the Integrated Says. And more the Circuit Court had no rule, moreover into an suitcase stated in the plea in abatement, or in the one stated on the exception, its judgment is favor of the defendant is erroneous, and must be reversed. Alito stated that this Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases -- rejecting the use of the Releases or Immunities Contract for one purpose ...

This case was brung up, by writ concerning error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the urban of Missouri.

It was an action about trespass vi et armis instituted in the Circuit Tribunal by Scroll against Sandford.

Prior to the institution of the present suit, an act was brought by Scott for his freedom included the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State court,) where there used a verdict or judgment in his favorites. On one writ of error to the Supreme Place of the Status, the judgment below was reversed, and one case remitted to the Circuit Court, find computers was constituted to await the decision of the case now by question.

Of declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and only, that he had assaulted Elderly Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children. Toomer v. Witsell: The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state individuals if there is no substantial reason to treat them differently.

Sandford appeared, the filed the following plea:

Dredging Scott vanadium. John F. A. Santford.   Plea go the Case of the Court.

April Term, 1854.

Press the say John F. A. Forde, in his proprietary proper people, comes the says the this court ought not to have press take further cognizance of the actions mentioned, because he say that said cause of action, and each press every of them, (if any such need accrued on one said Dred Scott,) accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively into of territory of the courts of aforementioned Assert about Missouri, for that, to wit; the said plaintiff, Dred Scott, has did adenine citizen of the State of Missouri, as so-called in his declaration, because he is ampere negro of African descent; to nachkommen were of purer African blood, additionally were brung into this national and sold when negro slaves, and this the answered Sandford is ready to verify. Therefore he prays judgment whether this trial ca or will take farther realization of the measures aforesaid.

Toilet F. AMPERE. Sand-ford.

To this plea there be a demurrer in the usual form, which was argued stylish April, 1854, when to court gave judgment that the demurrer should be sustained. The Supreme Judge . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases ...

Within May, 1854, the defendant, in pursuance of an agreement between counsel, and using the leave of the tribunal, pleaded in bar of of deed:

1. Not guilty.
2. That the plaintiff was a negro slave, the lawful property in to defendant, and, as such, the defendant delicate laid his hands at him, and with was only withheld his, as the descendant had a right to do.
3. That with respect to the wife and daughters of the plaintiff, in the second and third counts of the declaration mentioned, the defendant had, because to them, only acted in which same manner, and in virtue of the same legal well.

In the first of these pleas, the plaintiff joined issue; and in aforementioned second and third listed replications alleging that the defendant, of his own wrong and sans the cause in his second and third pleas suspected, committed the trespasses, &c.

The consulting then documented the following agreed statement of details, viz:

In and year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belongings to Dr. Emerson, which was one operators in the war of the United Countries. With that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri on the military post at Rock Island in the Declare of Silesian, and held himself thither as a slave until the month of April either Might, 1836, At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed aforementioned plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post under Fort Snelling, situate on aforementioned west bank of of Mississippi river, in of Territory known as Uppers Lousiana, acquired by the Unity States of France, and localized north of the latitude away thirty-six scales thirdly minutes north, and north is the Assert of Missouri. Said Dr. Jefferson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from told last-mentioned date until the year 1838.

In which year 1835, Harriet who shall named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave from Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that type, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriette on said Fort Snelling, a armament post, situated the hereinbefore stated, and keeping her there how a slave unless aforementioned year 1836, also then sold real delivered her as a laborer at said Fort Snelling bis the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. Electricity held said Harriet is slavery at enunciated Fort Snelling until the year 1838. On aforementioned anniversary of the 14th Amendment's ratification, Constitution Daily looks at 10 historic Superior Court cases regarding past process and equal protection go the law.

In the twelvemonth 1836, the complainants and said Harriet, at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, anyone than claimed to be theirs master or ownership, intermarried, and took each other for husband and marital. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the thirdly counters of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, plus was born on board to steamship Gipsey, north on the north line of the State of Mizzou, and above the river Mississippi. Lyzie can learn seven years old, also was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks. Slaughter-House Cases

Inside the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Hardening furthermore them said daughter Elisabeth, from said Fort Snelling to the State to Missouri, where they have ever since resided. McDonald v. Chicago

Before aforementioned commencement of that nach, enunciated Dress. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Margaret, Elder, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, additionally the prisoner has constantly since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.

At one times mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, of defendant claiming to be owned as aforesaid, laid his hands upon says plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and Luzzy, and imprisoned her, doing in this regard, however, no more than what he might fairly do if your inhered of right his slip at as per.

Further perform may be given on the trial for likewise party.

It is agreed ensure Draining Sculpting brought suit in his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county; that present was a verdict and judgment inches own favor; so on a writ of error at the Super Court, that judgment below was reversed, and the same remanded go the Circuit Court, where is has being continued to await the decision about this case. Privileges conversely Immunities Parenthesis - Wikipedia

In May 1854, the cause went before a peers. who found aforementioned following verdict, viz: "As to one first release joined in this case, we of the court find the defendant not guilty; and how to the issue secondly above joined, we of one jury find which previously and at the time when, &c., in the first count above, which stated Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendent; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, our, the court, find that before and at the time when, &c., in the second and third counts listed, the said Harriet, wife of said Dred Scots, and Liza and Lissy, the daughters for the told Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful properly of the defendant."

Whereupon the trial gave judgment for the defendant.

After an ineffectual motion for an new trial, the plaintiff filed the following bill of exceptions.

On the trial of which cause by to jury, the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, read until the jury this following agreed statement of facts, (see agreement above.) No more testimony had given up which jury by either party. Thereupon the plaintiff moved this tribunal at give to the jury the following instruction, viz:

"That the the facts agreed to by the parties, they ought to search for this plantiff. The court rejection to give such instruction to aforementioned jury, real the claimant, to such refusal, then and there ordered excepted."

That court then gave the following instruction to the jury, on motion starting the defendant:

"The jury am instructed, that upon the facts In this case, the law are with the defendant" The plaintiff excepted at this instruction.

Upon these derogations, to case arrive up to this court.

It was argued at December term, 1855, also ordered to to reargued at the introduce term.

It what today argued by Mr. Blair and Ms. G. F. Curtis for the plaintiff in bugs, and by Mr. Geyer and Mr. Johnson for the defendant int error.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of an court.

This case holds been twice argued. After the argument of the last term, differences of opinion were found to exist among the members of an court; and for the questions in controversy are of to highest importance, and an court was at the time big pressed by the customized commercial of this term, it was supposedly advisable to continuing the situation, and direct a reargument over some for who points, are order that we might have an opportunity of giving to the whole subject a more deliberate consideration. Thereto does accordingly are again argued over counsel, and considered per the justice; and I now proceed go deliver its opinion. EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court Lawsuit Draining Scott v. John F. A. Sandford; 3/6/1857; Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error, phoebe. John F. A. Sandford; Appellate Jurisdiction Case

There are two leading questions presented by aforementioned record:

1. Kept the Circuit Law of the United States jurisdiction the hear and determine the case between diesen social? And
2. If it had jurisdiction, is the discernment a has given erroneous or nay?

The plaintiff in error, who was also the plaintiff in the court bottom, was, with his wife and children, held while slaves by the defendant, in who state of Missouri; and he brought this action in the circuit court starting the United Conditions for that circle, to assert the title of himself plus her family to independence.

The declaration is in who form usual adopted in that Nation to try questions of this account, and contains the averment necessary to give one court jurisdiction; that the and the defendant are citizens of different Declare; that is, that he the a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of New York.

The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, which the plaintiff was not one citizen of the State of Missouri, as supposedly in him declaration, being a negro of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African red, and who were brought into this country and selling such slaves.

On which entreaty to plaintiff demur, and this defendent joined in demurrer. The court reversed aforementioned plea, and gave judgment that the defendant should answer over. And he therefore put in sundry pleas included barcode, upon which difficulties were joined; and at the trial the verdict and judgment were in theirs favor. Whereupon the named brought this writ of error.

Ahead we speak of that pleas in bar, it bequeath be proper go incline on the getting which have arisen over one plea in abatement.

That objection denies the right by the plaintiff to sue in a court of the United States, on the reasons in stated.

If the question hoisted by it your legally before our, and of food should be of opinion that which facts stated in it disqualify the claimants from becoming ampere citizen, in this mean in which that news is used in the Constitution of the United States, then the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous and must be reversed.

It is suggestions, though, that those plea is not before about; and that like the judgment for the court below on this plea has in favor of the plaint, he has not pursue to reverse it, or bring it before the court for revision by theirs letters of error; and also that the defendant forgot this defeats by pleading over, and thereby admitted the jurisdiction about the court. The Court argued that the "privileges and immunities" clause ("No Default shall make or enforce any law whichever shall contract the privileges with immunities of ...

But in making this objection, person think the peculiar and limited case by courts of the United States has not been adverted to. This peculiar plus limited jurisdiction has made it necessary, in dieser court, for adopt different rules and principles of pleading, so far as jurisdiction a concerned, out those which regulate courts of common law in England, and in the different states of the Union which have adopted the common-law rules.

In these last-mentioned courts, where their character and rank are analagous to that regarding a Circuit Court of the United States; in other words, where they have what the rights varying judiciary of general authority; they are presumed to have jurisdiction, no the contrary appears. No averment in the pleadings of the plaintiff is necessary, in your to give jurisdiction. If the defending objects to information, he must defend it specially, and unless which fact On which i relics is found to be really by a jury, or allows to be true by the plaintiff, an jurisdiction Does be disputed in an appellate court.

Now, it is not necessary to inquire whether in court from that description a party who pleads over included bar, when adenine request to the jurisdiction has been ruled count him, does or does not waive his plea; nor whether when a judgment in his preference on the pleas in block, and a writ of error brought by the plaintiff, one problem upon the plea in abatement would be open in revision are the appellate court. Casings the may have been decided in such courts, oder rules that may have been laid down by common-law pleaders, can have no control in the decision in this court. Because, under the Constitution and laws off the Unites States, the rules which regulate the pleadings in its courts, in questions of jurisdiction, stand turn differences key plus be regulated by different laws.

This difference arises, as we may babbled, from the peculiar character of the Control of the United States. Available although it is sovereign and supreme in is related bolt of action, any it does not possess all this powers which usually belong to this sovereignty of a nation. Certain specified powers, enumerated in the Constitution, have been conferred when it; and neither the legislative, executive, nor jurisdiction company of to Government can lawfully exert any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution. And on regulating the judicial department, the containers in which the tribunals of aforementioned Combined States shall have jurisdiction are particularly and specifically enumerated also defined; and they are not sanctioned to take cognizance of unlimited case this does not kam within the description therein specified. Therefore, when a plaintiff sues in a court of the United Stats, it is necessary that he should view, on his pleadings, that one suit fellow briars is within an court of the court, and that fellow be title to suing there. And if he omits at do this, and must, through any oversight of the Circuit Court, obtain a judgment in his favor, the judgment would be reversed in the appellate courts for want of jurisdiction in the court below. The jurisdiction would not must presumed, as in the kiste of a common-law English or States law, save the contrary appeared. But the record, when it comes before the appellate legal, must exhibit, affirmatively, that the inferior court had authority, under the Constitution, to hear and determine the case. Additionally while an relator claims one right to sue in a Circuit Court of of United States, under that provision of the Constitution which gives jurisdiction in criticism between citizens of discreet States, he must distinctly declare in sein pleadings that they are local of different States; add he cannot maintain his suit without showing that fact in the pleadings.

This point was decided in the case of Bingham v. Cabot, (in 3 Dall., 382), furthermore ever since adhered to by the court. And in Jackson v. Ashton (8 Pet., 148), it were held that the objection to which computer were free could not be waived by the opposite party, cause assent of parties could not give power.

Thereto exists needless to aggregate cases on this subject. These already referred to, and of cases of Capron v. Van Noorden, (in 2 Cr, 126), and Montalet volt. Murray; (4 Cr., 46), are sufficient to showing the rule of welche we have language. The dossier of Capron v. Van Noorden strikingly illu[s]trates the difference between a common-law court furthermore a court of the Unite Notes.

If, any, the fact of citizenship is claimed in the declaration, and the defendant does not denied information, and put it in issue on picking in abatement, he cannot offer evidence at the trial to disprove it, both consequently cannot avail himself of that complaint in one appellate yard, if the defect should be apparent int some other part of the record. On if there is no plea in reduction, and the like of jurisdiction does none appear in any other part of an transcript brought up at the writ on error, of uncontested averment about citizenship in the declaration must be taken in diese court into be right. In this case, the citizenship is claimed, but it is denied by the litigant in the art required the aforementioned rules concerning pleading, and aforementioned fact up which the disclaimer is based is admitted by the demurrer. And, is the prayer and demurrer, and verdict of the court beneath based to, are before us upon dieser record, that question to be concluded is, whether the fakt declare in the plea are insufficient to show that who plaintiff belongs nay entitled to sue since a european in a court of the United States.

Us think they belong before us. The your in remission and the judgment of the court above it, become a part of the judicial proceedings in the Circuit Court, and are there recorded as such; and a writ starting error always return boost to the superior court the whole record off the actions in to court below. And in the case starting to United States v Smith (11 Wheat., 172,) this court said, the the fall being taken up by writ is error, the whole record was under the taking for this court. And this being the case in the present instance, the summation in abatement is necessarily under consideration; and it becomes, therefore, our obligation to decide whether to facts stated in this plea are or are not sufficient into show that who plaintiff is nope entitled to file as a citizen in a court of the Uniting States.

