BctJforiJ 3nqmm auti Cltriraiflt BY DAYID OVER. MAJORITY REPORT OF THE SEIJfT COMMITTEE, Of the Striate of Pennsylvania, upon the decision in the esse of Dred Scott vs. John F. A. San fori. Th? seleat committee of the Senate, to which was referred the resolutions relative to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Uuited States in tbe case of Dred Scott vs. Joh a F. A. Sanford, submit the fol lowing REPORT: Your committee, for want of time, snd by reason of numerous other engagements at this late stage of the session, have been unable to give the decision referred to that careful examination wbich its importance demands, or to prepare such a report as would do justice to tbe subject, or to them selves. They wtre embarassed also by an -inability to procure au authentic copy of ihe entire opinion of the Court, as deliv ered by Chief Justice Taney; but from what is conceded to be a correct abstract of the opiuion, and from the opinions of the dissenting judg.-a, we can gather with reasonable certainty correct ideas of the whole case. The fact* are substantially as follows: la the year 1834, Pred Scott, the plaintiff, was a negro slave, belonging to Pr. Emer ou, of the State of Mis-oari; and ia that year his master took the plaintiff from Mis souri to Koek Island, in tbe State of Illi nois, and there held turn as a slave until 183*5. From Ilock 1.-land the plaintiff was taken tu Fort Snelling, then in the territo ry of the United States, north of the State of Missouri, and iu which alavery was pro hibited by the act of OoDgrss knottu as the Missouri Compromise, aod there held as a slave until 1838. Iu 1835 My r L. Taliaferro took Harriet to Fort Snellicg, aud there held her as a slave until 1836, wheD he sold her to said Pr. Emerson, who thereafter elaiiued her as his slave. In 1836 the plaintiff and Harriet were mar ried at Fort Snelling, and two daughters, Kltzt zui Lizzie were the children of this marriage. Elian was born north of the •orlh line of the State of Missouri, and at the coaiu:ncetr:ent of the suit was about fourteen years of age. Lizzie was about seven years younger, and was born iu the State of Missouri. In 1533 Dr. Euietwon removed the plaintiff ami his wife Hatriet, and their daughter Eliza to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resi ded. Before the commencement of tbe action, Pi. Emer-on had sold Pred ScOtt* Harriet hU wife, Elizv and Lizzie, to the defendant, John F. A. San ford, as slaves, and be has ever since claimed to hold theui as such. The suit was brought by the plaintiff in the circuit Court of the United States, for the district- of Missouri, to re cover the freedom of himself, of his wife, and of his children. That Court decided agaicst the plaintiff, and an appeal was ta ker. to the Supreme Court of the United Stales. That Court dismissed tbe case for want cf jurisdiction, on the ground that tbe plaintiff was not a citizen of tbe State of M saouri, r.cr of the Uuited States, and that he was, therefore, iucoinpetent to maintain any actum in the Courts of the United Slates. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Taney, and concurred in • the four other Judges from the Slave States, whilst the four Judges of the Free ; State* dissented from the wos* important j points laid down by the majority of the ' Court. The Chief Justice, in his opiuion,; tock a most extensive view of tbe whole ) subject, and among other things of less ' importance laid down in substance as tbe j law of the land, tbe following most impor tant propositions: Ist. That the plaintiff Dred Scott was . not a citizen of the State of Missouti, or of ' tbe Uni'ed States, and that therefore Le j was not competent to maintain any suit in j tbe Courts of tbe United States. 2d. That tbe plaintiff, having been a slave in the State of Missouri, his subse quent residence in the State of Illinois, and in the Territory north of the State of Miasouru did not affeet the condition of himself or bis family, bat tbmt all remain ed slaves. 3rd. That slaves are property, by tbe express provisions of tbe Constitution of tbe United States, in no wise differing front other property, and that therefore neither the Congress of the United States, cor say territorial government created by it, has any power to exclude slavery from the Na tional Territories. These novel and startling propositions j year committee propose to examine briefly in tbeir order. X- Tbe first proposition is not of to uch practical importance to the people of l'cunsylvania ss are the second and third, A Weekly Paper, Devoted to Literature, Politics, the Arts, Sciences, Agriculture, &c., &c —Terms: Two Dollars per annum. yet its bold and positive announcement by such high authority, has occasioned no lit tle surprise, and caused much iuquiry to be made into the reasons on which the doc trine