Jump to content

Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/882

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

APPENDIX.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford.

The Supreme Court of the United States, at the December term, in 1856, gave its decision in what is popularly known as the "Dred Scott case." This case involved not only private rights but constitutional principles of the highest importance. In reference to the questions involved, Judge Daniel declared, that since the establishment of the several communities now constituting the states of this confederacy, there never had been submitted to any tribunal within its limits, questions surpassing in importance those submitted in this case to the consideration of the court. Judge Wayne remarked, that there had become such a difference of opinion in respect to the questions presented that the peace and harmony of the country required the settlement of them by judicial decision.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case, Dred Scott vs. Sandford, was brought up by writ of error from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri. It was an action for trespass vi et armis instituted in the circuit court by Scott against Sandford.

Prior to the institution of the present suit, an action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the circuit court of St. Louis county, (state court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the supreme court of the state, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the circuit court, where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question.

The declaration of Scott contained three counts; one, that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff; one, that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children. Sandford appeared and filed the following plea: "And the said John F. A. Sandford, in his own proper person, comes and says that this court ought not to have or take further cognizance of the action aforesaid, because he says that