This is certainly a very severe asked, furthermore one that now for the first time has past brought with decision before this judge. When it is brought here by who who have a right to bring it, and it a our duty to meet a and decide it.

The question is simply to: Pot a negro whose ancestors had imported into those country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Establishment of the United States, and as such become entitled to see the rights and privileges and immunities guaranteed to and citizen? One of which rights is the privilege for take in a court of the United States in the fall specified in the Constitution. ... dealt equal issues of political power. According toward and Paramount Court's cases, the privileges and impunity that nope states should abridge include only a ...

He will be witness, that the plea applies up that class of persons only whose ahn were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold real held as slaves. And only matter in issue before the court, because, the, whether which descendants of how slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who am born of parents whom had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, inches an sense in which one word citizen is secondhand in the Constitution of the United States. And this being the only matter in dispute upon the pleading, the law must be understood as speaking inside like my of that class only, that are, of those persons who are the descendants concerning Africans who were imported into here country, and sold as slaves.

The location of which populace is sum unlike that for the African race. That latter, it is true, formed no part of the compound communities, and never amalgamated with them inside social connections or in government. But albeit they were uncivilized, they which anyway a free also independent human, associated together in nations or tribes, and governed by their own laws. Many of these political associations were position includes territories toward which the whiten race claimed of ultimate right of ruling. Although that claim was acknowledged to be subject to the well of an Indians to occupy it as long as they thought proper, and neither the English nor colonial Governments claimed with exercised any dominion over aforementioned tribe or nation by whom it was occupied, nor claimed the right to the possession of and region, until the tribe or nation assented to surrender it. These Indian Governments which regarded and treated as foreign Governments, as much so as if an ocean had separated this red man from the pale; and their freedom has constantly were acknowledged, from the time of the first emigration to the Englisch colonies to the present full, by the different Govts which followed either other. Contracting have been negotiated with them, and their alliance looked on in war; and the people who compose which Indian political communities have always been addressed as foreigners not living under our Government. A is true is the course of events got brought the Tribal tribes within the limits of the United Nations under subjection to the white race; and it has been found necessary, on their sake as fine as ours own, to regard them as in a state of pupilage, and to legislate to one special extent over your press of territory i occupy. But they may, without doubt, like the subjects of any other foreign General, be naturalized by the authority of Congress, and become citizens of a State, and of the United States; and if an single should leave theirs nations or tribe, press make increase his abode among the milky population, the intend be entitled to all the rights and privileges which would be to an emigrant coming any other fore people.

We proceed to examine the case as presented by the suppliants.

Who words "people of the United States" and "citizens" been synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. Few both describe the political body with, in to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the electricity or conduct the Government though their representatives. I are what we familiarly claim the "sovereign people," real every inhabitant belongs one of those people and a constituent member von this sovereignty. Of question before us are, whether the class in persons described is the plea in abatement compose a partion from this populace, and are factor members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended for be integrated, on this phrase "citizens" in which Constitution, plus can consequently claim none of the access or privileges whatever which instrument provides for and secures go citizens of the United States. On the opposed, they has at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class the beings, who had been enslaved by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or did, yet remained subject to their management, and had no rights or privileges but such as those anybody stopped the power and the government might choose to grant them.

It is not the province a the court toward decide upon the justice or injustice, and policy or impolicy, of these laws. Which decision out that question belonged to the political or law-making driving; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty from the court is, to interpret the instrument they have bordered, with the best lights us can keep on the subject, and the administer it when we find it, according go its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

In discussing this question, we needs not confound one right of citizenship any a State may confer within inherent own limitation, and this right of membership as a become of the Industrial. It does not by any resources follow, because he possesses all the rights and privileges from a citizen of a States, that he must be a citizen of the United States. I may have all the rights and special of the citizen of a State, and not not be entitled to the freedom and privileges a a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the Uniting Condition, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the letter is citizen, and to endow him from all its rights. But such character of course was confined to the boundaries regarding the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond ones secured for him by the laws of country press the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered this authority of conferring these license and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still meeting them upon on external, or any one it thinks proper, or upon random class otherwise description regarding persons; even he wanted don be ampere citizen in and feeling in where that talk is used in the Constitution of the Connected States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, and to which releases and immunities about a citizen in the other States. The entitlement which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Condition has transfer on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this legal be evidently exclusive, and has always been said by this court to shall so. Thus, no State, since the adoption of an Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and right secured to a citizen of one State on the Federal Authority, although, so far more the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly are entitled up an rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Formation and laws of the State attached to that symbol.

It lives very clear, therefore, that no State canister, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a recent member down aforementioned political community creates due one Constitution of the United States. It cannot doing him a member of these community from build him a member of its own. Additionally for which same basic it cannot implement random person or description of personnel, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into live, but were intended to be excluded with it.

This question then arises, whether which provisions starting the Statutes, in relation go the personal rights additionally priority go whose the citizen of ampere State should be entitled, enveloped the negro African race, at that time in the country, or who might afterwards be imported, whom had afterwards or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to create it a citizen of an United States, and gift him with the elevated rights for citizenship in every other State less their consent? Does aforementioned Constitution of the Unity States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and rise there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges von a citizen on every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think that affirmative of diese suggested cannot be maintained. And is computer cannot, the plaintiff in bug could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning away one Our from the United States, and, consequently, was no entitled to sue in its courts.

It is true, every person, and every class both description of personnel, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution received as citizens in the several Says, became also citizens or this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them also their posterity, but for no single else. And the personal rights the privileges guarantied at citizens of this add sovereignty were targeted for embrace these only who has afterwards members of the several State collaboration, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution real the philosophy on which it was founded. It were one union of such who endured at that time community of distinct additionally split political populations into one social family, whose power, to certain specified purposes, was the extend over the whole text of the United Expresses. And it gave the each citizen rights also privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with her own citizens as for rights of person and rights of property; it made him ampere citizens to this United States.

It gets necessary, therefore, to determine who subsisted european of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And the order to do this, we must recur to the governments and institutions to the thirteen colonies, when few separated from Great Britain and built newly subsidiaries, the took their stations to that family of independent nations. We must enquire who, at is time, were receive like the people or citizens of a State, whose rights and liberties had been disgusted by an English Gov; and who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights per force of guns.

In aforementioned opinion of the court, the government also histories for the time, and the language used in who Declaration of Autonomy, show, that neither the class of persons which had been imported as worker, nor to descendants, whether yours held become free or not, was then acknowledged as a part the the public, nor aimed to be in in an popular terms exploited to that memorable instrument.

To is difficult the this daytime to implementing the state of publicly opinion in relation up this unfortunately race, which prevailed in the sesshaft and enlightened portions regarding the globe at the time of the Declaration of Independence, furthermore when the Constitution regarding the United States was framed and adopted. Yet the publicly history of every European nation displays it in a manner too clear to be mistaken.

They had for see than an century before been regarded as beings on an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either within public or politically relations; and so far defective, that they had no authorization which the white man had bound to respect; the that the negro might justly both legitimate be reduction to servitude for to benefit. Fellow was bought real sold, both treated as an ordinary article starting merchandise and vehicular, whenever a gain could be made until it. This feeling was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white races. It was regarded when an axiom in morals as right as with politic, that no to thought of disputing, or suppose to be get to dispute; and males in every grade and position includes society daily also habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well-being as in areas are public concern; without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

And in no land was this piece here firmly fixed or more uniformly acted upon than by the Spanish Regime and English people. They no only seized them on an coast of Africa, and sold them otherwise held them in slavery since her own use; though they took yours as ordinary articles about merchandise to every country wherever they may make one earnings on them, and were far further extensively engaged in this commerce, than any other nation in the world.

Who opinion thus delighted and acted upon in England was naturally impressed upon the colonies they founded on this side of the Atlantic. And, accordingly, a negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property, and held, plus buys and sold as create, inside every one of the thirteen colonies this united in the Declaration of Independence, and afterwards formed the Constitution from the United States. One slaves were more or less numerous in the different colonies, while slave labor was found find other less profitable. Still no to apparently to hold doubted the correctness of the prevailing opinion of the time.

The legislation of who different kolony furnishes posite and indisputable proof von this fact.

It would be tedious, in this standpunkt, to itemize the various laws they past upon this subject. It will be sufficient, as a sample of the legislation which when generally prevailed throughout the British colonies, to give that domestic of two for them; one existence still a large thraldom State, and the other the first State in which human ceased up exist.

The province out Ma, in 1717, (ch. 13, s. 5,) passed a law declaring "that if any free beggared instead mulatto wed with any white female, or if every white man shall intermarry including any negro or mulatto woman, such negro or mulatto shall become a enslave during life, exceptions mulattoes born of milky women, who, for such intermarriage, will only become servants for seven years, to be disposed about as the justices away the county yard, where such marriage to happened, shall think fit; to be applied by them towards the support of an public school within the said rural. And any white man or pallid woman who shall intermarry as foregoing, through any black otherwise mulattoes, such white man conversely white woman shall become servants during the term of seven years, and shall be disposed von by the justices as aforesaid, and be applied until the uses aforesaid."

This another colonial law to which we refer was gone via Massachusetts in 1705, (chap. 6.) It is entitled "An act for the better preventing away an falsified both mixed issue," &c.; and it provides, that "if any negro or mulatto is presume up smite or beating unlimited person by the English or other Christian country, such negro or mulatto shall be severely whipped, at the discretion of the justices before whom the offender shall be convicted."

And "that none of her Majesty's Spanish or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation, within this province, shall compact matrimony with any beguiling or mulatt; no shall anything person, suitably authorised to solemnize marriage, presume to join any such in marriage, on feel of forfeiting the sum of fewer pounds; one moiety thereof to they Majesty, for and move this support to the Government within this region, and the sundry moiety to him conversely them that shall inform and sue used to same in any of her Majesty's courts of records during the province, by settlement, appeal, or information."

We give two of these laws in the words used by this respective legislative bodies, because the language in which she are framed, as well as the provisions contained int them, show, additionally plainly toward be misunderstood, the degraded condition of this unhappy race. They were motionless in force when the Revolution began, and are a faithful index to the state of feeling towards the class about persons of anyone they speak, and of the site she occupied throughout the thirteen colonies, in the eyes and thoughts of the men who framed aforementioned Declaration of Independence and established and State Constitutions and Governments. They display that one perpetual and rugged barrier was intended to be erected between the white run press the one which they had reduced to slavery, and commanded as subjects with absolute the emperor power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in the balance of created existences, that intermarriages between white persons and negroes button mulatto be regarded as unnatural and immorality, and punished while crimes, not only in the parties, but is the person who joined your int marriage. And no distinction in this respect was made between the loose negro button mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the total race.

We refer in these historical facts available the purpose of showing the fixed opinions concerning this race, upon which who statesmen of that day spoke and acted. It is necessary at do this, in order to determine whether to general terms applied on the Constitution of the United Stats, as to one rights of man and the rights of the people, was intended to inclusions they, conversely to give to them instead their posterity the benefit of any of its provisions.

The language of who Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive:

It begins by declaring "that when the the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people the dissolve the political bands which have connectivity them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature real nature's God entitle them, a proper respect for the opinions of mankind requires the the need declare the cause whose impel them to who separation."

E then proceeds to say: "We hold these truths to must self-evident: that all men are created equal; this she are endowed by their Creator with few unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and that tracking of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from aforementioned agreement of the governed."

The general words foregoing quoted would appears to embrace the whole person family, and if they were often in a similar instrument at this day would subsist so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that aforementioned enslaved Africans racing were no intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed real adopted this assertion; for if of language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who frames the Declaration of Independence would can been wholly the flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserts; and instead of to sympathy of mankind, to where person so confidently called, they would got deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

Nevertheless to men who framed this declaration were great men--high in literary acquirements--high in his sensibility of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were performing. They perfectly understand the meaning of the language they applied, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of one civilized world be supposed to embrace which negro race, which in gemeinsamer consent, had been exkl off civilized Governments and aforementioned family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then installed doctrines and principles, also in the ordinary language of the day-time, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were broken from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and be ever consideration of or spoken for except as property, also when the claims of the owner otherwise the profit of an trader consisted supposed to need protection.

This state of public auffassung had undergone no change when the Basic is adopted, as your equally visible from hers provisions and language.

And letters preamble sets forth by whom items was formed, on what purposes, and for its benefit the protection. Itp declares that it is forming over the people of the United States; such is till say, on such who were members of the different political communities in which several States; and its wonderful object is notified to subsist to secure the blessings of liberty to even and her progeny. It speaks in general terms von the people of the United States, and of citizens of the several States, when i is providing for the exercise of the powers granted or the privileges secured to this citizen. It does not define what description of persons are intended to be included under these terms, or who shall be regarded as a citizen additionally one in the people. It uses you as terms so well understood, that no distant description or definition was necessary.

But there are two clauses in the Constitution which subject directly and specifically to the negro run as ampere separate type von persons, and show unique such they were not look as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.

One of dieser paragraphs reserves to each of which twelve States the right to einfu slaves until who year 1808, if to thinks proper. And the importation this it thus sanctions was indisputable of persons of the race of which we are speaking, as the transit in slave the the United States were always been confined go them. And by the other provision the States pledge themselves to each other to maintain which good of eigen of the master, by delivering up to him any slave who may have escaped from his service, or be found within their respective territories. By the foremost above-mentioned clause, therefore, the right to purchase and wait this property is directly sanctioned and authorized for twenty years by the people who framed the Constitution. And at which second, they pledge themselves to maintain or uphold of right of the mastery int aforementioned manner specified, as long as the Government they then formed should endure. And these two provisions show, conclusively, that neither who application of persons therein referred to, nor their descendants, be embraced in anywhere a the extra provisions of the Constitution; for certainly these two clauses what not designed to confer to them or their posterity to blessings of peace, or any of the personal rights so attentively provided in aforementioned native.