is based. In the argument of this point, Chief Justice Taney says: "It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opiuion respecting that un fortunate class (negroo) with the civilized and enlightened portion of the world, at the time of the Declaration of Indepen dence and the adoption of the Constitution; but history shows they have for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and unfit associates for the white race, either socially or politically, and had no rights which white tuen were bound to respect; and the black man might be reduced to slavery—bought aud sold, and treated as au ordinary article of mer chandise. The doctrine of which we have spoken, was strikingly enforced by the De claration of Independence. It begins thus: 'When in the cuurse of human events it becomes necessary for on people to dis solve the political bonds which have con nected theui with another, and to assume among the pawers of the catth the sepa rate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation;' and proceeds: 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their cieutor with certain inalienable rights; that auioog these are life, liberty , and the pursuit of happi ness; that to secure these rights, govern ments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' " In the opiniou of your committee, this first position taken by the Court was at best a most questionable one. and the evi dence by which the Chief Justice thus en deavors to support it, is much more ques tionable. Our veneration for old age, and our respect for the Court from which the opiuioo emanated, preclude the supposition that the above quotations thus made by the Chief Justice were intended iu a Pickwick ian sense; and there being no such logic in the books, wo are therefore reluctantly driven to the humiliating acknowledgement that we cannot comprehend how it is that said quotations prove, or can in any way be tortured into the support of tbe doc trine, that a coloreJ person cannot be a jitizeu of any State, or of the United States, or that still ronro monstrous dootiiue that this "unfortunate class" "has no rights which white men arc bound to respect," Tbomaa Jefferson is the admitted author of the Declaration cf Independence, and be has left oo record abundant evidence that be entertained views entirely differeut fronu Judge Tanoy in relation to this "uc fortuoate class," lie considered colored persons citizens, and so bis writings, both historical and official, abundantly show.— Iu his celebrated work called Notes on the State of Virginia, (chapter IS,) in speak ing of tbe demoralizing influences of slave ry in his native State, be says: "And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half the citi zens t/uu to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys tbe motals of tbe one part, and tbe amor patria of the other." The same idea also was even wore clearly proclaimed in his proclamation as President of the United States, in refer ence to the famous outrage perpetrated by the British man of war, Leopard, upon the frigate Chesapeake. To understand tbe full force of the expressions use 1, it must be recollected that of tbe four seamen ta ken from the Chesapeake on tbe claim of desertion from tbe British service, tbe only two bora in the United States were two colored men, natives of Maryland. The passage referred to in Jefferson's proclama tion, is as follows: "This enormity *M not only without pro vocation or justifiable cause, but was com mitted with the avowed purpose of taking by foree from a ship of war of the United States a part of her crew: and that no cir cumstance might be wanting to mark its character, it had been previously ascertain ed that the seamen demanded were native born eitiaens of the United States." Negroes are also recognized as citizens by numerous acts of Congress; and among other* by the act of 28th February, 1803, (Danlop' i Dig. Laws of N. d., p. 32-1,) which lays — "That from and after the first day of April next, no tnseter or captain of any ship or Teasel, or any other person, shall import or bring, or cause to be imported or brought, any negro, mulatto, or other person of color, not being a native, a citi zen, or registered citizen of the United States, or seamen natives of countries be* yond the Cape of Qood Hope, into any port or place of the United States, wbich port or place shall be situated in a State which by law has prohibited, or shall prohibit, the ad mission or importation of any such negro, mulatto, or other person of color," To the same effect also are the decisions of the Courts, both State and National.