that it was practicable to quiet the rising storm of slavery agitation by throwing the weight of the court's influence in favor of the contention that Congress had no power •to prohibit the introduction of slavery in the Territories; and he was able, apparently, to convince a majority of his colleagues of the expediency of such a course of action. In an elaborate opinion, characterized by great ingenuity and learning, Chief Justice Taney held that a free negro of African de scent, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, and that the judgment of the court below was, therefore, erroneous, as it had no jurisdiction of the controversy between the parties; that Scott remained a slave, and that the Mis souri Compromise Act of 1820 was unconsti tutional and void. Six of the nine judges concurred in holding that the plaintiff was a slave and that the judgment should be af firmed. Justice Wayne concurred abso lutely, and Justices Daniel and Campbell generally, with the views of the chief justice. Although Justice Nelson doubted whether the accuracy of the judgment upon the de murrer to the plea in abatement was not ad mitted by the defendant's plea in bar, he con' curred in the view that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction for the reason that the plaintiff was a slave. Justice Grier concurred in Justice Nelson's opinion, and also agreed with the chief justice that the Missouri Com promise was void. Justice Catron thought the judgment upon the plea in abatement was not open to examination, but concurred generally with the chief justice upon the other points. All these judges must, there fore, share in the responsibility for this judg ment. Justices McLean and Curtis dis sented. The former held that the judgment given of the Circuit Court on the plea in abatement was a finality, and dissented m toto from the opinion of the court. Justice Curtis' dissenting opinion is a luminous,
learned and masterly consideration of the whole controversy. He effectually exposed the irregularity of the action of the majority of the court in deciding, under a plea to the jurisdiction, that the lower court had no jur isdiction to hear and determine the cause, and then proceeding to decide a question of constitutional law which could1 arise only on a plea in bar to the merits of the action. "I do not consider it to be within the scope of the judicial power of the majority of the court," he said, "to pass upon any question respecting the plaintiff's citizenship in Mis souri, save that raised by the plea to the jur isdiction, and I do not hold any opinion of this court, or any court, binding, when ex pressed on a question not legitimately before it. The judgment of this court is that the case is to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the plaintiff was not a citizen of Missouri, as he alleged in his declaration. Into that judgment, according to the settled course of this court, nothing appearing after a plea to the merits can enter. A great ques tion of constitutional law, deeply affecting the peace and welfare of the country, is not, in my opinion, a fit subject to be thus reached."1 ' Chief Justice Taney 's ablest opinions are Genesee Chief, 12 Howard 4.43; Charles River bridge -'. Warren Bridge, n Peters 420: Ableman т. Booth, 21 Howard 506; Luther i1. Borden, 9 »A I; Kendall -•. United States, 12 Peters 524; Ex parte Merryman, Taney 246; The Passenger Cases, 7 Howard 283; The License Cases, 5 ¡/i. 504; PriggT'. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters 539; Pennsyl vania-'. Wheeling Bridge Co.; Died Scott r-. Sanford, 19 Howard 393; Rhode Island -•. Massachusetts, 12 Peters 657; Bank of Augusta r. Erie, 13 »A 519: Groves -'. Slaughter. 15 it. 449; Taylor r. Carryl, 20 Howard 583; Waring 7. Clark, 5 <A 441; Kentucky r. Ohio, Neil Moore & Co. - Ohio, 3 Howard 720; Martin:'. Waddell, 16 Peters 307; Maryland v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 3 Howaid 534; United States :•. Rogers, 4 »A 567; United States :•. King, 3 it. 773; O'Reilly т-. Morse, 15 »A 62; Kentucky r. Dennison, 24<A66: Perrine т. Canal Co., 9 ib. 172; Branson т. Kinzie, i Howard 311; Kennett v. Chambers, 14 it. 38; Ohio Life Insurance Co. v. Debalt, 16 /A 416; Holmes :/. Jennison, 14 Peters; Gittings v. Crawford, Taney i; United States t>. Amy, Federal Cases, No. 14445; Cushing v. Owners of Ship John Fraser, 21 Howard 185; United States r. Guillem, n ib. 47; Ohio Life Insurance Co. т. Debolt, 16 ib. 416; Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Co. v. Wheeler, i Black 286; Bank of United States v. United States, 2 Howard 711 & Appendix; The St. Lawrence, i Black 522.
