Page:A legal review of the case of Dred Scott, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.djvu/10

 that the court, this time, undertook to decide at least everything within its reach.

The head note to the Passenger Cases, which we copy here for convenience of comparison, is as follows:

"Statutes of the States of New York and Massachusetts, imposing taxes upon alien passengers arriving in ports of those States, declared to be contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore null and void."

"Inasmuch as there was no opinion of the court, as a court, the reporter refers the reader to the opinions of the judges for an explanation of the statutes and the points in which they conflicted with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

In this case of Dred Scott, the opinion of the Chief Justice is called by himself, and by the reporter, the opinion of the court. Let us consider, for a moment, its title to this distinction. When one judge, of a bench consisting of several, delivers an opinion as the opinion of the court, it is undoubtedly to be deemed the opinion of every judge, who does not express his own; but the judges who openly dissent from it are of course in no wise responsible for it; nor are those, who announce that they concur in parts of it only, to be considered as assenting to the remainder. In this case, Mr. Justice Wayne is the only judge who "concurs entirely in the opinion of the court, as it has been written and read by the Chief Justice, without any qualification of its reasoning or its conclusions." Mr. Justice Nelson commences by saying, "I shall proceed to state the grounds upon which I have arrived at the conclusion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed," and agrees with very few of the Chief Justice's positions. Mr. Justice Grier "concurs in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Nelson on the questions discussed by him," and "also concurs with the opinion of the court as delivered by the Chief Justice," upon two points only. Mr. Justice Daniel, though agreeing substantially with the Chief Justice, himself discusses all the questions in the case, and concludes as follows: "In conclusion, my opinion is that the decision of the circuit court," &c. Mr. Justice Campbell begins thus: "I concur in the judgment pronounced by the Chief Justice, but the importance of the cause, the expectation and interest it has awakened, and the responsibility involved in its determination, induce me to file a separate opinion," in which he limits in some respects his concurrence. Mr. Justice Catron concurs in the opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson, and concurs in only one other point with the Chief Justice,