Page:A legal review of the case of Dred Scott, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.djvu/7

 they may be supposed to have existed, the dissenting justices never were in fact confronted. It is called for by this further and obvious consideration, that, should the modification or retraction of opinions delivered in court obtain in practice, it would result in this palpable irregularity; namely, that opinions, which, as those of the court, should have been premeditated and solemnly pronounced from the bench antecedently to the opinions of the minority, may in reality be nothing more than criticisms on opinions delivered subsequently in the order of business to those of the majority, or they may be mere afterthoughts, changing entirely the true aspect of causes as they stood in the court, and presenting through the published reports what would not be a true history of the causes decided," 7 Howard, 515, 516.

We proceed to a statement of the present case. It was an action of trespass brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri, to try Dred Scott's title to his freedom. The plaintiff was described in the writ as a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant as a citizen of New York. The declaration contained three counts, alleging assaults on the plaintiff, on Harriet Scott his wife, and on Eliza and Lizzie his children.

The defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, "because he is a negro of African descent; his ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this country and sold as negro slaves." To this plea there was a general demurrer, which was sustained by the court. The defendant then, by leave of court and with the plaintiff's consent, pleaded three pleas in bar, to the effect that the plaintiff and his wife and children were negro slaves, the property of the defendant. At the trial before the jury, the only evidence introduced was a statement of facts, signed by the parties, in substance as follows:

In 1834 the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States, and who in that year took the plaintiff from Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until April or May, 1836, when he removed to the military post at Fort Snelling, on the west bank of the Mississippi River, in the territory formerly known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States from France, and situated north of the line of 36° 30′ north latitude, and north of the State of Missouri,