of men, that no State by any action on its part could bring any persons other than those recognized by the Constitution, into the body of citizens of the United States; and that therefore, no law or regulation of any state could raise a negro slave to the rank of citizen of the United States, so that he could sue in the United States courts. Going still further the Court held that the right of property in slaves was as fully guaranteed by the Constitution as that in any other species of property. Then follows the clause of the decision declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. "Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the Court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding or owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner with the intention of becoming a permanent resident." The decision as rendered by the Chief Justice was: "Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this Court, that it appears by the record before us, that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which the word is used in the Constitution; and the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no juisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

Justices McLean and Curtis delivered dissenting opinions. Of the seven who concurred in the judgment only three, Taney, Wayne and Daniel, held that

the plea in abatement was open, and therefore the question of the status of free negroes was before the Court. Six of the justices, however, concurred in holding the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

The member of the majority, who did not go to this extreme point of holding the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, was Judge Nelson; his decision, which contains all the law that all of the majority concurred in, was originally written to be delivered as the opinion of the Court. Mr. Justice Nelson based his opinion on the ground that slavery was a question under State control, and one of those questions concerning which the United States courts were obliged to follow the law of the State in which the Court (of original jurisdiction) was held. The case of Scott vs. Sandford had been originally tried in Missouri and under the laws of that State, Dred Scott was a slave and without rights against his master, and that therefore the United States courts were obliged to follow this law.

SECTION 96. THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution was submitted by Congress to the legislatures of the several states, on the 1st of February, 1865, and on December 18, 1865, was declared by a proclamation of the Secretary of State, to have been ratified by the legislatures of the requisite number of states. The text of this amendment is as follows:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The scope and meaning of this amendment was thus discussed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases.115 "This amendment as well as the fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, as far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect, it abolished slavery and established universal freedom. Still, legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit. And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character; for the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary service shall not exist in any part of the United States.

"It is true, that slavery cannot exist without law, any more than property in lands and goods can exist without law; and, therefore, the thirteenth amendment may be regarded as nullifying all State laws which establish or uphold slavery. But it has a reflex character also; establishing and decreeing universal civil and political freedom throughout the United States; and it is assumed that the power vested in Congress to enforce the article by appropriate legislation, clothes Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States; and upon this assumption it is claimed that this is sufficient authority for declaring by law that all persons shall have equal accommodations and privileges in all inns, public conveyances and places of public amusements, the argument being, that 115 109 U. S.,

Vol. II-13.

3.

the denial of such equal accommodations and privileges is, in itself, a subjection to a species of servitude within the meaning of the amendment. Conceding the major proposition to be true, that Congress has a right to enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery, with all its badges and incidents, is the minor proposition also true, that the denial of any person of admission to the accommodations and privileges of an inn, public conveyance, or a theater, does subject that person to any form of servitude or tend to foster upon him any badge of slavery? If it does not, then power to pass the law is not found in the thirteenth amendment.' "After giving to these questions all the consideration which their importance demands, we are forced to the conclusion that such an act of refusal has nothing to do with slavery or involuntary servitude, and that if it is violation of any right of the party, his redress is to be sought under the laws of the states; or if those laws are adverse to his rights and do not protect him, his remedy will be found in the corrective legislation which Congress has adopted, or may adopt, for counteracting the effect of states' laws, or state action prohibited by the fourteenth amendment. It would be running the slavery argument into the ground to make it apply to every act of discrimination which a person may see fit to make as to the guests he will entertain, or as to the people he will take into his coach or cab or car, or admit to his theater or concert, or deal with in other matters of intercourse or business. Innkeepers and public carriers, by the laws of all the states, as far as we are aware, are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodation to all unobjectionable persons, who, in good faith, apply for them. If the laws themselves

make any unjust discriminations amenable to the prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment, Congress has full power to afford a remedy, under the amendment, and in accordance with it."

A further limitation was placed upon the application of the thirteenth amendment by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter House Cases,116 where it was decided that this amendment only applied to personal servitude, and did not affect servitudes of property.

This amendment is intended to protect all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, to the fullest extent from all forms of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime. "It is clear that this amendment, besides abolishing forever slavery and involuntary servitude within the United States, gives power to the Congress to protect all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States from being in any way subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, and in the enjoyment of that freedom which it was the object of the amendment to secure.

99 117

This amendment did not invalidate contracts made to pay money for slaves when the contracts were valid when made.118 This amendment by its express terms applies not only within the United States itself, but also in all the territory belonging to the United States.

SECTION 97. THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several states, by Congress, on June 16, 1866. It

116 16 Wallace, 36.

117 United States vs. Harris, 106

U. S., 629.

118 Boyer vs. Tabb, 18 Wallace, 546; White vs. Hart, 13 Wallace, 646; Osborne vs. Nicholson, 13 Wallace, 654.