and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose.

Second: That "all cases involving title to slaves," and "questions of personal freedom" are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Third: That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all "the organized territories" the same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850.

[Senate Rep. 15, 33d Cong., 1st Sess.]

No. 110. Dixon's Proposed Amendment

January 16, 1854

SEC. 22. And be it further enacted, That so much of the 8th section of... [the Missouri Enabling Act of March 6, 1820]

as declares "That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be forever prohibited," shall not be so construed as to apply to the Territory contemplated by this act, or to any other Territory of the United States; but that the citizens of the several States or Territories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the Territories of the United States, or of the States to be formed therefrom, as if the said act, entitled as aforesaid, and approved as aforesaid, had never been passed.

[Cong. Globe, 33d Cong., 1st Sess., 175.]

No. III. Sumner's Proposed Amendment

January 17, 1854

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to abrogate or in any way contravene [the Missouri Enabling Act] . . . ; wherein it is expressly enacted that "in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited."

[Cong. Globe, 33d Cong., 1st Sess., 186.]

No. 112. Extract from the Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas

May 30, 1854

An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas.

Be it enacted That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit: beginning at a point in the Missouri River where the fortieth parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the east boundary of the Territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence on said summit northward to the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the territory of Minnesota; thence southward on said boundary to the Missouri River; thence down the main channel of said river to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Nebraska; and when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory, or any portion

of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission:

*

*

*

SEC. 9. [The section relates to the judicial system of the Territory.] Writs of error, and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court [of the Territory], shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error, or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; .. Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to or affect the provisions of the [Fugitive Slave acts of 1793 and 1850] ...

...

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of . . . [the Fugitive Slave acts of 1793 and 1850] . . . be, and the same are hereby, declared to extend to and be in full force within the limits of said Territory of Nebraska.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, . . . That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved . . . [March 6, 1820] . . [March 6, 1820] . . ., which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That nothing herein

law or

contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any regulation which may have existed prior to the act of ... [March 6, 1820]. . ., either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery.

*

SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That all that part of the Territory of the United States included within the following limits, except such portions thereof as are hereinafter expressly exempted from the operations of this act, to wit, beginning at a point on the western boundary of the State of Missouri, where the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico; thence north on said boundary to latitude thirty-eight; thence following said boundary westward to the east boundary of the Territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence northward on said summit to the fortieth parallel of latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the State of Missouri; thence south with the western boundary of said State to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a temporary government by the name of the Territory of Kansas; and when admitted as a State or States, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission: ..

[Sections 27, 28, and 32 apply to the Territory of Kansas the provisions of sections 9, 10, and 14, respectively.]

[U. S. Stat. at Large, X., 277-290.]

No. 113. Dred Scott Decision

March 6, 1857

THE main facts of the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford) are as follows: Dred Scott was a negro slave, the property of Dr. Emerson, a surgeon in the United States army. In 1834 Scott was taken by his owner from Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, Ill., and from thence, in 1836, to Fort Snelling, on the west bank of the Mississippi, within the limits of the territory acquired from France in 1803, and north of 36° 30′. There Scott, with the consent of his owner, married. In 1838 Emerson took Scott and his family back to Missouri. In 1847 Scott brought suit in the circuit court of the State of Missouri to recover his freedom, on the ground of previous resi

dence in free territory. Judgment was rendered in his favor, but was reversed in 1848 by the Missouri supreme court, to which the case was carried on writ of error. In the meantime, Scott and his family passed under the control of John F. A. Sandford of New York. In 1853 Scott brought suit for damages against Sandford, in the United States circuit court for the district of Missouri, on the alleged ground of illegal detention of himself and family as slaves. The defendant pleaded that Scott, being a negro, and born of slave parents, could not be a citizen of Missouri, and hence could not be a party to a suit in the United States courts. The plea was overruled, but on other grounds Scott's claim to freedom was denied, and judgment rendered against him. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where it was twice argued, in February and December, 1856. The decision was rendered March 6, 1857. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the court, but separate opinions were read by each of the eight associate justices. It has been well said that "to ascertain what the judgment of the court really was, it is necessary to compare the nine opinions and tabulate the results." The legal doctrine of the decision, so far as the question of slavery was concerned, was set aside by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

REFERENCES. - Text in 19 Howard, 393-633. For contemporary discussions, see Benton's Historical and Legal Examination of the Dred Scott Case; Gray and Lowell's Legal Review of the Case of Dred Scott; Foot's Examination of the Case of Dred Scott.

[Opinion of the Court.]

There are two leading questions presented by the record: 1. Had the Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction to hear and determine the case between these parties? And, 2. If it had jurisdiction, is the judgment it has given erroneous or not?

The plaintiff in error, who was also the plaintiff in the court below, was, with his wife and children, held as slaves by the defendant, in the State of Missouri, and he brought this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for that district, to assert the title of himself and his family to freedom.

The declaration is in the form usually adopted in that State to try questions of this description, and contains the averment necessary to give the court jurisdiction; that he and the defendant are citizens of different States; that is, that he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of New York.

The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, being a negro of African descent,