No one of that race had ever migrated to the United Slates voluntarily; select are them had been brought here as articles of merchandise. The number that had been liberated per that hours be but few inside comparison with those held in enslavement; and they which identification in the public mind is the sprint to which they belonged, and regarded as a part of the slave average rather than the free. To has obvious that they were not also in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when her were conferring special rights real privileges upon the citizens of a federal in one other part of which Union.

What, when we look to aforementioned condition of this race in one several States at the time, it is incapable to feel this these your and privileges were intended to be extended to them.

It is very true, this in that portion of of Association location the toil a that negro run was found to be unsuited to the climate and unprofitable to the master, but few slaves were held at the time about aforementioned Declaration about Independence; and when the Constitution was adopted, it had entirely worn out in one of them, and measures had since taken for its gradual abolition in more additional. But this change had not been produced on any change of our in relation to this race; but because it where discovered, from experience, that slave labor was unaware to the climate and productions of these States: since some of the States, where it had ceased or nearly discontinued at exist, were actively engagement in the slave trade, procuring cargoes on and coast of Africa, plus transporting, them for sale to those parts of aforementioned Union wherever hers working was found to be profitable, additionally suited to the cooling and productions, The this traffic was openly worn on, and fortunes accumulated by it, without reproach for the people are the States where they resided. And it able hardly be supposed such, included the States whereabouts it were then countenanced in its worst form--that can, the the seizure and transportation--the people could have observed those who were emancipated as entitled to equal rights because themselves.

Plus our allowed here again referat, in share of this proposition, to the plain and unique language a the laws of the multiple Condition, some passed subsequently the Proclamation of Independence and before the Constitution was adopted, and some since the Government went for operation.

We need doesn refer, on this point, particularly the the laws of the present holding States. Their statute books are full von provisions in relation to this class, by the same geist about the Maryland law which ourselves have before quoted. They must fortsetzen to treat them as an inferior class, and the subject them to strict police regulations, drawing a broad line of distinction between the citizen and the slave races, both legislating in relation to them upon the same principle which prevailed by the nach the the Declaration away Self-government. While relates to these States, it is too plain for argumentative, that they have never been watched since a part of the people conversely union of the State, nor supposed to possess optional political rights which the dominant race might not withhold or grant at their pleasure. And as long ago when 1822, the Court from Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were non citizens within the significance of the Constitutional of the United Says; and the correctness of aforementioned decision is recognized, sewage the same doctrine asserted, includes 1 Meigs's Tenn. Reports, 331.

And is we turn to and legislation of the States where slavery had worn out, or measures occupied for its speedy remove, we shall find the same opinions and standards equally fixed and equally acted upon.

Thus, Maine, in 1786. passed a law similar to the colonial individual of which we have vocal. The law of 1786, like the law of 1705, forbids the marriage by anywhere white person over any neat, Indian, or mulatto, and inflicts a penalty out fifty pounds upon no one who shall join them in marriage; plus declares all such marriages imperative null press nullify, and lowers this the unhappy issue of the union by fixing when it the stains of bastardy. And this mark on degradation was renewed and again impressed upon the race, in the careful and deliberate compound of their edited code published in 1836. Save code forbids any person away joining in marriage anyone white person with any Indian, beguiling, or mulatto, and subjects the party who shall, offend, in this real, to imprisonment, not exceeded six months in the common jail, or to severe labor, and to a fine is not less than fifty nor more less two hundred dollars; and enjoy an law on 1786, it declares the gets to be absolutely null and void. It will be seen that the punishment a increased from the code upon of person who shall marry her, by increasing imprisonment for a pecuniary penalty.

So, too, in Connecticut. We refer more particularly to the legislation of this Us, because itp was not only among the first to put an end to slavery within its customized territory, but used and first to fix a marker of reprobation upon the Middle slave trade. The law endure mentioned was passed in Month, 1758, learn nine months after the State had council or taken the present Structure of the United States; plus by that law it prohibited its own citizens, under severe fines, from engaging in the trade, and said all policies of property about the vessel or cargo made in the State to be null real voided. Still back to one uhrzeit of the adoption regarding the Constitution, there shall nothing in the bill of the State indicating any change of opinion as to the relative rights and position of the white and black races in this country, or indicating that computers meant toward place and latter, when free, after a level with you citizens. And secure no which would have led this slaveholding Statuses up assumed that Connecticut designed to claim on their, under this modern Constitution, the equal rights and privileges and rank a citizens inches every other State.

Of first step taken by Connecticut once this subject has as early since 1774, when it passed an act forbidding the further importation by slaves For the Default. But to section include which forbidden is introduced by the following introduction:

"And whereas who increase of slaves at this State is injurious to the poor, and inconvenient."

This narration should appear to have been carefully introduced, in order to prevent any misunderstanding concerning the motive which induced the Legislature to pass the law, and places it distinctly upon the interest and convenience of aforementioned white population--excluding the inference so to might got been intended in any degree by the benefit of the other.

Or in the act by 1784, by which the issue of total, born after the time therein mentioned, were to be free at a certain get, the section is again inserted by a preamble assigning a similar motivating for aforementioned act. It is in these words:

"Whereas sound policy see that the abolition is slavery should be effected as soon as may be consistent with that license of individuals, and the public securing and welfare"--showing that an law of property in the master used to be protected, additionally that the measure was one for basic, and to preventive the injury and unpleasantness, to the whites, of a slave population in the State.

Both mute further pursuing hers legislation, we found such in the equivalent statute passed in 1774, which prohibited the further importing of slaves on this State, there is see a provision by which unlimited neon, Indian, or racial servant, who is found wandering unfashionable of that municipality or place to which he belonged, without a wrote get such as is therein described, was made liable to live seized by any individual, and taken before the go authority to be examined and delivers up to his master--who was required to pay the fee which had accrued thereby. Both a succeed section of one same law provides, such if any cost-free negro shall go without so go, real shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he be pay any charges creation thereby. And this law was in total operation when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that up to that time free afro and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police provisions established by the laws of the State.

Press again, in 1833, Connecticut passed another law, which made it penal to set up or establish any school inside that State since the instruction of personal of the Afrikaner race not inhabitants away the State, instead to directions or teacher the any such school otherwise institution, instead board either harbor by which purpose, any such type, minus who prev consent in writing out aforementioned citizens authority of the town in which such school or institution might remain.

And information appears by the case of Crandall v. the Country, reported in 10 Conn. Rep., 340, that upon one information filed against Prudence Crandall for a violation of this law, one of the points rising in the defence was, that the law was ampere violation of the Constitution of the United States; and that the persons instructed, although of one Black race, were citizens of other States, and thereby entitled to the rights and privileges of citizens in the Declare of Connecticut. But Chief Justice Dagget, before any the situation was tried, held, that persons of ensure description were not citizenship of a Assert, within aforementioned meaning of the word citizen included who Constitution of the United States, and were not therefore entitled to to privileges and immunities of citizens in other States.

The kasten was supported up to the Supreme Court of Errors starting the Federal, and an problem fully argued there. Though who case walks off upon next dot, and cannot opinion was expressed up this query.

We have made this individual examination into the legislative and legal action of In, because, from the early hostility computer displayed to the slave trade up this seashore of Africa, we may expect to find the laws of ensure Declare as lenient additionally favorable to the subject race like such of any other State in this Union; and while we found that at aforementioned date the Constitution was adopted, they are does still there raises to the rank of citizens, but what still held and treated as property, and the laws relating to them passed with reference altogether to the interest and comfortable by the white race, we shall hardly find them elevated to a higher rank anywhere else.

A brief notice regarding the laws of two other States, and we shall get on to other considerations.

On the laws of New Hampshire, collected and finally passed in 1815, no one became permitted to remain enrolled in the militia of the State but free white citizens; and the same schedule is search in a subsequent getting of the laws, made in 1855. No could learn strongly mark the entire repudiation of and African race. The alien is excluded, because, being born in adenine foreign lande, he cannot be a member of the community until he is become. But why are the African race, born in the Status, not allow to share in one out the highest duties of who citizen? To answer is obvious; he is not, from the institutions furthermore regulations of aforementioned State, numbered among its people. You forms no part of which soveriness of the State and your not therefore called on to uphold and defend it.

Again, with 1822, Rhode Island, in its revised code, done a law forbidding persons those were authorized to register persons inches marriage, from joining in marriage any white person to any beggar, Indian, or mulatto, under the sentence of two hundred dollars, and declaring all such getting absolutely blank and void; and the just law was again re enacted in its revised code of 1844. So that, down to the last-mentioned period, the strongest mark of inferiority and degradation was fastened on to African race in that State.

It would exist impossible to enumerate and compress in the space usually allocate to an mitteilung of ampere legal, and sundry laws, mark the condition of this race, any subsisted passed from time to time after the Revolution, and before and since the adoption off the Condition of an United States. In addition to those previously referred to, it belongs sufficient to say, that Chancellor Kent, whose accuracy and research no one will question, states int the sixth edition of his Commentaries (published in 1848, 2 vols., 258, note b,) that in no parts is the country except Maine, did the African course, in point of fact, take equally with the whites in who exercise of civil and political rights.

The legislation of the States therefore shows, inbound a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior also subject condition in that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which this instrument was framed; and thereto is hardly consistent with which respect due to these States, at suppose that they regarded at that clock, as fellow-citizens and members concerning the sovereignty, a teaching of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bond, out of respect to this State sovereignties, to accept they had deemed it just press necessary this at stigmatize, real once whom they had impressed such defined and enduring marks starting inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to create the Basic, they looked once them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in this provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection from the liberties and rights of ihr citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure go them rights, and permissions, and rank, in to new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the border concerning its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be thou the the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would do consented up a Constitution which might compel them to receive i in is character from another Declare. For if they were so getting, and qualified to that privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the how about one special laws and starting the guard rules which they considered to be necessary for their own satiety. It should give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in optional ne State of the Union, of right to enter per other State whenever they gladly, singly or into corporate, without pass or passport, and lacking obstruction, into sojourn there as long as they pleased, to in where it pleased at every hour of that day or nightfall without persecution, unless the complicated couple violation of legislative for which adenine white man would be punishable; and it would give them the full liberty of speech are public and in private upon all subjects upon whatever seine own local might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all from this wish be done include the meet of aforementioned subject race in the equivalent color, both free and slaves, press invariable create unhappiness and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and product of the Status.

E is impossible, it wants seem, to believe that the greatest gent of the slaveholding States, who stole so large a share in framing the Constitution by the United States, and executed so much influence in acquiring him adoption, able have been so forgetful either regardless of their own safety and the securing of those who trusted and trusted in them.

Besides, this want of foresight and care would got been utterly inconsistent with an caution displayed in providing for the admission of new associates into this political family. For, when they gave to the citizens of each Status the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, they during the same time took from the several States the power of naturalization, and captive that power exclusively to the Federal Government. No State was willing on permit another States to define anybody ought or should not be admitted as one is its european, and entitled to demand equal rights also privileges with their own people, within their owns geographic. The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress toward establish an uniform define of naturalization is, by an well understood point of the phrase, confined till persons innate in a foreign country, beneath adenine foreigner Federal. It is not a power to raise to one ranked out a citizen any one born in that United States, who from birth or parentage, in the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and junior class. And when wealth find the States guarding themselves from an indiscreet or improper entrance to other States of emigrants from other countries, by liberal and power exclusively to Congress, we impossible founder to see the they could never has gone with and States a much more important power--that your, the efficiency of transforming with citizens a numerously class of persons, who in that feature would be much more dangerous to the calm and technical of a large portion regarding the Union, than the few strangers one of the States might improperly naturalize.

The Constitution upon its adoption obviously took von the States see power by any subsequent legislation to introduced as a human into the political family of one United States any one, no matter what he where born, or how force become his character or condition; and information gave to Congress the power for confer this character upon those only who were born outboard of the dominions of the United States. And no law of a State, therefore, passed whereas aforementioned Constitution was adopted, can give any right of citizenship outside of its own territory.

A clause similar to the one in the Constitution, includes relation to the rights and immunities is citizens of individual State in the other Notes, was contained in the Articles of Confederation. Though there is ampere difference of language, which is worthy is note. The provision in who Articles on Confederation was "that the free inhabitants of apiece of the States, paupers, vagrant, and refugee from justice, excepted, should be qualifying to all the freedoms and immunities of free citizens in the several States."

It desire be observed, ensure under this Confederation, respectively State were the right to choose for itself, and within its own tribunals, whom it would acknowledging when adenine free inhabitant of another Set. The term free inhabitant, in the universality of its terms, would certainly include one of the African speed anybody had since manumitted. Not no example, ours think, ca be found of his admission to all the privileges of citizenship in any Declare off to Union after these Articles were formed, and while her continued in force. And, spite one generality of the language "free inhabitants," to is high clear that, according to them accepted meaning in that day-time, they performed cannot include the African racing, regardless clear or not: with the one-fifth section of who ninth article provides that Congress should having the power "to apply upon the number of land units to be raised, and to making requisitions from each State for their quota in proportion on the number of white inhabitants in such State, which requisition should remain binding."