— The Supreme Court of N'orth Carolina, in an elaborate opiuion delivered in 1838, State vs. Manuel—(4 Dev. & Bat., p. 24) by Judge Gaston, one of the rnosr learned and able jurisis in the Union, on the pic cise point now under considerrtion, fully sustained the Jeffersonian sud Congression al views of ciiizenship, just cited. In the opinion of the Court in that case, i? is said— "British subjects in North Carolina—by virtue of the Revolution—became North Carolina freemeu, foreigners, until made members of the State, continued aliens; slaves manumitted here became freemen, and therefore, if born within Notth Caro liuu, are citizens of North Carolina; and al! free persous born within the State arc born citizens of the State." To tbe same effect aiso are the decisions of the Supreme Courts of other States, and of the Supreme Courts of the United States. In the case of Lee vs. Lee, [3, Peters 48,] this latter court ia au actiou for freedom said—"Freedom is not to be valued." In the case of Wallingsford vs. Allen—(10 Peters, 583,) Judge Wayne, one of the Judges concurring in the Dred Scott opin ion, declared that "thh question of freedom is superior to any question of property." In Williams vs. Ash, (1 Howards, Rep 1,) in wbich R. B. Taney, then as now Chief Justice, delivered tbe opioion of the Court, a colored man was not only permit ted to sue for his freedom in a court of die United States, but was permitted to tecov er it. And 10 the same effect also is Rhode* vs. Bell, (2 How., 397,) in which the opio ion of the Court was delivered by Justice Jl'Lean. Can it be then in Ibis free country and in this enlightened ago, that "one half the citizens," as Jefferson expressed it, in soite of the States, and a greater or les* oortion of them in all the States suddenly become uo citizens at all! That solely by reason of their color, they are presumed to be with out the pale of citizenship, that they eaouot even sue in any court of the United States to try the question whether they are bond or ftoe. This doctrine is so contrary to al! past history and judicial precedent, so repugnant to all ideas of law an Iju slice, and so ab horrent to teason and humanity, that your committee eau uot do otherwise than con demn and repudiate it as Miterly unsotndi and unworthy the C<uirt which proclaimed ii. 2. The plaintiff having bee n a tlavo in the Siute of Missouri, his subs.qient resi dence in the State of Illinois, and iu bo National territory North of Missouri, did uot affect the condition of himself or his family, but all remained slaves. Tbe question here raised isp irely a legal one; and one which bis been decided agnin and again, from the organiz ition of our Gov ermueut down to the case of Dred Scott, aud by the Courts of almost every State in tbe Union. Slavery being contrary to nat. Ural rights,is created only by municipal law This is not only plain in itself, and agreed to by all writers on the subject, but is also the doctrine laid down by our Federal Con stitution, and has been most explici'ly de clared by tbe same Courc which now denies it in the case of Died Scott. Tbe second section of article of the Constitu tion of the United States, is as follows: " No person held to labor or service in one State, undtr the lows thereof, shall, in consequence of law or regulaton therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. No words could more clearly describe a status created by municipal law than these words in tbe Constitution. Iu the celebra ted and leading case of Prigg vs. the Com monwealth of Pennsylvania, (16, Peters' Reports, 539.) decided by the Supreme Court of the United States iu 184?, tbe same principle is solemnly recognized and affirmed. Tbe late eminent Judge Story delivered the opinion of the Court,and among other things said, "The state of slavery is deemed to be a mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to tbe territorial laws." "It is manifest from this considera tion that if tbe Constitution had not contain ed this clause (reqniring tbe delivery np of fugitives) every non-slfvebolding State in the Union would have been at liberty to have declared free all runaway slaves coming within its limits, and to have given them eatire immunity and protection against all claims of their masters." Judge Taney was then as now Cbicf Justice of tbe Court and be and all tbe other Judges concurred in that part of the opinion here cited. Tbe above quoted clause of tbe eoastitn- BEDFORD, PA.. FRIDAY. MAY 15.1857. r 'ion providing only for the arrest and giving ' up of fugitive slaves, does not apply, and has never been construed to apply, to eases where tbe master voluntarily takes his slave ' into a ffee territory or a froj State. Such has ever been tbe law of England, and of these United States, until new. In the first and second sections of the sixth article of the Constitution of Illinois, H is declared that neither Slavery nor involuntary servi tude shall hereafter be introduced into this Slate, otherwise than for crimes, of which the party shall lie duly