ery other part of the Union, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges were intended to be extended to the Negro race. The words of the Constitution should be given the meaning they were intended to bear, when that instrument was framed and adopted. Where this court has decided against the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court on a plea of abatement, it has still the right to examine any question presented by exculpation or by the record, and may reverse the judgment for errors committed, and remand the case to the Circuit Court for it to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The Act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned (thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude), is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void. Neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family were made free by being carried into such territory; even if they had been carried their by their owner with the intention of becoming permanent residents. Scott was not made free by being taken to Rock Island in the State of Illinois. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and Belonos 7brought back into Missouri in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri and not of Illinois. He and his family were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of defendant. On November 2, 1853, Dred Scott, by his attorney, filed in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, the following declaration against the defendant, John F. A. Sanford: Dred Scott, of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and a citizen of the State of Missouri, complains of John F. A. Sandford, of the City of New York, a...