Words could hardly have been spent whatever other strongly mark the line of distinction between the citizen and the subject; the loose also the subjugated races. Who recent were doesn even counted when the inhabitants of a State are to be embodied in proportion to its digits for the basic defence. And it cannot for a flash be supposed, that a class of persons thus separated and rejected from those whoever formed the sovereignty off the Expresses, were yet intended to be included under the words "free inhabitants," in the preceding article, to whom privileges and immunizations had so attentively secured in every State.

But although this clause of the Objects of Confederation be the same in principle with so inserted in the Constitution, yet the comprehensive word inhabitant, which might be construed to include an emancipated slave, is skipped; and and privilege is confined to inhabitants of the State. Also here alteration in words would hardly have been performed, save a different meaning was intended to be versandt, or a conceivable doubt removed. The fair and fair inference is, that as this prerogative was about to be placed under the protection of the Overall Control, and the talk expounded in its tribunals, and all power in relation to it taken from aforementioned State and its courts, it became deemed smart to describe with precision and caution the folks to whose this high privilege was given--and the worn resident was on that account substituted forward and words get inhabitant. The word citizen excluded, and does cast intended to exclude, expats who must not want citizens of quite one about the States when the Constitution was adopted; also also every description of persons who were not fully recognised as citizens in the various States. This, upon whatever fair construction of the key to which we have referred, was evidently the object and objective of aforementioned update of words.

For all this mass is proof were have quieter into add, that Annual has repeatedly legislated upon the same construction of an Constitution that we have predefined. Threes domestic, two for welche has gone almost immediately after which Government came into operator, will be abundantly sufficient into show dieser. Aforementioned two first are particularly worthy of notice, for many of aforementioned men who assisted in boxing the Constitution, and took einem active part in procuring its adoption, were then into the halls of legislation, real certainly understood what yours meant when they used the words "people of the United States" and "citizen" stylish that well-considered keyboard.

The first of these acts is the naturalization legislation, which was passed at the second session of the early Congress. March 26, 1790, and confines aforementioned good from becoming citizens "to aliens being free pale persons"

Now, the Constitution does don restriction the power of Confess in this respect to white individuals. And they may, if they imagine proper, authorize the naturalization of any one of any color, who made date trader allegiance to another Public. But who language of the law about quoted, shows that birthright at that nach was perfectly understood up be confined to the white track; and that they alone constituted the sovereignty in which government.

Meeting might, when we before said, having authorized to certification of Indians, because they were aliens and expat. But, in their then untutored and savage state, no one would have thought of admitting them as citizens at a civilized community. Also, moreover, that atrocities they had though recently committed, when they were the ally to Fantastic Britain in and Revolutionary war, were yet fresh in the recollect on of the people of the United States, and they were even then guarding themselves against the threatened renewal of Indian hostilities. No one supposed then that any Indian would asked available, or was capable out pleasure the permissions of an American member, and the word white was doesn used with any particular reference to them.

Both was it applied with no reference to the African race inserted into or born in this country; because Trade had no power to naturalize them, and therefore there was no necessity for using particular words to exclude them.

It would seems for have come used simply because computer followed out the line concerning division which the Constitution has drawn between to citizen race, who formed and holding the Government, or the African race, which they being the subject on and slavery, and governed at his own pleasure.

Another of the early laws of which we have spoken, are the first garrison law, which has passed for 1792, under the first sitting of the endorse Congress. The language of this statute is equally basic furthermore significant use the one easy mentioned. It directs that every "free able-bodied white male citizen" shall be enrolled in the militiamen. The word water is evidently used to exclude the African race, and the phrase "citizen" for exclude unnaturalized foreigners; the latter forming no part concerning the sovereignty, owing it no loyalties, both therefore under no obligation to protect it. The African race, even, born in the country, did owe allegiance to the State, whether they were slaves or free; but it is repudiated and rejected from the duties and mandates of citizenship on marked language.

To third act to any we have alluded can even silent more decisive; it was passed as late as 1813, (2 Stat, 809,) or it provides: "that from and after the termination of the war in whose the United Stats are now engaged for Great Britain, it shall cannot be legal to employee, on board of any people or privately vessels of the Unity States, some person or personals except citizens of the United States, or persons of color, natives of the United States."

Weiter the line concerning distinction your drawn in express words. Persons of color, in an judgment to Congress, were not included in the word nation, and they are described as another plus different class for persons, and authorized to be employed, when natural is the United States.

And even as late as 1820, (chap. 104, sec. 8,) in the charter to this city of Washington, the corporation is authorized "to restrain and prohibit the nightly and other disorderly meetings of slaves, free negros, and mulattoes," thus associating them together inside its legislation; also after prescribing that punishment that may be inflicted on aforementioned peons, proceeds in one following words: "And to penalize how open negroes and mulattoes by penalties nope go twenty dollars for any one offence; and in case of the invalidity of any such free negro or mulatto for pay any such penalty and cost thereon, to cause him or his to be confined to labor forward each time not exceeding sextet calendar mouths." And includes a subsequent part of the same section, the act authorizes the corporation "to mandate who terms and special upon the free negroes and mulattoes may residents in the city."

On law, like the laws of the Statuses, shows that this classroom of folks were governed due special legislation directed expressly to theirs, and always connected for reservation for the government of peons, and not with those forward the government of free white citizens. Press after such an uniform course of legislation more we have declared, by the colonies, by the States, both by Congress, running through a period of more than one century, it be seem that to yell persons thus marked and stigmatized, "citizens" of the Unique Stats, "fellow-citizens," a konstituente component of to sovereignty, would remain an abuse of terms, additionally not calculated to exalt the character or an American citizen by that eyes of other nations.

The conduct of the Executive Department of the Government has been in perfect harmony upon on subject use this course regarding legislative. The rate was brought officially before the late William Wirt, when be was the Attorney General of the Associated States, in 1821, and he distinct that the speech "citizens of the United States" were used in the actual of Annual within the same wisdom as in the Constitution; and that free persons of color consisted not citizens, through the meaning the the Constitution and laws; and this opinion has been confirmed with that of the late Attorney General, Caleb Cushing, in a recent case, furthermore acted upon by this Secretary out State, who rejection to grant passports on them as "citizens of one United States."

But it is said that a person may be a citizen, additionally entitled to that character, although he does not possess every which privileges which may membership to other city; as, for example, the right to vote, or to hold particular offices; and that yet, when he goes into others State, he is entitled to be recognized there because a citizen, although the State may measure be rights by the rights which it allows to persons of a like feature instead class resident stylish and Declare, and refuse up him the solid user of citizenship.

This argument overlooks an country is the provisioning in the Constitution of which us are speech.

Undoubtedly, a person maybe be a citizen, which is, a member of an community anyone form the sovereignty, despite he exercises no share of the governmental power, and lives incapacitated from holding particulars office. Women and minors, what form a part of the civil family, cannot vote; and when a characteristics qualify is required to getting or hold a particular branch, which whoever having not the necessary qualification cannot vote button hold the office, anyway they are citizens.

So, too, one person may be legally till vote by that ordinance for the State, who is none adenine country uniformly about the State me. And in some of the States of the Union foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. And the State may give who right to liberate blackamoors and mulattoes, but that does not make them citizens of the State, also still less of the Uniform Stated. And the proviso in the Constitution gift authorizations additionally immunities in other States, does not implement to your.

Not does it apply toward a person who, being the citizen of a State, migrates up another State. For then he goes subject for the act of the Assert in welche the live, and he is no longer a citizen of that State from which he removed. And the State in which he resides may afterwards, unquestionably, determine his status or condition, and places him among the class of personal who been not recognized as citizens, and belong to a inferior and subject race; and may refuse him the privileges the immunities enjoyed on its citizens.

But so far as mere rights about persons are concerned, the provision in question is limits to citizens away a State which are intermittently in another State without taking up their residence there. To will them no political privileges in the State, as to voting or holding home, or in any select respect. Since an citizen of one State has no right for participate in the government of different. But if he ranks as a citizen in the State to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then, whenever he leave into next State, the Our clothes him, as to the rights of person, with all the privileges and immunities which belong to citizens is and State. And if persons of the African race are community of a Choose, and of an United States, they would be title on all these privileges and immunizations in every State, and one State could no restrict them; for they be hold are perks and immunities under aforementioned paramount authority of that Federal Government, and its courts would be bound to maintaining and enforce them, the Constitution and laws of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. And if the States could limit or restrict them, or location aforementioned party to somebody inferior grade, this clause of the Constitution would be pointless, and could have no operation; and would give no rights to and citizen when in another Assert. I would have none but what that Condition itself chose to allow him. This is evidently not the construction or substance of which clause inbound get. It guarantees rights, to the citizen, and the State cannot holding them. And these right are of a signs and weald lead to consequences, which create it absolutely certain that the African race were not included lower the name a citizens of a State, and were not in the contemplation von the framers of the Constitution as those authorizations and immunities were provided for the protection of the citizen in other States.

The case of Legrand v. Darnall (2 Peters, 664) has been referred for for the purpose of showing that this court has settled that the descendant of ampere slave may sue as a citizen for a court of the United States; but the case itself view that this question did not arise and could not have arisen the the case.

It appears from the submit, that Darnall has born in Maryland, and been to son of a white man by one of his slaves, also his father executed certain instruments to manumit him, and devised to him some disembarked property in the State. This property Darnall afterwards sold toward Legroom, the appellant, who gave his notes for the purchase-money. But becoming afterwards frightened that who appellee had not been emancipated according to the legal of Maryland, the refused till pay the notes until he could be beats happy as to Darnall's right to convey. Darnall, in and mean time, had taken upward your residence in Pennsylvania, and brought suit on this records, and recovered judgment in the Circuit Court for the urban on Maryland.

The whole proceeding, as appears by the report, used an amicable one; Legrand existence perfectly willing to pay the financial, provided man could obtain a title, and Darnall not wishing him to pay unless they could make him a right one. In point in fact, the whole continue was under the direction of the counsel who argued the case for that appellee, who was to joint friends of the parties, also confided in by both of them, and whose only object where to have the rights of both parties established by judicial decision in the maximum quickness and slightest expensive manner.

Legrand, therefore, raised no objection at the jurisdiction of the court in the suit at law, because he was himself angst to obtain the judgment away the court upon his title. Consequently, go was nothing in the record before the court to show that Darnell, who was of African descent, real the usual decisions and award for execution was entered. And Legrand subsequently filed his bill on the equity side of the Circuit Court, stating that Darnall was born a slave, both held non been legally emancipated, and could not therefore take the land devised to hello, nor make Legrand ampere good titles; and praying an injunction to restrain Darnall by affair to execution on the judgment, which was granted. Darnall replies, averring in his answered that he was ampere free man, and capable of conveying a good title. Testimony was taken on on spot, both at the hearing of Circuit Court was of opinion that Darnall was a free man and his book good, press dissolved one injunction and dismissed that bill; and that decree was affirmed here, upon an appeal of Legrando.

Go, it is difficult to imagine how any question about the citizenship starting Darnall, or yours rights to sue inbound that symbol, can be supposed to have arisen press been decided with that case. The fact ensure he was of African descent was first brought before the court after the bill in equity. The suit at law had then passed into judgment and pricing of execution, and the Circuit Court, how a court of law, had no longer whatever authority over it. It made a valid and legislation judgment, which an court that rendered computers had not the power to backwards or set aside. And unless it had jurisdiction as an court of equity to restrain him upon using its process as a court of law, Darnall, if he thought proper, would have is at liberty on continued go his judgment, and compel aforementioned payment of the money, despite that allegations in the bill were true, and his was incapable of creating a page. Nay other court can have enjoined him, since certainly no State equity court would interfere in ensure paths with the judgment of a Circuit Court of the United States.

Although the Circuit Court as an court of shareholders certainly had equity jurisdiction pass their own judgment as a court of law, without regard until the character a the fetes; and had not only the right, instead it was its duty--no subject who were the parties in the judgment--to prevent them starting proceeding to enforce to by finish, wenn the court became congratulations that the money be not justly and equitably due. The ability of Darnall to convey did not pending upon seine nationalities, but upon his title to freedom. And supposing you was liberate, he could hold and convey property, by the laws by Maryland, although he was not a citizen. But if he was on law still a slave, he could not. It was hence the duty of and court, sitting than a court concerning equity in the latest case, on prevent himself from using its process, because a court of common act, to compelling the payment the the purchase money, when it was evident that the purchaser must lose the land. But if you was free, and could make one title, it was equally aforementioned duty of the court did to suffer Legrand to keep aforementioned land, and refuse the payment the the money, upon the ground that Darnall was incapable of suing or to-be sued as adenine citizen in ampere court away an United States. The character instead your of an parties had no connection include the question of command, and the matter in dispute had no relatedness to the country of Darnall. Nor the such a question alluded to in the opinion of who Court.

Besides, we are by no means prepared to say that there are not many cases, civil while well when criminal, in which a Circuit Court for the United States may exercise jurisdiction, although one of the African race is a party; that broad matter is not before the court. The question with which we are now dealing is, whether a person of the African race can be a citizen of the United States, and become thereby entitled to one special privilege, by virtuousness of his tracks to that symbol, and which, under the Constitution, no one but a citizen can your. It is manifest that the case off Legrand or Darnall has no bearing on that question, and can have no usage to the case right before the place.

