Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

ADVERTISEMENT.

In consequence of the general desire of the public to have access to these opinions, in a smaller book than the official volume of the Reports of the Supreme Court, I have determined to print that part of the volume which contains them in the following separate publication.

BENJAMIN C. HOWARD,

Reporter. WASHINGTON, April 1, 1857.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

DECEMBER TERM, 1856.

DRED SCOTT

versus

JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

DRED Scott, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

I.

1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of

the record all the proceedings in the case is brought before this court, and is

open to its inspection and revision. 2. When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon

demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgment of the court is in his favor-if the plaintiff brings a writ of error, the judgment of the court upon the plea in abatement is before this court, although it was in favor of the plaintiff—and if the court erred in overruling it, the judgment must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case

for want of jurisdiction. .3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case

is one in which, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the court had jurisdiction and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court and the partiss cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction

of the Circuit Court. 4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country

and sold as slaves, is not a "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 States

as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not

jurisdiction in such a suit. 6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as

persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to

hold as slaves. 7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any

subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citi.

zens by that instrument. 8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a

foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen

in another State. 9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which

has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now accord

ing to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted. 10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that

his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and

was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court. 11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of the plaintiff on the plea in abatement, was erroneous.

II. 1. But if the plea in abatement is not brought up by this writ of error, the objec

tion to the citizenship of the plaintiff is still apparent on the record, as he himself, in making out his case, states that he is of African descent, was born a slave, and claims that he and his family became entitled to freedom by being taken, by their owner, to reside'in a Territory where slavery is prohibited by act of Congress and that, in addition to this claim, he himself became entitled to freedom by being taken to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois—and being free when he was brought back to Missouri, he was by the laws of that State a

citizen. 2. If, therefore, the facts he states do not give him or his family a right to free

dom, the plaintiff is still a slave, and not entitled to sue as a "citizen,” and the judgment of the Circuit Court was erroneous on that ground also, without any

reference to the plea in abatement. 3. The Circuit Court can give no judgment for plaintiff or defendant in a case

where it has not jurisdiction, no matter whether there be a plea in abatement or not. And unless it appears upon the face of the record, when brought here by writ of error, that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, the judgment must be

reversed. The case of Capron v. Van Noorden (2 Cranch, 126) examined, and the principles

thereby decided, reaffirmed. 4. When the record, as brought here by writ of error, does not show that the Cir

cuit Court had jurisdiction, this court has jurisdiction to revise and correct the error, like any other error in the court below. It does not and cannot dismiss the case for want of jurisdictio2 here; for that would leave the erroneous judge ment of the court below in full force, and the party injured without remedy. But it must reverse the judgment, and, as in any other case of reversal, send a mandate to the Circuit Court to conform its judgment to the opinion of this

court. 5. The difference of the jurisdiction in this court in the cases of writs of error to

State courts and to Circuit Courts of the United States, pointed out; and the mistakes made as to the jurisdiction of this court in the latter case, by confound

ing it with its limited jurisdiction in the former. 6. If the court reverses & judgment upon the ground that it appears by a particu

lar part of the record that the Circuit Court had not jurisdiction, it does not take away the jurisdiction of this court to examine into and correct, by a reversal of the judgment, any other errors, either as to the jurisdiction or any other matter, where it appears from other parts of the record that the Circuit Court had fallen into error. On the contrary, it is the daily and familiar practice of this court to reverse on several grounds, where more than one error appears to have been committed. And the error of a Circuit Court in its jurisdicDred Scott v Sandford.

.

tion stands on the same ground, and is to be treated in the same manner as any

other error upon which its judgment is founded. 7. The decision, therefore, that the judgment of the Circuit Court upon the plea

in abatement is erroneous, is no reason why the alleged error apparent in the exception should not also be examined, and the judgment reversed on that

ground also, if it discloses a want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. 8. It is often the duty of this court, after having decided that a particular decision

of the Circuit Court was erroneous, to examine into other alleged errors, and to correct them if they are found to exist. And this has been uniformly done by this court, when the questions are in any degree connected with the controversy, and the silence of the court might create doubts which would lead to further and useless litigation.

III. 1. The facts upon which the plaintiff relies, did not give him his freedom, and

make him a citizen of Missouri. 2. The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules

and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States, applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confederation of the States, in the treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government, by treaty or conquest, from a foreign nation. The case of the American and Ocean Insurance Companies v. Canter (1 Peters,

511) referred to and examined, showing that the decision in this case is not in conflict with that opinion, and that the court did not, in the case referred to, decide upon the construction of the clause of the Constitution above mentioned, because the case before them did not make it necessary to deside the ques

tion. 3. The United States, under the present Constitution, cannot acquire territory to

be held as a colony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But it may acquire territory which, at the time, has not a population that fits it to become a State, and may govern it as a Territory until it has a population which, in the judge

ment of Congress, entitles it to be admitted as a State of the Union. 4. During the time it remains a Territory, Congress may legislate over it within

the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citizens of the United States and may establish a Territorial Government and the form of this local Government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress-but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property.

IV. 1. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States for

their common and equal benefit, through their agent and trustee, the Federal Government. Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizen, whenever the Territory is open to settlement,

both enter it with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution. 2. Congress have no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States

from taking up their home there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit--and

if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms. 3. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of

property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. 4. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges

the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise

over property of any other kind. 5. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from

[blocks in formation]

taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution-and the removal of the plaintiff, by his owner, to that Territory, gave him no title to freedom.

V. 1. The plaintiff himself acquired no title to freedom by being taken, by his owner,

to Rock Island, in Illinois, and brought back to Missouri. This court has heretofore decided that the status or condition of a person of African descent depend

ed on the laws of the State in which he resided. 2. It has been settled by the decisions of the highest court in Missouri, that, by

the laws of that State, a slave does not become entitled to his freedom, where the owner takes him to reside in a State where slavery is not permitted, and

afterwards brings him back to Missouri. Conclusion. It follows that it is apparent upon the record that the court below

erred in its judgment on the plea in abatement, and also erred in giving judgment for the defendant, when the exception shows that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States. And as the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction, either in the case stated in the plea in abatement, or in the one stated in the exception, its judgment in favor of the defendant is erroneous, and must be reversed.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri.

It was an action of trespass vi et armis instituted in the Circuit Court by Scott against Sandford.

Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question.

The declaration of Scott contained three counts: one, that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children. Sandford appeared, and filed the following plea: DRED SCOTT

Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

APRIL TERM, 1854. And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes and says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the action aforesaid, because he says that said cause

of action, and each and every of them, (if any such have accrued to the said Dred Scott,) accrued to the said Dred Scott out of the jurisdiction of this court, and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Missouri, for that, to wit: the said plaintiff, Dred Scott, is not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, because

« ZurückWeiter »