[cover page] The Opinion of Justice Peter V. Daniel of the United States Supreme Court in the Famous Dred Scott Case Original Manuscript [title page] Supreme Court of the United States No 7 December Seven 1856. Dred Scott } In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Plff in Er } District of Missouri. - vs } John F. A. Sandford } Mr. Justice Daniel. - No 7. Scott vs Sandford. [1] Dred Scott Plaintiff vs John F A Sandford Defendant. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri. It may with truth be affirmed, that since the establishment of the several communities now constituting the States of this Confederacy, there never has been submitted to any tribunal within its limits questions surpassing in importance those now claiming the consideration of this Court. Indeed it is difficult to imargine in connection with the systems of polity peculiar to the United States a conjuncture of graver import than that must be, within which it is aimed to comprise, and to control, not only the faculties and practical operation appropriate to the American confederacy [inserted: as such,] but also the rights and powers of its separate and independent members, with reference alike to their internal and domestic authority and interests, and the relations they sustain to their confederates. - To my mind it is evident, that nothing less than the ambitious and [inserted: far] reaching pretension to compress these Object of vital concern, is either directly essayed, or necessarily implied in the positions attempted in the argument for the Plaintiff in Error. How far these positions have any foundation [2] in the nature of the rights and relations of separate, equal, and independent Governments: or in [inserted: the positions of] our own federal compact, or the laws enacted under and in pursuance of the authority of that compact, will be presently investigated. In order correctly to comprehend the tendency and force of those positions, it is proper here succinctly to advert to the facts upon which the questions of law propounded in the Argument have arisen. - This was an action of Trespass vix armis instituted in the circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, in the name of the Plaintiff in Error [inserted: a negro held as a slave,] for the recovery of freedom for himself, his wife, and two children also negroes. To the Declaration in this case the Defendant below, who is also the Defendant in error, pleaded in abatement that the Court could not take cognizance of the cause, because the Plaintiff was not a Citizen of the State of Missouri as averred in the declaration, but was a negro of African descent, and that his Ancestors were of pure African blood, and were brought into this Country and sold as [struck: Slaves] negro slaves, and [struck: that] hence it followed, from the 2nd Section of the 3rd Article of the Constitution, which creates the Judicial power of the United States with respect to controversies between Citizens of different States, [inserted: that] the Circuit Court could not take cognizance of the action. [3] To this plea in abatement a demurrer having been interposed on behalf of the Plaintiff, it was sustained by the Court. - After the decision sustaining the Demurrer, the Defendant in pursuance of a previous agreement between Counsel, and with the leave of the Court, pleased in bar of the action, 1st Not Guilty. 2ndly That the Plaintiff was a negro slave the lawful property of the defendant: and as such, the Defendant gently laid his hands upon him & thereby had only restrained him as the Defendant had a right to do so. 3rdly That with respect to the wife and daughters of the Plaintiff, in the second and third courts of the Declaration, [struck: the] mentioned; the Defendant had as to them, only acted in the same manner, and in virtue of the same legal right. - [printed excerpt inserted by Daniel] "It is agreed that Dred Scott brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county; that there was a verdict and judgment in his favor; that on [strikeout] a writ of error to the Supreme Court the judgment below was reversed and the same remanded to the Circuit Court, where it has been continued to await the decision of this case. "FIELD for Pl'ff. "GARLAND for Def't." [in Daniel's hand] [4] Issues having been joined upon the above pleas in bar the following statement [struck: of facts] comprising all the evidence in the cause was agreed upon and signed by the counsel of the respective parties, viz, [printed excerpt inserted by Daniel] "In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Doctor Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of 36 degrees, 30 minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said last mentioned date until the year 1838. "In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzy, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about 14 years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzy is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri at the military post called Jefferson Barracks. "In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided. "Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza and Lizzy, to the defendant as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves. "At the times mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration the defendant, claiming to be owner as aforesaid, laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and Lizzy, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times. "Further proof may be given on the trial for either party. "R. M. FIELD, for Pl'ff. "H. A. GARLAND, for Def't. "It is agreed that Dred Scott brought suit for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county; that there was a verdict and judgment in his favor; that on [strikeout] a writ of error to the Supreme Court the judgment below was reversed and the same remanded to the Circuit Court, where it has been continued to await the decision of this case. "FIELD for Pl'ff. "GARLAND for Def't." …