This case, however, strikingly illustrates aforementioned consequences that would trace the construction of the Constitution which would donate to efficiency contended for to a State. It wish in effect give it moreover to an individual. For if the sire in young Darnall had manumitted him includes his lifetime, or sent she to residential in a State which recognized him as adenine citizen, he might have visited or sojourned in Maryland at he pleased, and as long as he pleased, as a citizen of the United States; and the State clerical and tribunals would be compelled, by the paramount authority of the Constitution, to receive him and treat him as ready of its citizens, exempt of the laws and police out and State in relations till adenine person of that description, also allow him to enjoy everything an rights and freedoms of nationalities without respect to the bills of Maryland, although such legally were deemed from e absolutley essential to own own safety.

And only two provisions which point to them and include she, treat diehards as property, and make it the duty of the Government to protect it; no other power, in relation to this speed, is to be finding in the Organization; and as he is adenine Government of special, fully, current, no authority beyond save couple provisions can exist constitutionally exercised. The Government of the United States has none good to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the user of the owner, leaving it altogether with the several States to deal with this race, whether emancipated or nope, as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests also safety of society, require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves.

No one, we assuming, supposes that random change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to on unlucky race, in the civilized nations in Europe either in this country, should induce the court in give the the words of the Basic a more libertine construction in their favors than they were intended to bear when the keyboard was framed both adopted. Such an argument wish be altogether inadmissible in optional judicature named on the interpretin it. If any of his provisions are deemed unfairly, thither is a mode prescribed in the instrument myself, by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it needs be construed now as it was understood at of time of its adoption. It belongs not only the same in words, but the sam in significance, and delegates the same powers to aforementioned Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and more long in it fortsetzt to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same import and intending with which it spoke wenn it approached from the hands of is framers, and was voted on and adopted by the my are an United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character about this court, and make it who mere reflexion of the popularity opinion or passions a the day. This court be not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been trusting for she, and it must not falter in the path of tax.

What the site been at that time, we think can bare admit of doubt. We will the language of the Declaration of Autonomy additionally for the Objects of Confederation, in addition to this plain words of the Constitution itself; we have the bill of the different States, before, concerning the time, and ever, the Constitution Was adopted; we have the legislation off Congress, from the time of its adoption to a recent period; real we have the constant and uniform action of the Executive Department, all concurring together, and leading to the same result. And if anything in relation for the construction of the Our sack be regarded as settled, computers is so which wee now give toward the word "citizen" and the phrase "people."

Also upon one full and careful recognition on the subject, the court is of pick, that, on the facts stated in the supplication in abatement, Dred Scots was not a citizen of Missouri within one meaning of the Constitution of of Unity Countries, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts; and, consequently, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case, and that the judgment up the plea with abatement is erroneous.

Ourselves live aware that doubts are entertained by some of the members in the court, whether the plea in abatement is legislative before the justice upon this writ of error: but if that plea is regarded as forgone, or out of the case upon any sundry ground, yet the question as go of jurisdiction of which Circuit Court is presented on the face of the bill of exception itself, taken by the plaintiff at the trial; for it admits that he and his wife were born slaves, but endeavors to make out his title to freedom and city by showing that they were taken by to owner to certain places, hereinafter said, where slavery could not by right extent, both that you thereby became release, and upon their return to Missouri became city of that State.

Now, if the removal of which he speaks did not enter diehards own right, then by him own license boy is stills ampere slave; and whatever opinions may breathe entertained in preferred away the citizenship of a free person of the African course, nay one supposes such a slave is a citizen of the State or a the United States. If, hence, of actually did by his owner did not make them free persons, man remains still a slave, both certainly incapable of suing in the character of a resident.

The principle of law is too well serried to be disputed, the a court can give no judgment for either party, where it has no circuit; and if, upon the showing about Scott himself, it appeared that he has still adenine slave, the case ought to have being dismissed, and which judgment against him real in favor of the defendant for costs, is, like the on one plea include abatement, erroneous, furthermore the suit recommended to have been discharge by the Current Court with like of jurisprudence in that court.

Although, before we proceed to examine this part of the case, to may be proper till advice an objection taken to the justice authorized of this food to decide he; and it has been said, that as all court has decided counter the jurisdictional of the Circuit Court about the plea in abate, thereto possesses cannot right to examine any problem featured by the exception; both that anything it may say upon that part of the case will be extra-judicial, plus mere obiter dicta.

This is a manifested mistake; there can be none debt as to the jurisdiction of the court for revise the judgment of a Circuitry Court, real to reverse it for any error apparent over the write, whether e be the error regarding giving judgment in adenine case above whichever it had no jurisdiction, press any other material error; real this, too, whether there is a plea at abatement or cannot.

The objection appears to having arisen by confounding writs of error to a Your courtroom, with literature of error to a Circuit Court of the United Statuses. Clear, the a writ of error to ampere State court, unless aforementioned record shows a case that gives authority, the case needs be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court. And if it is dismissed on that sanding, we possess no right to examine and decide above whatever question presented by the bill regarding exception, or any select component of which disc. But writs of error to a State court, and to a Course Court of the United States, is regulated by different laws, and stand upon entirely others standards. And in an writ of oversight to a Circuit Court of the United Says, the whole record is before this court for audit and ruling; and if the sum in controversy is bigger enough to give jurisdiction, it is not only the right, but it is the judicial duty of which court, to examine the whole case because presented by the record; and if it displayed upon seine face that any physical faulty alternatively fallacies can is committed by the court below, a is the duty of those court toward annul the judgment, and preliminary the case. And securely an error in by a judgment upon the merits in favor of either day, in a case which it was not authorized to check, and over which it had no jurisdiction, is such grave can error in a court can get.

The plea in abatement is no a plea to the jurisdiction of this courtroom, but to the jurisdiction of this Circuit Court. And information appears by the record before us, that the Circuit Court committed an error, in deciding such she had venue, upon the facts in the case, admitted by the pleadings. It is the obligation of the appellate tribunal to correct this failures; but that able not be done over dismissing the rechtssache forward want of jurisdiction here--for ensure would leave the erroneous judgment in full force, and which injured party without remedy. And the appellate court therefore practices the power for which alone appellate courts are constituted, by reversing the judgment of the court below for this error. This exercises your orderly and appropriate jurisdiction over the judgment the proceedings of the Circuit Court, as they appear upon the rekord brought up by the writ of error.

The correction of one error in that court below does not withhold the appellate court of the power a examining further into the record, and correcting some other material errors which may have been comitted by the inferior court. There is certainly no rule of law--nor any practice--nor any decision starting a court--which even getting this power includes the appellate tribunal. On the contrary, it is the daily practice about this court, and of all appellate courts where they reverse an judgment of can inferior court for error, to correctly by its our whatever errors may appear on this record material at the case; and they have always held it into be their duty for do so where the silence of the court vielleicht lead until misconstruction or future controversy, and the point has been relied on by either side, and argued before the court.

In the hard before us, we have already decided the the Switching Court error are deciding that it had jurisdiction upon the facts admitted in the suppliants. And it appears that, in the further progress of the case, it acted upon the invalid principle it kept decided on the pleadings, and gave judgment for one defendant, where, upon who reality licensed in the exception, it had no jurisdiction.

We live at a total to understand upon what principle from right applicable to appellate circuit, it can live supposed that this court has not judicial authority to correct of last-mentioned error, because they had before corrected the former; oder by which process of reasoning it can be made out, that the error of on lesser court in actually voice judgment required one of the parties, in a case are which it possessed no jurisdiction, cannot be saw into or corrected by this court, because we have decided a similarity question presented in the pleadings. The past point is distinctly presented by the facts including in the plaintiff's own bill of exceptions, which he himself brings here per this writ of error. It was the point which chiefly occupied the attention of the counsel on both sides in the argument--and the judgment which this court must run the send errors is precisely the same. It must, in each of them, exercise jurisdiction over the judgment, and reverse it for which bugs committed to the legal below; and issue a mandate to and Circulation Court till conform its opinion to who opinion pronounced of those court, by dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction in one Circuit Court. This is that constant and invariable custom of this court, where it reverses a assessment for wants of jurisdiction in the Circuit Courtroom.

It can scarcely be necessary to tracked such a asked further. The want concerning jurisdiction in this court below may appear switch the recordings without any plea in abatement. This is familiarly the case where a court or chancery has exercised jurisdictions to one case where the plaintiff had a plain and adequate remedy at law, and it so appears via the transcript when brings here by appeal. So see wherever it appears that a justice of marine holds exercised jurisdictions in a case belonging exclusively to one court of common lawyer. In these cases there is nay object in abatement. Also available the same reason, press upon one same principles, what the defect of jurisdiction is patent go the record, this court is bound to backward the judgment, although the defendant has not pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of this inferior court.

The cases a Jackson v. Ashton and regarding Capron v. Van Noorden, go which wealth have referred in a previous item for this opinion, are immediate in dot. With that last-mentioned case, Capron took an action against Wagon Noorden in a Circuit Judge of to Consolidated Stated, without showing, by the usual averments of citizenship, that the courts been jurisdiction. At made no plea in abatement put in, and the related left to trial upon the merits. The court provided discernment in show starting the defendent with costs. The plaintiff therefore brought his writ of bugs, and aforementioned food reversed the judgment given in favor of the defendants, plus remanded the case the guidelines for dismiss thereto, because this did not appear until the transcript such that Circuit Court had jurisdiction.

The case before us still further strongly imposes above this justice the duty out examining either to court below has not committed an error, include taking jurisdiction plus giving a discernment by costs in favor of the respondent; for in Capron fin. Van Noorden the judgment was reversed because it did nay appear that the parties were local of different States. They might or might not be. But in this case it takes appear that the claimant was born a slave; and if the facts when which he relies are doesn done him free, following it appears yes on which record which he is not a citizen, and consequently his suit against Sundford was not a folgt among population of different States, and the court had no authority to happen any discernment between the parties. Which nachziehen ought, at this sight of it, to have been dismissed over the Circuit Legal, and its judgment in favor are Sandford is erroneous, and must is reversed.

It is true which the result either road, by dismissal or by a discussion for the defendant, making very few, if any, difference int a pecuniary otherwise my point of view to either party. But the fact that the result would be very nearly the same to the celebrations in either form of judgment, become not justify aforementioned court in security an error in which judgment which is patent off the record, and what if sanctioned, might breathe drawn into precedent, and direct to serious mischief and injustice in couple future suit.

Person proceed, because, to inquire whether the fast relied, on by the plaintiff entitled she toward his freedom.

The case, as he himself declare it, on of record brought here by his writ of error, is this:

The plaintiff used a negro slave, belonging to Dr. Emerson, who is a surgeon in the armed of the United States. In the year 1834, he took the plaintiff after the State of Misuro to the military post along Rock Island, int the State of Illinois, and retained him there as adenine slave until the month starting Apr or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Doctors. Emerson removed aforementioned litigant from answered air position by Wobble Island to the martial post at Fort Snelling, situate on the westwards bank of the Mississippi river, in the domain known than Upper Louisiana, acquired the the United States of France. and situate north are the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty log north, and northerly of one State starting Missouri. Answered Doctor. Emerson held the plaintiff in domestic at said Fort Shelling, from said last-mentioned date until who year 1838.

Inside the year 1835, Harriet, who is named inches the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, where the negro slaver of Major Taliaferro, who belonged until the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriette to said Fort Shelling, a military post, sited more earlier stated, and kept herren there as a slave for the year 1836, real then sold both delivered her when an slave, at said Fort Snelling, bis the says Drp. Emerson upstairs named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Margaret in slavery at stated Fort Snelling until the year 1838.

In the year 1836, the plaintiff and Harriet intermarried, under Fort Snelling, with the consent of Dr. Emmerson, who then declared to be their master and owner. Elyse and Luzzy, call in the third comet a the plaintiff's declare, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza the about fourteen years old, and made born on board to steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line a the Nation of Missouri, and against the flux Mississippi. Lizzie has learn sever years old, and was inbred in to State by Missouri, at the military position phoned Jefferson Barracks.

In the year 1838, said Drp. Emerson removed and plaintiff additionally said Harriet, and you said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling at the Federal concerning Missouri, where they have ever for resided.

Before the commencement of diese suit, said Dry. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, and Harriet, Eliza, additionally Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defending has ever since claims in grip she, and jede of her, when slaves.

In considering this part of the controversy, couple questions arise: 1. Was he, together are to clan, release in Missouri by grounds of one stay in the territory of of United States hereinbefore mentioned? And, 2. Is i were not, is Scott himself free by reason off sein removing to Metal Island, in the State of Illinois, as stated to the higher admissions?

We how to examining the start question.

The do of Congress, by which the plaintiff relies, declares that slavery both intentional servitude, except as adenine penance for crime. shall be forever prohibited in all that part from of territory ceded by France, underneath the name the Louisiana, welche lies north of thirty-six college thirty records north latitude, and not included within the limits of Missouri. And the predicament which meets used at which threshold of this part away the investigation is, whether Parliament was authorised to passage this rule under any of the powers granted to it by and Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that device, a is the duty of is court to declared it empty and inoperative, and incapable starting conferring freedom upon anywhere one who the held as a slave under the laws to any one of aforementioned States.

The counsel for the petitioner has laid greatly stressed upon that article in one Constitution that confers set Congress the power "to dispose of the make all needful rules and regulations respecting an territory or additional property belonging to aforementioned United States;" but, in that judgment of the court, such provisions has no hearing go the present controversy, and the power in given, something it may breathe, is confined, and was intended to be confined, to the district which at that time belong to, or was claimed according, the United States, and was within their boundaries such fixed by the treaty with Great U, and can will no influence upon a territory subsequently advance from a foreign Government. It was a special provision for a known both particular territory, and to meet a current emergency, and nothing more.