convicted; and in the eeond section it is declared, that any violation of this article *balf effect the eman cipation of such person frotn his obligation to service. The Supreme C-iurt of Illiuoi*, in the case of Jarrot vs. Ja&ot, (2 tiihuore's Ilep. 7) declared. "After the conquest of this territory by Virginia she ceded it to the United State*, and stipulated that tbe titles and possession*, rights and liberties of the French settlers should be guaranteed to them. This, it has been contended, seeursd thrttu in the possession of those negroes as Slaves which thoy had before that time, and that neither Congress nor the Convention had power to deprive them of it; or, in other words, that the Ordinance aud Con stitution should uot be so interpreted aud understood as applying to such Slaves, when it is there shall be neitlier Slavery nor involuntary servitude in tbe North West Ter ri ory, nor iu tbe State of Illinois, otherwi-ie than in the puuisbuieut of crimes; but, it was held that those rights could not b.-. thus protected, but must yield to the Ordinance and Constitution." Awoog numerous other eases establishing the same principle decided by the supreme Court of Missouri, is*; he leading case of Rachel vs. Martin, (4 Missouri Rep. 850, Jane Ter.u 1336,) substantially the same iu every prticular as the Dred Scott ease.— Rachel sued for her freedom, and it appeared Mat she bad been bought as a slave ia the State of Missouri by Stockton, an officer of the army, taken to Fort Suejling where he was *inl she wor-wetaioed as a slave there r.no year. Stockton then re moved to Prarie du Chien, taking Rachel with him as bis slave, where he continued to boid her for three years, and then took her back to the State of Missouri, and sold her as a slave. In the opinion of the Court on these facts it was said: "i he officer iived in M-ssoori Territory at the time he bought the slave; he ent to a slavcholding eoutury and purchased her.— This was his voluntary act, done without ty other rouse , than thqr of hi* convenience and he aud those claiming under him must ; he hoiden to abide tho cons-q icnt'cs of in- : traducing slavery botb ia Missouri Territory 1 and Michigan co-diary io I 'aw, and on ibis j.round Rachel is -tciared entitled to her freedom. In 1851 the Cau.t of apyeals r.f Sou'b Caroiiua recognised the principle ifiat a slave being taken to a free state became free (Commoairtaltk vs, lcnsants,P Leigh K,-p 697). lu Betty ws. Horton the CV.rt of Appeals helti that tho freedom of the slave was acquired by the action of tho laws of Massachusetts, by the slave being taken there (Leigh Ilep. 615). It has been so held by Ike Supreme Courts of Mississippi, Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, and ptber slave State."; and in the free States the doctrine is believad to be universal. It was firmly established iu tbe State of Penn sylvania at an early day, and among otber cases is that of The Commonwealth rr Hol lowly (2 Sergt ani lluiole 305) in which CHIEF JUSTICE TII/IHMAN, and justices YEATES AND GIBSON, all concurred iu opiuion. An innumerable list of other authorities might be cited: but with this cloud of witness es against the accuracy of tbe second position laid down in the Dred Scott case your com mittee will proceed to the consideration of the last proposition. 3. Slaves are property, by tbe express provisions ot the Constitution of the United States, iu no wise differing from other pro perty, and therefore neither the Congress of tbe United States nor any territorial gov ernment created by it, has any power to ex clude slavery from the National territories- To the citizens of Pennsylvania, and t! other free States, this is perhaps the most startling and monstrous doctrine ever pro claimed; and the sensation it has created, and the excitement and condemnation with which it has everywhere been received * I evince but a just appreciation of its vast im portance. The institution of slavery is hereby not only docUrud to be National but Congress is denied the power to restrain it within any limits whatever, and by clear and inevitable implication slavery is carried into every State in tie Union, and tbe Leg islatures thereof prohibited from excluding it. It is the right aud duty of every Com monwealth to guard and project hog State rights against all usurpation and encroach- i nient by the National Government; and hence the eminent propriety of the Legisla ture of Pennsylvania taking these grave questions into serions consideration. Let us inquire then, as briefly as possible, whet her there is anything iu the Constitution of the Uuited States, or in our legislative or judicial history, to warrant tho promulgation of such monstrous doctrines as are set forth iu this third proposition. That slaves in the slave States, and for certain purposes, are reeogniz-rd as proper