Index No. SSCM7172                       Year 1856

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dred Scott,

 

                             Appellant,

 

         - v -

 

John F.A. Sandford,

 

                              Appellee.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

                                            WRIT OF ERROR

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                       Mr. Montgomery Blair

                                                       Mr. George T. Curtis

                                          Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

 

                               Attorneys for APPELLANT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Mr. Henry S. Geyer

       Mr. Reverdy Johnson

 

Attorneys for APPELLEE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---------------------------------------------------------------------x

 

Dred Scott,

 

                         Appellant,                                                              Index No. SSCM7172

 

            - v -

 

John F.A. Sandford,                                                                         WRIT OF ERROR                                                                             

                                                                                                        

                         Appellee,

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------x

 

MOCK TRIAL PROCEEDINGS OF DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD

 

( Justices to assemble in hallway, courtroom participants in designated places. Justices will enter at sound of  three knocks. Justices come in and take a seat. All others remain standing.)

( Knocking sound made by Bailiff)

 

BAILIFF: All Rise. Hear Ye, Hear Ye. The Supreme Court of the United States is now called to order. All those having business before this honorable court, please be seated. This argument was originally brought before this court, in the month of February, 1856  by Dred Scott against John F. A. Sandford, index number SSCM7172. This is a petition for writ of error, originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, by Dred Scott, the petitioner  against John F. A. Sandford, as respondent and set forth in the following facts:

 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER B. TANEY: This court is now in session. Will the appellant’s attorneys please address the court.

 

APPELLANT’S COUNSEL: (Stands up, sits when finished)

 

APPELLANT’S COUNSEL: I, Montgomery Blair, an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court  affirms this under the penalties of perjury.

 

APPELLANT’S CO-COUNSEL: (Stands up, sits when finished)

 

APPELLANT’S CO-COUNSEL: I, George T. Curtis, an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court  affirms this under the penalties of perjury.

 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER B. TANEY: Will the appellee’s attorneys please address the court.

 

APPELLEE COUNSEL: (Stands up, sits when finished)

 

APPELLE’S COUNSEL: I, Henry S. Geyer, an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court  affirms this under the penalties of perjury.

 

APPELLEE CO-COUNSEL: (Stands up, sits when finished)

 

APPELLEE’S CO-COUNSEL: I, Reverdy Johnson, an attorney admitted to practice before the Supreme Court  affirms this under the penalties of perjury.

 

BAILIFF: ( remains standing)

 

JUSTICE PETER DANIELS: Would the counsel for the appellant Dred Scott, please restate their argument, in a brief fashion for this court.

 

APPELLANT’S COUNSEL:  If it pleases the court, I respectfully submit the following four points as made in our argument.

 

(Scott’s Arguments)

 

1. Dred Scott had been a slave in the slave state of Missouri.

2. Dred Scott had traveled to the free state of Illinois, upon which action he became a free man.

3. The principle of permanent emancipation entitled Scott to remain a free man after returning to Missouri; once free, always free.

4. Dred Scott indeed had a right to sue for his freedom in federal court because he was a citizen by virtue of his residence in one of the United States of America.

 

JUSTICE ROBERT GRIER: Would the counsel for the Appellee John F. A. Sandford, please restate their argument, in a brief fashion for this court.

 

APPELLEE’S COUNSEL:  At the request of the court, I respectfully submit the following three points as made in our argument.

 

(Sandford’s Argument)

 

1. The restrictions on slavery and the Missouri Compromise were invalid because Congress did not have authority to decide the issue of slavery in the territories.

2. Dred Scott’s traveling to the Illinois Territory did not, therefore, make him a free man.

3. Dred Scott’s return to Missouri, a slave state, meant that since he had never been a free man, he kept his status as a slave. 

                 

CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY: Would Justice John Campbell please acknowledge the motions argued before this court.

 

JUSTICE JOHN CAMPBELL : This court acknowledges that the afore mentioned case has been argued on these three major issues: 1) Negro citizenship; 2) the status of slaves held on free soil; and 3) the constitutionality of laws that prohibit slavery in the territories.

 

CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY: Be it known from this time forward that these were the issues brought forth for consideration.

 

JUSTICE JAMES M. WAYNE: When we last left you on April 12,  we justices of the Supreme Court had unanimously agreed to have this case reargued in hopes of clarifying the law and making a final judgment possible. After hearing both sides arguments, we have come to our decision. The Opinion of record will be read by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The dissenting opinions will be read by Justice John McLean and Justice George Curtis.