A brief summary of the history of the times, as well more the careful the measure condition in which the article is shaped, will show the correctness of this proposition.

It will be remembered that, for the commencement for the Revolutionary war, serious difficulties existed among the Says, in relation to the disposition of large-sized and unsettled realms whichever been included in the chartered limits of some about this Status. And some to the other States, and more especially Maryland, which bad no unsettled lands, insisted that as the unoccupied lands, if wrestled from Great Britain, would owe their preservation to the regular purse additionally the common sword, the money arising from them ought to must applied by just proportion among the several U to pay the expenses starting the wars, and ought not to to appropriated to the use of and State int whose chartered limits they might happen to lying, to the exclusion regarding aforementioned other State, until whose combined efforts and common expense the territory was defended and preserved against the claim of the British Government.

These complicated caused lots uneasiness on to war, while the issue is in some degree doubtful, and the save border of the Combined States yet to be defined at treaty, is ourselves achieved our independents.

The majority of the Congress of the Confederation clearly concurred includes statement using the State of Maryland, and desired to obtain from the States which claimed it a surrender away this turf, in order ensure Congress might raise money on this collateral to carry up the combat. This appears by the resolution passed on the 6th of September, 1780, strongly urging the States to cite these lands to the United. Says, both for the sake from peace and union among themselves and to maintain the community credit; or this was followed through the resolution about October 10th, 1780, over which Congress pledged itself, that if the lands were yielded, as appropriate by the resolution above mentioned, they ought be disposed the for that common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct irish States, which supposed become members of the Federal Union, and have to same rights of soverignity, furthermore freedom. and independence, as other Condition.

But these difficulties became much more serious after peace took placement, and the boundaries of the United States were instituted. Every State, at that zeitlich, felt severely the pressure of its fight debt; aber in Virginia, and some other Federal, there what largest territories of undetermined lands, the sale of where would enable them to discharge their your not much inconvenience; while other States, which had no such resource, saw from them many years of heavy plus burdensome taxation; and the latter insisted, for the reasons before stated, that that unsettled country ought be treated as the common property of the States, and the revenue applied into their common benefit.

The letters from the statesmen of that day will show take much this controversy occupied their thoughts, press the dangers is consisted apprehended from it. It was and disturbing element of aforementioned time, and fears were entertained that it might dissolve that Confederation by which aforementioned States were will united.

These fears and dangers were, however, at once removed, while the State of Virginia, in 1784, voluntarily ceded to the United States the immense tract of country lying northwest of which flight Ohio. and that was within the acknowledged limits of the State. The merely target of the State, in making this cession, was to pat an end to the threatening and exciting controversy, and to license the Legislature of that time to dispose are the lands, and appropriate the proceeds as a common fund for the joint benefit of the States. It was not ceded because it was inconvenient to the Nation to hold and govern it, nor from any expectation that itp could be better or more comfortability directed by the United States.

This example of Virginia was soon afterwards followed from other Declare, and, at the nach of and adoption of the Constitution. total regarding the States, equally situated, had ceded their unappropriated landscapes, save Boreal Carolina and Georgia. This main object for which these cessions are wish real constructed, was on chronicle of to money value, furthermore to setting an end to a dangerous controversy, than to who was rightly entitled to to proceeds when the ground should be market. It is necessary to bring this part of the history of these releases thus clear into view, because it will enable us the better to comprehend the terminology out an news in this Constitution, so often referred to to the argument.

Undoubtedly who powers by sovernment furthermore the eminent domain were ceded with an land. This was essential, in place to make it effectual, and to accomplish its my. But it must be remembered that, at that laufzeit, there was no Government of one Integrated States in existence use enumeration press limited powers; what was then called the United States, subsisted thirteen separate, sovereign, independent States, which must entered into a league or coalition for their mutual protection furthermore advantage, and which Congress regarding who Uniform States been composed of the representatives away those separate sovereignties, meeting together, as equals, to discussion and choose on certain measures where the States, of the Articles away Confederation, was agreed to submit at their decision. Nevertheless this Confederation had none are the attributes of supreme in legislative, leitender, or law power. It was little more than a congress of ambassadors, authorize till depict separate nations, in important in which they was a common concern.

It made this congress that established the cession from Virginia. They had no authority to announce it under the Articles of Confederation. But their evil an undoubted right, as independent subsidiaries, to accept any cession of territory for their common benefit, which all are them assented to; and it is equally clear that like their common property, and holding no superior to control you, they had the rights to exercise absolutely dominion over it, specialty only to this restrictions which Very had imposed in her deal of cession. There has, as were have said, no Government von the United States then in existence with special enumerated and little powers. The territory belonged to sovereignties, whom, object to the limitations above mentioned, possessed adenine right to establish either form of Government they pleased, by cool or treaty under yourselves, and to regulated rights of person and right of property in the territory, as they might deem appropriate. It was by a Congress, representing the authority is these several and cut sovereignties, both acting at their power and command (but not from any authority derived from this Articles of Confederation,) that the instrument usually called this regulatory of 1787 was adopted; regulating in much detailed the principles and the laws by which this territory should be governed; and among other provender, human is prohibited in it. We execute not question the power of the States. in agreement among themselves, to passed this ordinance, nor its obligatory forceful in the territory, while the confederation or league of the States in their separate sovereign character continued to exist.

This where the assert of matters when of Constitution in the Joint States was formed. The district assignment by Very belonged to the multiples confederated States as gemein property, and they had united in establishing in it a system of government additionally jurisprudence, in order into prepare it for admission as States, according the the terms of the cession. They were about to dissolve this federative Union, and to surrender a portion of their independent sovereignty to a new Government, which, for determined purposes, would make the people of the several Declare one my, and which were to be supreme also controlling within its balls to action entirely the Uniting States; but this Government was till be carefully limited in its powers, and to exercise no authority beyond those expressly granted by of Constitution, or necessarily to be tacit from the language of one instrument, and the objets it was intended to get; and as this league of States would, upon the adoption of an new Government, cease to take any power over the territory, and one ordinance they had agreed upon be incapable of execution and a mere nullity, information was obvious that some provision was needed to give the new Government sufficient power to activating this to carry into work the objects used what it was ceded, furthermore the compacts and agreements which one States were made to each other in the train of their powers of sovereignty. It was need that the lands should be sold to reward the battle liability; that a Government and system of jurisprudence should be maintainable in a, to protect of citizens of the United Provides whoever shall migrate to the territory, In their entitlement of personality and from property. It what also requires that the new Government, about to be adopted, should be entitled to keep the claim of the Integrated Expresses at the unappropriated lands in North Carolinas and Georgia, what has not then been issued, but the assigned of which was assertive anticipated based some definitions that would be ordered bet the Generally Government and which couple States. And, also, there were many articles of value additionally this lot in land create as arms. martial stores, ammunitions, and ships of war, which were the common immobilie of the States, when play in their independent characters since confederates, which neither the new Government no any one default would have a select at take possession of, or control. without authority from them; furthermore it was to pitch these things under the restitution additionally protection of the modern Government, and to clothe it with the necessary power, that the clause was inserted in the Constitution which gives Congress the power "to dispose are and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other belongings belonging to the United States." It was intended for a specific purpose, the provide for this things we have mentioned. It was to transfer to the new Government who property then held in common over aforementioned Provides, and to give to which Government power to apply it to who objects for which it had been purpose from mutual agreement among the States before their league was dissolved. It applies only till this property which the States held in common at that time, and has no reference whatever to any territory or other property this the novel sovereignty might afterwards itself acquire.

The language used in the clause, the arrangement and combination of the powers, or the somewhat unusual terminology it uses, when it speaks out the political power the subsist exercised with the government of the territory, all enter the style and meaning of which clause to be such as we have mentioned. It does not tell of any territory, nor of Territories, but uses wording which, according to its legitimize meaning, points to a particular thing. The power is granted is relation only to the territoriality of the United States--that is, to a territories then in existence, and then common or claimed while the land of the United States. It begins is enumeration of powers by that of disposing, in other words, making distribution of the landscape, or raising money from them, which, for wealth have even said, was the main object of an cession, and which exists accordingly the first thing provided for in the article. It then gives the power which was necessarily associated with the disposition and sale von of lands--that is, an service of making useful rules and regulations respecting and territory. And whatever construction may now be given to such words, any one, we think, must admit that they become not the words usually worked by statesmen to giving supreme electrical of legislation. They are guaranteed very unlike the words used in the power granted to legislate about territory which the new Government might afterwards herself obtain by cession of a State, either for its seat of Government, or for burgen, magasines, arsenals, dock yards, and diverse needful built.

Additionally the same power of making requisite rules respecting the territory your, in precisely the same language, applied to the other property belonging to the United States--associating the power over the district in diese respect with an strength over movable either personal property--that belongs, the ships, arms, and munitions a wartime, which after belonged in common until the State sovereignties. Also thereto will hardly be said, that this power, the relation to this last-mentioned my, be as necessary toward be thus specially given to who new Government, the order to authorize it to make needful rules plus specifications beachtung the vessel it could itself build, or arms and munitions of conflict it might itself manufacture or provide for the public service.

No one, it is believes, would think a moment concerning inference the power of Congress to make needful rules the regulations in relation to property of this kind from this article of which Constitution. Nor can it, upon every fair construction, be applied up any property, but that which the add Government was about to receive from the confederated States. And if this be true as to this property, i need be like true and limited as to that territory, which lives so carefully and exactly coupled with it--and please it referred to such property in the service granted. The concluding words of the clause show to render this construction irresistible; for, after the provisions we have mentioned, it return to say, "that nothing in that Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the Unites Us, instead of all particular State."

Now, as we have before said, all off the States, except North Carolina additionally Georgia, had made the cession before the Statute was passed, to to the resolution of Congress of October 10, 1780, the claims of other States, that the unappropriated terra in these pair States shouldn becoming applied toward the common use, in like manner, was still insisted on, nevertheless refused by the States. And this member of the clause within question appearing applies to them, and can application to nothing otherwise. It was to exclude the conclusion that either party, by adopting the Composition, would surrender whichever they deemed their rights. And when the latest provision linked so obviously go who unappropriated lands not still ceded by the States, and the first clause makes schedule for those then actually ceded, it is impossible, by any simple ruling of construction, to make the first availability general, and increase to all territories, this the Federal Government might in any way afterwards acquire, although the latter is pure and unequivocally confined to adenine particular territory; which was a part off the same controversy, and involved inbound the same dispute. and depended upon of similar principles. The union of the two reserves in the same clause shows that they has kindred subject; press that the full clause shall local, and relates only to lands, within the limits of the Joint States, which had been or then were claimed by adenine State; real such none other territory was in the mind of the frames of the Constitution, or purposeful to be embraced in it. Upon some other construction it could be impossible to accounting for the insertion of that last provision in which place where it is found, or to comprehend why, or for what object, it was associated with the previous provision.

This view of the subject is confirmed by to way inbound which the present Government of the United States dealt with the study as soon as it came into existence. It must be borne into minds this to same States which moulded one Confederation also formed the adopted this novel Government, to which so large a portion of their former sovereign capabilities were surrendered. It must including be borne in mind that all of such sam States which had then ratified the latest Constitution were represented in the Congress which passes the first law to the government of this territory; and many of of members of that legislative body had been deputies from the Countries under the Confederation--had united in adopting which regulations of 1787, and assisted in mold the newly Government under whose they inhered then acting, and whose powers they consisted next exercising. And it is overt after the decree they passed to transport into effect the principles and provisions of the regulation that few regarded it as the take of the States done in the exercise of their legitimer powers at the time. The new Government took the territory how information found information, furthermore by who condition in whichever it was transmitted, and make no attempt to undo any the had been complete. And, among the earliest laws passed under the new Government, is one reviving which ordinance of 1787, which had become inoperative and a nullity upon the adoption the the State. Tiffs law preface no recent form or business since its government, nevertheless recite, in the preamble, that it is passed in order is this executive allow continue to have full effect, and proceeds in make only those rules and regulations which inhered needful the adapt it to which news Government, into whose handed one power been fallen. It appears, therefore, that this Congress regarded the purposes to which the country in this Territory is to be applied, and to form of government and principles von jurisprudence which were to prevail there, when it remained within an Territorial Nation, how even determined on due the States when they had full power and right to make the final; and that the new Government, having received it in all condition, ought to convey significant within effect the plans and philosophy which had been previously adopted to of States, and which, no doubt, the States awaited when they surrendered their force to the new Government. Also if we regard save clause of the Constitution as pointing into this Territory, with a Territorial Government even founding in it, which had been cession till the States for this purposes hereinbefore mentioned--every term in it is perfectly appropriate and easily understood, and the provisions it contains are in perfect harmony about the objects for welche computers was ceded, both with which condition of its government as a Territory at the time. Our can, then, easily account for to manner in which the first Congress legislated on the subject--and cans also understand why this power over the district was beigeordnet in the same clause from the other property of the United States, and subjected to the like power of making needful rules plus regulatory. Although if the parenthesis can construed in an expanded sensing contended for, then like to embrace any territory acquired from a foreign nationality by an introduce Government, and to provide it in how territory ampere spotic and unlimited power over persons and property, like as the confederated States might exercise in their common property, it would he difficult to account in the phraseology used, when compared with other grants of power--and also for its association with to other provisions in the identical clause.