ty, wiil not be denied, but that they do not differ from other property, or that they are mere property by any express or fairly implied piovisions of the Constitution of the United States, ia a most unwarranted as sumption. On the contrary, the word slave or slavery is nowhere used iu that instrument and where they are spoken of by descrip-ion they urc called persons. Ia the third section of the first article of the Federal Contitu tion, fixing tho basis of representation and taxation, slaves are described by tbe words, "three fif'.hi of nil other Ptasoxs" So also io the th;rd section of the fourth article be. fore cited, on the subject of fugitive slaves 'l he lauguagc there is: "No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another," Si:. Here. tofore, as already shown by numerous au thorities cited, they have been adjudged and treated as {<ersons and citizens, and as such allowed to sue aud be sued in both the State and Federal courts, they have been deemed under the protection of the laws for tbe se curity of their persons, their property aud their liberty; aud they have been held re sponsible in all criminal courts for the perpe tration f.f crime*. But now, for the first time, iu the face of those piaiu provisions of •he Constitution, in deSance of ali past ad judications of me Courts, we ate gravely told that slaves are only prooerty, and differing in no respect from other property, and that therefore, inasmuch as tio mau cau be prevented from taking his horse into any State or Territory, so neither eau he bepro- f h'bitod from taking bis slaves there. And in further development of this new idea, we are further informed by tue opinion of ' the court in this Dred Seott case, that the I celebrated Jeffersuaian Ordinance of 1784, ! tbe Ordiuanoe of 1787, and the no less celebrated Missouri Compromise Law of 1820, excluding slavery from the National I Territories, were all euacfed in violation of tbe Constitution of the United States; aud that they are therefore all null and void.— It these tlmgs be so, then there can be no ; limitations put npon slavery by Congress; ; and the right to hold slaves, and to slavery | < stensioa teiuggu iraiiteed by the Cqastitu : tion of the United States, no State Constitu ! . _ I tion or State law can reach it, for the Con .-ututioß of tbe United States is the supremo \ law of the land. Thomas Ji fferson was the author Qf tLe Ordinance of !7.f7, which was enacted by the Continental Congress, with only one dis senting voice it provided a territorial government for that immense territory north and we?tof the river Ohio. Tbe sixth article of that Ordinance is in the following words: ''There shai! be neither slavery nor in voluntary servitude in said territory, other wise thau in punishment of crime, whereof the party shall hsve been duly convicted. ' In 1789, aud after the adoption of the Constitution, the first Congress under it (and iu which were foartceu members of the Convention wnich framed the Constitution, j includiug James Madison) a bill wos passed re-enaeupg tho Oordinance of 1787, and the preamble to said bill was as follows: "WHEREAS, In order that the Ordinance of the United States in Congress assembled *or the governtneut of the territory north , and west of the Ohio river, may continue to j have Jull rjftct, it is requisito that certain ' provisions should be made so as to adapt the same to the present Constitution of the ; United States; therefore, bo it enacted,&e." j This act was approved by George Wash- ' ington as President; and ha had also been President of the Convention which framed j tbe Constitution. Here is a most explicit I and official declaration, by tbe first Presi- j dent and the first Congress, of the views then held of tbe constitutional power of Con- [ grcss to prohibit slavery in tbe territories. [ Numerous other iustauoes can be cited, and : without going into details, your eommittee I will refer to two classes of congressional j acts npon the subject, la one class, Con- j gress has extended the Ordinance of 1787 over territories, thereby prohibiting slavery | thereiu; and in the other, Congress has e rected governments over territories where 1 slavery already existed, and refused by poa-i j itive enactment to exclude slavery there-: ' from. Of the first class arc the act of May 7, 1800, (1 Stat, at Large, 58,1 for the gov ernment of the Indisna Territory, tbe a-et January 11, 18Q5, (2 Stat, at Large, 309-,) tyr the gerernmaat of Michigan Territory; the act of May 3, 1809, (*2 Stat, at Large, 514.) for the government of Illinois Terri tory; the act of April 20, 1836, (5 Stat at Large, 19,} for the government of the Ter ritory of Wisconsin, the act of June 12, 1838, for the government of the Territory of Iowa; the act of August 14 1818, for the gjvenueut of the Territory of Oregon. To these