Page:A legal review of the case of Dred Scott, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.djvu/60

This page has been validated.

58

Note.—The only report of the facts of the suit of Dred Scott before the supreme court of Missouri, is in the opinion of the majority of the court in that case, and is in these words: "This was an action instituted by Dred Scott against Irone Emerson, the wife and administratrix of Dr John Emerson, to try his right to freedom. His claim is based upon the fact that his late master held him in servitude in the Slate of Illinois, and also in that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 30° 30′, north latitude, not included within the limits of the State of Missouri. It appears that his late master was a surgeon in the army of the United States, and during his continuance in the service, was stationed at Rock Island, a military post in the State of Illinois, and at Fort Snelling, also a military post in the Territory of the United States, above described, at both of which places Scott was detained in servitude—at one place, from the year 1834 until April or May, 1830; at the other, from the period last mentioned until the year 1838. The jury was instructed, in effect, that if such were the facts, they would find for Scott. He accordingly obtained a verdict. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground of misdirection by the court, which being denied to her, she sued out this writ of error." 15 Missouri, 582.

The opinion of the majority of the court was as follows: "The States of this Union, although associated for some purposes of government, yet, in relation to their municipal concerns, have always been regarded as foreign to each other. The courts of one State do not take judicial notice of the laws of other States. They, when it is necessary to be shown what they are, must be proved like other facts. So of the laws of the United. States, enacted for the mere purpose of governing a Territory. These laws have no force in the States of the Union; they are local, and relate to the municipal affairs of the Territory." "Every State has the right of determining how far, in a spirit of comity, it will respect the laws of other States. Those laws have no intrinsic tight to be enforced beyond the limits of the State for which they were enacted. The respect allowed them will depend altogether on their conformity to the policy of our institutions. No State is bound to carry into effect enactments conceived in a spirit hostile to that which pervades her own laws." "It is a humiliating spectacle, to see the courts of a State confiscating the property of her own citizens by the command of foreign law If Scott is freed, by what means will it be effected, but by the Constitution of the State of Illinois, or the Territorial laws of the United States? Now, what principle requires the interference of this court? Are not those governments capable of enforcing their own laws; and if they are not, are we concerned that such laws should be enforced, and that, too, at the cost of our own citizens? States, in which an absolute prohibition of slavery prevails, maintain that if a slave, with the consent of his master, touch their soil, he thereby becomes free. The prohibition in the act, commonly called the Missouri Compromise, is absolute." "Now, are we prepared to say that we shall suffer these laws to be enforced in our courts? On almost three sides the State of Missouri is surrounded by free soil. If one of our slaves touch that soil with his master's assent, he becomes entitled to his freedom. If a master sends his slave to hunt his horses or cattle beyond the boundary, shall he thereby be liberated? But our courts, it is said, will not yo so far. If not go the entire length, why go at all? The obligation to enforce to the proper decree, is as obligatory as to enforce to any degree. Slavery is introduced by a continuance in the Territory for six hours as well as for twelve months, and so far as our laws are concerned, the offence is as great in the one case as in the other. Laws operate only within the territory of the State for which