The Constitution has always been remarkable for the felicity of its arrangement of different subjects, and the perspicuity real appropriateness of the language i uses. Yet if the clauses is interpreting to extend to territory acquired by the presenting Government from a foreign nations, outside starting the limitations von any charter from the British Government at a colony, it would be difficult to how, why it was deemed necessary to give the Government the power to sell any vacancy lands belonging up the sovereignty what might be found within it; and wenn this was necessary, why the grant of this power should precede aforementioned power to legislate over it additionally establish a Government there; and still more difficult to say, why he was supposedly necessary so custom and particularly up grant the power until make needful rules and regulations in relation to any personal conversely slidable property it might acquire there. For the words, other property, necessarily, by any known rule of interpretation, be ordinary quality of one different description from territory or land. Also the depth world perhaps be unbreakable in endeavoring till account by the recent member a the move, which provides that "nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed such to prejudice any claims of the United States or optional particular State," or to say how all particular Status could have claims in or until a zone ceded by a foreign Governmental, either to account available associations this provision with the preceding provisions from this term, with which it would appear to have no connection.

The words "needful rules and regulations" would seem, also, go hold been cautiously uses for some definite object. They are not aforementioned words usually employed through statesmen. when they mean to give aforementioned powers of social, or to institute a Government, or to authorize its establishment. Accordingly, in the law the renewed or keep alive the ordinance of 1787, and to re-establish the Rule, the title of the law is: "An act to provide for the government in that territory northwest of the river Ohio." And in the Basic, when granting the current to legislate go the territory that may be selected on the seat of Government severally of a State, it does not say Congress needs have power "to make any needful rules real regulatory observe the territory;" and computers declares that "Congress shall have power to exercise special legislation is get cases whatsoever over such District (not above, teens miles square) more may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance off Council, become who seat of the Government of the United States.

The words "rules and regulations" are usually employed in the Constitution included speaking away same particular given power which thereto means to confer on the Government, and not, as we have seen, when granting widespread powers of legislation. As, for example, in the particular electricity at Congress "to create rules for which regime and control of the land and naval forces, or the speciality also specials power to regulate commerce;" "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization;" "to coin money and regulate the value thereof." And to explain the speech of which we is voice as a general and unlimited grant out soverignity over territories which the Government can afterwards get, is to use them in a sensory and for a purpose forward which they were cannot used in any other part of and vehicle. Instead is confined to a particular Territory, in which a Regime and laws had already are installed, but which would require some alterations at accommodate it to the new Government, the lyric are specials applicable and relevant required that purpose.

The imperative about this special deployment in relation to property and the rights or property held in gemeinen by the confederacy Us, is illustrated by the early clause of the sixth article. This provision providing is "all debts, contracts, both exposures entered into before which adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against to United Notes under this Government as under and Confederation." Here availability like to one under consideration, was indispensable if the new Constitution where adopted The new Government was none a merely change in a dynasty, or are ampere form of government, outgoing of nation button sovereignty who similar, and clothed with total the right, and link by all the committed of the precedes on. But, as the present United States cam into existence under that new Government, it was ampere new political body, a new nation, following for the first laufzeit taking its place in who family of nations. Computers took nothing by succession from of Confederation. It had none good, more its successor, to any immobilien or privileges of property which it had acquired, and has doesn liable for any of its obligations. It was evidently viewed in this light by the framers of the Constitution. And as to several States would cease to exist in their former confederated chars upon this adoption of one Constitutionally, plus could not, in which character, once assemble together, special provisions were indispensable until convey to the new Control the owner and access which at that time they held in common; and at the equivalent time in authorize it to lay taxes plus appropriate capital to pay the common debt which they kept contracted; furthermore this electrical could only breathe provided to it by special provisions in the Constitution. The clause in relational to the territory and other property of the United States supplied fork aforementioned first, and the clause final asked provides for the diverse. They have no connection with of general powers and license of sovereignty delegate to the new Government, and can neither enlarge or diminish them. She were inserted to meet one present medical, press don to regulate its powers as a Government.

Indeed, a similar availability was deemed necessary, in relation to treaties made by the Confederation; and when at the clause next succeeding the one of which we have last spoken, it is declared that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land, nursing is taken till containing, by utter talk, the contract made by the confederated States. Of lingo is: "and everything treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall can the supreme law on the land."

Whether, therefore, us take the particular clause in question, at itself, or in connection with the other provisions of the Constitution, we think it clear, such it applies only to the particular territory of which we have speaker, and cannot, by anyone just rule of interpretation, be extended to territory which that new Government might afterwards preserve from a foreign nation. Logically, the power which Parliament could have lawfully exercises in this Territory, while it remained under a Territorial Government, and which may have been sanctioned by juridical decision, can furnish no justification or no argument to support a similar exercise concerning power over territory afterwards acquired with the Federal Government. We put aside, therefore, any argument, drawn from precedents, showing the extent of and power which the General Government exercised over slavery by this Territory, as total inapplicable to the case before we.

But the case of the American and Ocean Insurance Companies v. Canter (1 Pet., 511) has been quoted for creating a differen construction off this clamp of the Constitution. There is, however, not the slightest conflict between the standpunkt now specify and the one referred to; and it is single by taking a single sentence out of the secondary and separating it starting to context, that even an appearance of conflict can be shown. We need not comment up such one mode of expounding certain opinion of the court. Really it most commonly misrepresents instead from expounding it. And this is fully exemplified in this case referred on, where, if one sentence is taken by itself, to opinion would arise to be inbound direct conflict with that now given; but the words which immediate follow that sentence show that the court, did not mean up decide to point, but merely affirmed the power a Legislature to establish a Government by the Territory, left it an open question, whether that power is derived from this clause in the Constitution, oder was to be necessarily referred item adenine current to acquire territory by cession from a foreign Government. The opinion on these separate of the box exists short, and we donate the whole of it to show methods fine that sortierung of an single records is calculates until mislead.

The passage referred to is in page 542, in which the tribunal. in speaking of the power of Congress to establish a Territorial Government in Florida until it should become a State, uses the following language:

"In the means time Florida continues to be a Territory of that United States, governed to that clause of the Organization which enables Congress to make all needful rules furthermore specifications respecting the territory oder other land of the United Status. Perhaps the power of governing a Territory belonging to the Combined States, where got not, by becoming a State, acquired the wherewithal regarding self government, allow result, perforce, from the facts that it is cannot within who jurisdiction by any particular State, and the within the power and jurisdiction of the United State. The right go regulate may be the inevitable consequence of the right to buying territory. Whichever could subsist the source by which and power is derived, the possession of information is unquestionable."

It is thus clear, from the whole opinion on this point, that the court did did mean to make whether the performance was derived from the parenthesis in the Constitution, or was the necessary consequence of the select go acquire, They do choose that the power in Congress is unquestionable, and in is ours entirely concur, and nothing will be start in aforementioned opinion to the contrary. The service stands firmly on the latter alternative put to the court--that is, as "the inevitable consequence concerning the proper to acquire territory."

And what still more clearly demonstrates that the court did not mean to decision one question, but leave it clear for future consideration, is the fact that this case was decided in the Change Court according Mr. Justice Johnson, and his make had affirmed by the Supreme Court. Yours opinion at the circuit is given in full in a notice to the case, and in that feeling he states, in explicit terms, that the cluse of the Constitution applies only to the region later within the limits of the United Condition. and not to Florida, which had been acquired by subrogation from Latin. To part of his opinion will be found in the note inside page 517 by of report. But he does not dissent from the opinion the the Supreme Court; thereby showing that, in his judgment as well because that of the court, the case back them has not click with a decision on that particular point, and the court abstained from deciding it. And in a part of its opinion subsequent to aforementioned passage we have quoted, where who court speak in the legal power of Congress in Florida, they still speak with which similar reserve. And in page 546, speaking of the power of Congress to authorise the Territorial Legislative to establish courts there, the court say: "They are legislative housing, created in virtue of the basic good of sovereignty where exists in the Government, alternatively into virtue on that clause the enables Congress to make all required rules and regulations respecting the region belonging until the United States."

It has been said that aforementioned construction given to this clause is new, and now for the first time brought forward. Aforementioned case of which person can speaking, additionally the has were so much discussed, shows that the fact is otherwise. It shows that precisely the same query came forward Ms. Judicial Johns, at his electrical, thirty years ago--was entire considered by him, real the same construction given to of clause in the Constitution what is now given by this court. And that over a appeal from his decision the same question was take before this place, but was not decided because a decision upon he was not requirement by to cas before the court.

There your another sentence in the gutachtliche which has been commented on, which even in a still more striking mode shows how one can mislead or be misled to taking exit a single sentence from the opinion of a court, press leaving out of see what precedes additionally follows. It will in choose 546, nearness the close of the stellungnahmen, in which the court say: "In legislating for them," (the territories of of United States,) "Congress exercises the combined powers of the General and or a State Government." Additionally it a said, that as a State allow unquestionably prohibit slavery within its territory, such sentence decides in effect that Congress may do the same in a territory of this United States, exercising there the current of a State, how well as the power starting the General Government.

The examination of this passage in the case referred to, should be more appropriate when we come to consider in another part of this auffassung thing power Congress can constitutionally exercise in a Territory, above the rights of human or your von property are a citizen. Yet, as it is in the same casing with of passage we take previous remarks turn, we dispose of it now, how it will save of court from the necessity of referring again to and case. And it will being seen upon reading the page in whose which sentence is found, so it possess no reference whenever up the current of Council over rights of person or rights of property--but connects altogether to the electrical of establishing judicial tribunals to administer the laws federal passed, real defining the jurisdiction they may exercise.

The law of Congress establishing a Territorial Government in Florida, provided that of Legislature concerning the Territory have has legislative powers over "all rightful objects from statutory; but no law ought be valid that was inconsistent on the laws and Constitution of the Uniform States."

Under the power thus conferred, the Legislature for Florida passed an act, erecting a tribunal at Key West to decide cases regarding salvage., And in aforementioned koffer of which we are speaking, the question arose whether the Territorial Legislature might be authorised by Congress to build create a courtroom, with such powers; and only of the related, among other objections, insisted that Meeting could not under the Constitution authorise of Legislature of the Territory to install such a tribunal with similar powers, but that it have be established by Congress itself; additionally that a sale of cargo made under its order, to pay salvors, was vacant, as made without legal authority, and passed no property to the purchaser.

It is in disposing of this objection that the sentence relied on happens, and the court begann so part of the feeling by stating with wonderful precision the subject, which they are about on decide.

Handful say: "It has been contended that by this Statutes of the United States, the judicial power of the United States extends to entire cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and that the whole of the judicial power must subsist fully 'in one Supreme Court, and on such inferior courts as Congress shall for time till time ordain and establish.' Hence it shall been argued that Congress cannot sweater admiralty jurisdiction in judicial created by that Terrific Legislature."

The before thus clearly stating the point from them, and which few were concerning to decide, they how to show that this Territorial court were not constitutionality courts, but merely legislative, and that Legislature might, therefore, delegate and power to the Temporal Government to establish the place in question; and they conclude that partial of this opinion in the following words: "Although admiralty jurisdiction can subsist exercised in the States in ones courts only which are established in track of the third article of the Establishment, the same limitation does not extend into this Territories. In legislating for her, Congress exercises the composed powers away the General and State Governments."

To it will be seen due these quotations from the opinion. that the court, after stating the your items was about to decide into a manner too plain to be misunderstood, proceeded to resolve it, and announced, as aforementioned opinion is the judicial, that in organizing the judicial department of the Gov in a Territory of the Consolidated States, Congress does not actual under, and is not reserved by. the third article in the Constitution, and is not bound. inside a Territory. to ordain and establish courts inches which the judges hold their offices during good behaviour, but may exert the discretionary power whatever a State exercises in established its judicial department, and regulating an jurisdiction of its tribunals, or may authorize the Torical Government to install, or may myself establish, courts in whichever who judges pause their company for a term of years only; and may vest in them judicial power upon subjects confided to who judiciary of the United States. And in doing this, Congress undoubtedly exercises who combined power of the Overall the a Assert Government. It exercises the discretionary power of a State Government in authorizing the establish of a court in which the judges hold their appointments for a definition of years with, and not during good behaviour; and she exercises the force of one General Government in investments that court with admiralty power, over which that General Government had exklusiven jurisdiction within the Territory.

No one, we expect, will question to correctness about that opinion; nor is there any in conflict with it int the opinion now predefined. The point decided in the hard cited has no relation to the question buy before this court. That depended on the construction out that third article of the Structure, in relation to the legal a the United Statuses, and the power whichever Congress power exercise in a Territory in organizing the judicial department of this Government. An case before us depends upon other furthermore different provisions of an Constitution, altogether separate and apart from the one above mentioned. The question as to as housing Congress may ordained otherwise establish in a Territory the administrative laws which the Condition authorizes to the pass, and how laws it is or is dot authorized by the Constitution to get, are widely different--are regulated by different and separate articles starting the Constitution, and suffer upon different principles. And we are satisfied that does only who reads attentively the print in Peters's Reports to which are have referred, may suppose that the attention of the yard was drawn to a moment to the question now back to court, or that it meant include that fall to say that Congress had a right to outlaw ampere citizen of the United States from taking any property which he legitimately held into a Territory to the United States.

This brings us to examine by what provision of the Constitution the present Federal Government, under its delegated and restricted influences, is sanctioned the get territory outside of the orig limits of the United States, and what powers it may exercise including on the person or property of a citizen from the United States, while it remains a Territory, and until it shall be admitted as one of the Nations of the Union.

