(and since called Wisconsin, and now Minnesota Terri¬
tory.) where he continued to hold the plaintiff as a slave
until 1838. In 1835 Harriet was the slave of Major Talia¬
ferro, of the army of the United States, who in that year
took her to Fort Snelling, and there held her as a slave un¬
til 1836, when he sold her to Dr. Emerson, who continued
to hold her there as a slave until 1838. In 1836 the plain¬
tiff and Harriet intermarried at Fort Snelling, with the con¬
sent of Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be the owner of
both ; and Eliza and Lizzie are the fruit of the marriage.
Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board
a steamboat on the Mississippi River, north of the line of
363 30' north latitude; Lizzie is about seven years old,
and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military
post called Jefferson Barracks. In 1838 Dr. Emerson re¬
moved, with the plaintiff and his said wife and oldest child,
to the State of Missouri, wdiere they have ever since resided.
The-defendant is Dr. Emerson's administrator. The plain¬
tiff had previously brought a suit for his freedom in the
circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and obtained a
verdict and judgment; but on a writ of error, the supreme
court of that State reversed the judgment, and remitted the
case to the inferior court, where it wras continued to await
the decision of this suit.
Upon these facts, the jury, by direction of the court, re¬
turned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff alleged
exceptions, and brought up the case by writ of error.
The principal points which have been suggested as hav¬
ing arisen in this case, and having been decided by the
court, are the following :
1st. That a free negro cannot be a citizen of the United
2d. That so much of the Missouri Compromise Act,
as prohibited slavery in the Territory of the United States
north of 36° 30', is unconstitutional.
3d. That a person held in slavery in one State may be
taken by his master to a State where slavery is prohibited
by law, and yet not be entitled to claim his freedom there.
4th. That a slave taken by his master into a free State,
if he omits to claim his freedom there, and returns to a
slave State, becomes a slave again.
In order to ascertain what the court did judicially deter¬
mine, we shall be obliged to make a somewhat careful ex¬
amination and comparison of the opinions of the judges.
We also propose to consider the soundness of the posi¬
tions advanced in these opinions. But first, as a guide in