 

CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY:  Justice John Catron, how does the court find for the Appellant, Dred Scott?

 

JUSTICE JOHN CATRON:  The court finds in favor of the Appellee, John F. A. Sandford with a majority opinion of 7-2 in agreement.

                                                                                                                                                                                              CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY:  The court now having heard all arguments before it, will render its decision.

 

JUSTICE JAMES M. WAYNE:  Chief Justice Roger Taney will read the opinion as agreed upon by the majority of Justices.

 

CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY:  In summary, the Court’s rulings are as follows:                          The African race in the United States even when free, are everywhere a degraded class, and exercise no political influence. The privileges they are allowed to enjoy are accorded them as a matter of kindness, rather than of right. They are the only class of persons who can be held as mere property, as slaves. They were not looked upon as citizens by those who formed the Constitution. They were evidently not supposed to be included by the term citizens.                                                                                                     In regards to Scott having lived in Illinois, the slave’s status as a slave or a free man depended entirely upon where he resided at the time the question was being answered. If Scott had become a free man while in Illinois, he did so because Illinois refused to recognize and enforce the slave laws of Missouri. Once he returned to Missouri, however, he returned to that state’s laws and to slavery. Has the laws of Illinois any greater force than the laws of Missouri? Certaintly not. They stand upon equal footing. Scott’s residence in Illinois was only temporary. A slave traveling with his owner in or through a free state is not automatically granted freedom.

        To be a citizen eligible to sue in the federal courts, a person has to be a citizen of the state in which he lives. Missouri did not grant citizenship to blacks- not even free blacks; therefore, Dred Scott was not a citizen.

            The Missouri Compromise had been unconstitutional from the beginning because it violated the Fifth Amendment, which states that “ No person shall be deprived of property without due process of the law.”  The Illinois state constitution, simply prevents the state from establishing slavery, but it has no effect on a slave brought into the state, especially if the slave was only passing through the state or living there only temporarily. Slaves brought into a free territory remained slaves because they were a form of property. Owners can not be denied their property rights without due process of the law. The Missouri Compromise is a violation of the authority of the people of the United Sates, since it denies them power over local governments, power which the Constitution of the United States has guaranteed them. Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. This is the proof that the writers of the Constitution had intended from the start that Congress should have absolute power over a territory for as long as it remained a territory. Not until a territory became a state could that state alone have the right to decide upon its institutions, including slavery.

The Missouri Compromise therefore is unconstitutional and thus null and void.

 

CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY:  Justice John McLean, would you please read the dissenting opinion of this court.

 

JUSTICE JOHN McLEAN:  The dissenting opinion as held by this court is as follows:                      Jurisdiction is the power, right and authority to interpret and apply law.                        Every State has the right of determining how far it will respect the laws of other States. Those laws have no basic right to be enforced beyond the limits of the State for which they were enacted. In my opinion, the judgment of the lower court which declared Scott still a slave should be reversed.                                                                                                                        

CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY:  Justice Benjamin Curtis, do you have anything to add to the dissenting opinion of this court.

 

JUSTICE BENJAMIN CURTIS: Yes.                                                                                      The Constitution does not deny citizenship to anyone who already possesses it. And under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the Constitution, such citizenship has existed. In five states, Negroes have not only been recognized as citizens but also possess the right to vote on equal terms with other citizens. My opinion, is that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its laws, is also a citizen of the United States.

            About the Constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Congress has had an absolute power over United States territories since the 1780’s. This power includes the right to limit slavery. Since Congress has such power, the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise is not in question.

             Myself and Justice McLean, who comprise the dissenting opinion in this case, would like to see this court conclude on the following thought.                                  Previous Supreme Court decisions based upon common law principles have said    “ liberty, once admitted, cannot be recalled,” and “once free, always free.”

 

CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY: Having heard our opinion, this case is officially closed. The Opinion of the court rest in favor of the Appellee, John F. A. Sandford, as handed down this 6th day of March, 1857.

( All Justices rise and proceed to leave the classroom)

 

BAILIFF: All Rise.

(All people in courtroom rise and remain standing until all Justices have left the room)

 

 Majority Opinion

 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER  B. TANEY

JUSTICE JAMES M. WAYNE

JUSTICE JOHN CATRON

JUSTICE JOHN CAMPBELL

JUSTICE PETER DANIELS

 

Dissenting Opinion

 

JUSTICE JOHN McLEAN

JUSTICE GEORGE CURTIS

 

Undecided

 

JUSTICE  ROBERT GRIER

 

Not Present

 

JUSTICE SAMUEL NELSON