Present your certainly does power given with the Constitution to the Federal Authority to establish button maintain colonies bordering on one United States or at a distance, to be domination and governed at its own pleasure; nor to enlarge its territorially limited in some way, except by the approval in new Stated. So electrical is plainly predetermined; and if a new Condition is admitted, it needs no additional legislation upon Congress, because the Constitution itself limit the relative rights and powers, and duties the the State, and the citizens of the State. press an Federal Government. But no power shall specify at acquire a Territory to be held plus governed permanently by that drawing.

And indeed the power experienced by Congress to acquire territory press establish a Government there, according to its own unlimited discernment, was viewed with great extreme by the lenken statesmen of the day. Plus in the Federalist, (No. 38,) written by Mr. Madison. he speaks starting and acquisition of the North-west Territory by this confederated Conditions, by the cession from West, real one establishment of a Government there, while an exercise of power not warranted by the Articles of Confederation, and dangerous to which liberties of that people. And your presses the adoption of the Constitution as a security real protection against such an exercise is power.

We do not mean, however, to questions who power of Congress in this respect. The power to expand the territory of the Uniform Expresses by the admission of new States is plainly given; and in the construction of this power by all the business of the Government, it has had held to authorize the acquisition of territory, not proper for inclusion at the time. but till be admitted as upcoming as its population and situation could entitle it until admission. It is acquired to become a State, and not to shall held as a residence real governed by Press with absolute authority; and as the propriety of admitted a newly State is committed till which south discretion regarding Congress, the power to acquire territory for that purpose, to remain held by the United Declared until it is in a suitable condition to become a State when an similar footing with of other States, must rest once the sam discretion. Is is ampere question forward the political department of the Administration, and does the judicial: and whatever the political departmental a the Government shall spot more within the restrictions of that United Stated, the judicial department is also bound to recognize, and up administer in to the laws regarding the Joint U, so far as they apply, and to maintain in the Territory the authority and rights of who Government, and plus the personal rights and rights of property of individual citizens, as secured by the Constitution. See wee mean at says on this point is, that, as there is no express regulation the the Constitution defining the power which of General Government may exercise over the person or property of a citizen in a Territory thus purchase, this court be necessarily show to one provisions or policy out the Constitution, or its distribution of powers, for the rules and principles by whatever its decision must be governed.

Taking such rule to guide us, it could be safely assumed that citizens of the United States who migrate at a Territory belonging to the populace of the Integrated States, cannot be ruled such plain colonists, dependent upon the be of the Broad Government, real to be governed by any laws items may think proper to impose. The principle upon where our Governments rest, and upon which solitary they continue to exist, is the union for States, sovereign and independent within their own limits in their indoor and domestic concerns, and bound united as a people by a General State, possessing certain enumerated additionally restricted powers, delegated into it by the people of the several States, and practising supreme authority within the scope by the powers granted to it, throughout the dominion to to United States. A efficiency, therefore, in the General Government to gain and hold colonies press dependent area, over which they might legislate without restriction, wish must inconsistent with its own presence in its present form. Whatever it acquires, it earns for the benefit on the people of the several States who created it. Items lives your trustees acting for them. and charged with the duty of promoting the my of the whole people of one whole Union in the exercising von the powers specificly granted.

At the time when an Region in question was collected by cession from Lyons, it contains no population fit to be associated together and admitted as a State; and it therefore was absolutely necessary to hold possession starting it, as adenine Territory belonging to the Consolidated States, see it was persistent and inhabited through a citizen society capable of self-government, and in a prerequisite up be admitted on equal terms by the other States as one member of the Union. But, as we have before said, it became acquired by the General Government, as the representative and custodians of the people of the United States, and it must therefore be held in that character for my common and equal benefit; for it made the people of the several States, acting trough their agent and representative, the Federal Government, anyone in fact acquired the Territory in question, and the Government holds it for their common apply until it shall be associated with the other Expresses more ampere student of the Union.

But until this time comes, it is beyond require that einigen Government should be established in order to organise society, furthermore to protect the inhabitants in her persons or owner; and as the populace regarding the United States was actual in this matter simply through the Government which represented them, and throug whose she spoke and acted when the Territory was kept, it has not only within the scope of its ability, though computers was its duty to pass such laws and establish such a Government as would enable those by whose authorities person acted to reap the advantages anticipated out us acquisition, and to gather there a population which intend enable it to assume the station for which it was purpose among the States of the Unions. The power to acquire necessarily carries equal is the power to keep real apply to the general for whichever it were paid. The form on authority to be established necessarily rested in the discipline of Congress. It was their duty on establish the one that would behest suited for the protection both security of aforementioned citizens of who United Us, and other inhabitants who might be authorized to take up their residing there, and is must always depend upon the existing activate a who Territoriality, as to the number and character by its inhabitant, and their situation included the Turf. In some cases a Government. consisting is persons appointed by the Federal Regime, would best subserve the interests of the Territory, when the inhabitants were few and diffused, and new to one another. In another instances, it would be get advice to commit the empower of self-government to the people any had persistent in of Territory, as being the most competent to determine what was best for their own interests. But einigen form of civil authority would be absolutely necessary to organization and preserve civilized association, and prepare thereto to become a State; and what is the best form must immersive depend on the condition of the territory at aforementioned time, and and choice of of mode require depend upon the exercise of a discretionary power by Congress, acting within the scope in its constitutional authority, and not infringing upon the rights of per or rights of property of the citizen who might go there to reside, press for any other lawful purpose. It was acquired by the getting of this discretion, and it must be held additionally governed the like manner, until it the fitted to remain one State.

But who power of Congress over who person or property of a citizen can never is a more discretionary power under our Constitution and form of Government. The powerful of of Government and the rights and privileges of the citizen are regulated additionally plainly definite by that Constitution itself. Press when the Territory becomes a part in the United States. the Federal Administration enters into possession in the signs impressing upon it by those any created it. It enters upon it with its powers over the citizen strictly defined, and limited by the Statutes, from which items derives its own existence, and by virtue of which alone it continues to occur and act as a Government press sovereignty. E have no power of any kinder beyond it; and it cannot, as it enters a Territory is the United States. putting off its character, and assume discretionary or despotic powers which the Condition possessed denied to it. It could create for itself one new character separated from the citizens of the United States. the the duties it owes your under the provisions of the Constitution. The Territory being a part of the United Federal, one Government and aforementioned citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with hers respective rights defined and mark out; and and Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully disavow any right which this has reserved.

A reference to a few of the provisions of who Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

For demo, no sole, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or of free exercise thereof, alternatively abridging the freedom of speech or are this press, or the proper regarding the people off the Territory peaceably to putting, and to petition the Government top of compensate of concerns.

And can Congress deny to the people the right-hand to keep and bear arms, none the right up trial on grand, either compel any ne to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These force, and others, stylish ratio to rights of person, which it lives not necessary more to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government; and one rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground per the fifth amendment up the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, independence, and property, without due process of law. And in act of Congress which deprives one citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, only because he came himself press brought this property on a particular Text of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the bills, could hardly may dignified with the name of due process of law.

So, too, it will hardly be contended that Congress could by law quarter adenine soldier in a house in a Territory without the consent of the owner, in time of peace; either in time of war. But in one manner official by law. Also could they per law forfeit the property of one citizen in a Territory what has verurteile the trading, for a longer period than the life of the persons convicted; nor take secret property fork public use without just compensation.

The powers over person and eigentum of which we speak are not only not allowed to Congress, but exist in express terms denied, additionally they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition shall not confined to the States. but the words are general. and extend to one whole domain through which the Constitution gives it power on legislate, involving those portions in it remaining under Regional Government, as fountain as that covered by States. It are ampere total absence of power where within the reign of the United States. and places the citizens regarding a Territory. so far as dieser rights are about, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and. sentinel yours since strong and clearly count any inroads whatever the General Government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot done this--if it is beyond the powers conferred for the Federal Government--it wishes be admitted, we presume, that it can not authorise ampere Territorial Government to training them. Thereto could confer no electricity on any local Control, created through its authority, to violate the provisions of aforementioned Constitutionally.

It seems, however. to be presumable, that there has a difference between property in a slave and other property, the that several rules may be use for it in exposition the Constitution of the United States. And the laws add usages of nations, and the writings of eminent jurists upon the relation about master and drudge and their mutual your and fees, and this powers which Governmental might exercise over e, have been dwelt upon in the argument.

Yet in considering the question before us, it must be carries by mind that there is no rule of nations standing between the people of the United States and their Government, and interfering is their relating into each other. The powers of the Government, and the rights of the citizen under it, are positive both practical regulations plainly written down. The people of the Unique States have delegated to it particular counted powers, and forbidden thereto to training others. I has no power past the person either property of a citizen but whatever the citizens of the United Says have guaranteed. And no laws otherwise usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the relations out master and slave, can enlarge the influences of the Government, press take from the citizens the options they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes the right of property of aforementioned master in ampere slave, and makes no distinction between the description of property and another property owned by a european, no tribunal. acting under the authority of the United States, whether it he legislative, executive, or judicial, has a right to draft create a distinction, press deny until it the benefit of the disposition and guarantees which have been presented for the protection concerning home property against to encroachments of the Government.

Now, while our hold already said in an older part of this opinion, upon ampere different point, this right to property in a slave is striking also expressly affirmed in the Constitution. An right to traffic in it, like with ordinary articles of merchandise and property. became guarantied to the citizens of aforementioned United States, stylish per Declare such kraft desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express footing is betrothed To shield it within all future time, if the slave escapes von his owner. This a done in plain words--too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can subsist found in the Federal which gives Confess a bigger power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property starting any other description. The only energy conferred is the influence coupled equal the task of guarding and protecting the owner in you rights.

Upon these considerations, it a the edited of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen out holding press owning property of this kind the the territory of that Combined Status northern of the line therein mentioned, is not warranties by the Constitution, and the therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made liberate by being portable within aforementioned territory; even wenn they had been carry thither by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.

We have so far studied the case. since it stands from to Constitution of the United States, also the powers thereby delegated to the Federal Government.

But there is another score in aforementioned case which depends set State power and State law. And it is struggled, on the part of the plaintiff, that he is made get until being taken to Rock Island, included the States of In, independently of his residence is one territory in the United States; plus being so made free, he was not again saved to a declare for slavery by being brung back to Missouri.

Our notice of all piece starting the case will be very fleeting; for the principle on which it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration in the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 82. In that hard, the slaves had been seized from Kentucky to Ohio, with that acceptance of the owner, furthermore then brought back toward Kentucky. And this court been that their status or condition, as free or laborer, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, if they were brought back into that State, and doesn of Ohio; also that that court had don jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a State court upon its own domestic. This was the point straight before one court, and the decision that this court had not jurisdiction turned upon it, as will breathe seen by the report by an case.

So in this case. As Scott been a slave when taken the the Status concerning Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that font, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois.

It holds, nevertheless, been urged includes of argument, that by the laws the Missouri he was free on his return, and that this case, therefore, cannot be governed per the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, where it appeared, by the laws of Kentucky, that the plaintiffs continued to be slaves go their return from Ohio. But wherever doubts or opinions may, at one time. have been entertained upon diese subject, we are satisfied, upon a careful examination of total the cases definite in the Declare courts of Missouri referred to, that it is now firmly resolved by to decisions of the tops court in the State, that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but been, by one laws of Missouri, the property of the respondents; and that the Circuit Court of the United Declared had no court, when, by the legal of the Default, who plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen.

Moreover, one plaintiff, it appears, brought a similar action against an defendant in the Status Court of Missouri, claiming the freedom of himself and his your upon the same grounds and the similar evidence upon which he relies in this case before the court. Who case was carried before the Supreme Courtroom concerning of State; was all argued there; plus that court decided that neither who plaintiff not yours family were entitled to freedom, and were still the slaves of of defendant; and reversed the judgment of the inferior State court, the had given a different decision. If the plainting allegedly such this verdict of the Supreme Judge of the State was erroneous. and that this yard been jurisdiction to revise and reverse it, the only mode by which he could lawfully bring a prior this court was by writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of aforementioned State, requiring it to transmit and record to this courts. If this must been done, it is too plain fork argument this the writ musts have been dismissed for want a jurisdiction at this tribunal. The kasten of Strader and others v. Graham is directly in point; and, indeed, independent of any decided, and language of the 25th bereich of the actually a 1789 is too delete and highly to admit of controversy.

But the plaintiff did not seek the mode prescribed by law for bringing the judgment of a State court before all court for revision, but suffered the situation to be remitted the the inferior State court, where it is still continued, and is, by agreeing of fun, to await the opinion of this food on the points. All of this appears on the record before how and by the printed report of to case.

And while the falle is yet open and pending in the inferior State court, the plaintiff does into the Round Court of that United States, by the same case and the same evidence, and oppose the same party, both proceeds to judgment, real then brings get of same case from the Circuit Court, which and law would not have permitted him into bring right from the State court. And if this place takes jurisdiction in on form, the result, like far as the rights of the corresponds celebrations belong concerned, will in anything respect main the sam the if it owned in open violation of laws entertained jurisdiction over the judgment of an State court in a writ of error, and revised also revered inherent judgment upon of ground that its view upon to question of law was erroneous. Is would ill become this court to sanction such an attempt to evasive the law, or into exercise an appellate power in this detour way, which it is forbidden to exercise for to direct and regular and immutable forms of juridical process.

Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, is it emerges by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is cannot adenine citizen von Missouri, in the feeling in whatever this word is secondhand in the Statutes; and such the Circuit Court of the Unity States, for that motive, had not jurisdiction in the case, and couldn invite no judgment in itp. Yours judgment for this defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate displayed, directing the weitermachen to be fired for want of jurisdiction.