THE CASE OF DRED SCOTT.[1]
A negro held in slavery in one State, under the laws thereof, and taken by his master, for a temporary residence, into a State where slavery is prohibited by law, and thence into a Territory acquired by treaty, where slavery is prohibited by act of congress, and afterwards returning with his master into the same slave State, and resuming his residence there, is not such a citizen of that State as may sue there in the circuit court of the United States, if by the law of that State, as repeatedly declared by its highest court in recent decisions, a negro under such circumstances is a slave; although by the law of that State at the time of his return, as settled by earlier cases, he was then a freeman; and although the new decisions be not based upon the construction of the Constitution and statutes of the State, but upon the ground that the State will not enforce laws which prohibit slavery in other States or Territories. [McLean and Curtis, JJ. dissenting.]
The arguments in the case of Dred Scott, before the supreme court of the United States, and the opinions of the judges, touched upon questions of such importance, and have excited so general an interest, and awakened so much criticism, and the decision has been so often misunderstood, that the case demands a more extended notice than we usually give to adjudged cases. Of the political causes and consequences of the judgment, we have nothing to say. We propose to discuss it in its legal aspects only, and for that reason, as well as to enable the reader to carry with him the point decided, we have placed at the head of this article an abstract or marginal note, such as we should insert if we were making a report of the case.
- ↑ A report of the decision of the supreme court of the United States, and the opinions of the judges thereof, in the case of Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford, December Term, 1856. By Benjamin C. Howard, counsellor at law and reporter of the decisions of the supreme court of the United States. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1857. [Being pp. 393–633 of the 19th volume of Howard's Reports.]