should be added the act of March 6 f 1820, (3 Stat, at Large, 548,) prohibiting slavery in tho Territory northwest of Mis souri, and north of 35 deg. 30 miu. north latitude. Of the second class, m which Cvtigress refused to interfere with slavery already ex isting uudc, municipal law, and established governments by which slavery was rccogni nized and allowed, are the act of March 2G, 1804, (2 Stat, at Large, 233,) for the gov ernment of Louisiana: the act of Mtreb 2, 1805. (2 Stat at Large, 32*2,) for the gov ernment of the Territory of Orleans: the act of June 4, 1812, (2 Stat, at htrgf, 743, for the government of tbe Missouri Terri tory ; the act of March 30, 1822, (3 Stat, at Large, 654.) for the government of the Territory <f Florida. Here are eight dis tinct instances, begiouing with the first Con gress, and couiiug down to 1848, in which Congress has excluded sLvary from the ter ritory of the United State*;.and six distinct instances in which Congress organized gov ernments of territories by which slavery was recognized and continued, beginning also with tbe first Congress, atid coming down 'to the year 1822. These acts were sever i ally signed by seven presidents of the Uni ted States, beginning with Washington, and coming regularly down to John Qu'.ucy Ad ams, thus including a!} wuo were iu pubhc life when the Constitution was adopted. If the practical construction of the Con stitution cotemporaneonsly with its going into effect, by tuen intimately acquainted with its history from their personal partici pation in framing and adopting it, and con tinued by them through a long scries of acts of the gravest importance, be entitled to weight in the judicial niiai on a question of construction, it would seem to te difficult if not impossible to resist the force of the , acts here adverted to. Such has been the settled doctrine also j of tie legal tribunals of the country, both i State and National, frciu the organisation ! of tac government down. In the discos j sson of the powers of Congress to govern a Territory in the case of the Atlantic Insu rance Company rt. Oantei, (i Peters, Rep. of the Supreme Court of the U. S., p. 511,) that great juris", Chief Justice Marshall,in delivering the opinion >f the Court, said in irpgird to the people of Florida: "They do not, however, par'icipate in political power: they do not share in the government until Florida shall become a State; in the mean ; time Florida coutitiues to be a Territory of the United States, governed by that clause I in the Constitution which empowers Ca -| gress to make all needful rules and regula : tions respecting the territory or other prnp ! erty of the United States." And he adds. '•Perhaps the power of governing a territory i belonging to the United States, which has not by becqtning a State, acquired the means i of self government may result necessarily | front the fact that it is not within the juris diction of any particular State, and is with j in the jurisdiction and power of the United States. The right to govern may be the in evitable consequence of the right to acquire j territory; whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned." And in the close : of the opinion, the Court says- "In letpsla' \ tin* jar thtm (the territories) Congress tx- \ treats'he combined powers oj the Gtmrcl and i Stale Governments." But why multiply authorities on a prin- ' cipie which was never before called in ques-' two. Judge M'Lean, m his dissenting o- 1 pinion, iu this Dred Scott case, in speaking ' of the powers of Congress, says: "The jn- [ dicial mind of this country, State and Fed eral, baa agreed on no subject within its le gitimate action, with equal unanimity as on the power of Congress to establish territo rial governments. No Courts, State or Fed eral—no judge or statesman, is known to have had any doubts on this question for nearly sixty years after the power was ex ercised." Such are the hastily prepared views of jour committee on some of the mast prom inent principles involved in the Dred Scott ease. In conclusion we feel constrained to direct the attention of the Senate to one more feature in the case, and which is, if possible, more alarming than any other jet referred to. it is to the fact tb&t a major ity of the Court has not only made the de liberate effort to nu.lify the provis ions of tho Constitution, to repudiate the wise lessons of all past history and experi ence, to declare null and void solemn acts of Congress, the validity of which was uev sr before questioned, and 10 overturn State VOL. 30, NO. 20. ! laws and State eoasnimtioDs, and that the | attempt to do ail ifust things has bun mad e lin a cast in which the Court in fact, and ; by its own admission, had no jurridiction. i The first que.itiu raised in the case was one I of jurisdiction, and this the Court decided against the plaintiff, and having so decided, ; there was legally no case, ar.u no parties bc j fore them, and all subsequent opinions and j declarations on other questions are, bv all recognized rule*, extra judicial, coram a on judice , inopetative and void, j 'i he soundness oS this principle has never i been heretofore questioned. Jus'ice M Lean ia bis dissenting opinion in this very ease | **}* "la this case a intjority of the Court | have said that a slave may he taken by bis master into a territory of the United States, j the same as a horse or any other kind of ; property It is true this was said by the j Court, a3 aUo mmj qther things, which are [of 110 authority. ■' Nothing that has been , said by them which has not a direct bearing '• jon the jurisdiction of the Court, against . which they decided, can bo considered Eg authority. ] shall certainly uot regard it as such. The question of jurisdiction bc - ing b-.fjre the Court was decided by thcta, , j authoritatively, but uotLing beyond that . ; question." t | Judge Curtis is equally emphatic on this . j point. Tic says; I regret I must go furthers : [ and dissent froui what I deem tueir assump j tion ot authority to examine the cor.siiiu. > (tonality of the act of C'.cgress commonly . called the Missouri Cuoiprotuise act, and tlie - grounds .nd conclusions annrtiucci in their ! j opinion. (Jn so grave a subject as this, I - feel obliged to say, that, in my opinion, : VJCfi an exercise of fadici.it power frar seqnds t.ie limits of thf authority of the Court, as | tic act ibtd by its repeated decisions, ar.d as , : acknowledged in this opinion of the Court. \ : 1 do not consider any opinion of this Cou/t, . 'or any Court, binding when expressed cn . a question not legitimately before it. , j (Carroll rt. Carroll 16, Howards' Rep., , 275 ) The judgment of this Court is, th| f j the case is to be dismissed for ** <- 1 nf juris diction. Into that judgment .--cording to the settled course of this Court, nothing appearing after a plea to the merits ean enter. A. groat question of constitutional law, | deeply affecting tbe peace and welfare of the country, is net, ic my opinion, a fit suh- I ject to be thus reached. ** It takes two parties to make a suit, o C J | to give jurisdiction, and the j ldges admit . this; aud if they have the right :n a preter.ded case which has but em party to it, to proceed, and by a quasi official mandate to oullify j constitutions and laws, then may they also ; do the same thing without any pretence of a pase, and trLere there is nei'ber plxia | tiff nor defendant. lu the opiuiou of your cwuittoe, i'a Jev cent respect for the opinions of uiiiikiad'* required that the inonsroas doctrines pro j mulgated in this Dred Sentt ca-e should have | originated in a case which had two parties j to it, or at least iu one in which thi Judges ; did not admit they had no jurisdiction. 1 By thus traveling out of the tecord, and attempting by obiter dicta , and judicial fiat : to overturn the Constitution and laws, tun Couit voluntarily assumed legislative powers and forfeited that respect with which its j decisions have ever heretofore been regar ded. In tbe examination of this daogercnj usurpation, your committee conld not but call to tuiud and admire the prophetic wis dom of Thomas Jefferson who long smcq foresaw ibis tendency to consolidation, and predicted these unwatranted encroachment by the federal judiciary. IBs patriotic wri- tings, and especially those aftey he bad retired from the Presidency are full of ap prehensions on this subject; and front the i seventh volume of his works we quote a feiy sentences expressiye of h< views- In * j letter dated Moqtiaeilo, j\ugust 13, 1821, jhe says: "It has long, however, been my j opinion, and I have never shrunk from i;S expression, that the germ of dissolution of our federal government ia in the constitution of the federal judiciary, aq irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare crow) working like gravity by night and by day., gaining a little to-day and a little to tuuyrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until till shall be usurp-d from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. If the Spates look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the guif which is to swallow all, we have only to we"p over the human character formed uncontrolable but by a rod of iron, and tbe blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become hi* true historian*.' In another letter dated the next year, in speaking of the federal judiciary, bo says: "We alrcany see the power, installed for life, responsible ta no authority, advancing with a noiseless and steady ptae to the groat object of consolidation. Tiw foundation* are already deeply laid by their decisis*. 4
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers