descended from slave parents, the mother determining the issue, is not and cannot be a citizen of the United States.

2nd. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the "Missouri Restriction," was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of extinguishing a master's right to his slave in the territory north of latitude 36° 30′— the territory in which the Missouri restriction declared slavery should never exist.

The Dred Scott case has been stated thus:-It was an action of trespass, vi et armis, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Missouri, for the purpose of establishing his claim to be a free man; and was taken by a writ of error, on the application of Scott, to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the final decision was pronounced. The facts of the case were agreed upon, and admitted to be true by both parties; and were, in substance—that Dred Scott was a negro slave in Missouri; that he went with his master, who was an officer in the army, to Fort Armstrong, on Rock Islandterritory of Illinois, a non-slaveholding state-and thence to Fort Snelling, on the west bank of the Mississippi river, and within the country covered by the act of Congress, known as the "Missouri Restriction;" and then he reaccompanied his master to the state of Missouri, where he remained a slave until his death, in 1858. Upon the agreed statement, two important and material questions arose, besides several incidental and minor ones, which the court considered in the giving of its decisionnamely, the right of a negro to become a citizen of the United States; and the constitutionality of the Missouri restriction. The state courts of Missouri had decided

against Dred Scott, and declared him and his children slaves; and the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Missouri, had decided the same thing when the question was before that tribunal, from which it was taken by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States at Washington, by Scott, with the hope of reversing the decision of the circuit court of Missouri, and securing his freedom.

The republican party has contended that the Supreme Court exceeded propriety, and extended its decision to questions not legitimately belonging to the case, in order to sustain slavery doctrines; and, with that view, the party has assailed, very vindictively, the integrity of the judges who gave that decision. In 1860, with respect to the principles of law embraced in this judgment, the republican party declared; viz.—

"That the new dogma, that the constitution, of its own force, carries slavery in any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.” The democratic party of 1860, that nominated Mr. Breckenridge, resolved

"That the government of a territory, organised by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary; and during its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the territory, without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial legislation."

The branch of the democratic party nominating Mr. Douglas, in 1860, resolved—

"That the democratic party will abide by the decisions of the

Supreme Court of the United States, on the questions of constitutional law."

It will be seen, from the declarations before referred to, that the democratic parties were in favour of sustaining the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to the principles of the Dred Scott case; and that the republican party was adverse to carrying out the said judgment.

We deem it proper to remark, that this case was not of very great importance to Scott, in his own opinion, more especially as he enjoyed greater liberty than he could have done had he been a free negro. He died in St. Louis, in 1858. We attended his funeral, as did many others who respected him for his long career as a faithful and a lawabiding servant.

CHAPTER XXI.

Political Parties, from 1789 to 1860.

THERE were no parties at the elections of President Washington. During his second term of presidency, the federal and republican parties sprang into existence; John Adams being at the head of the former, and Thomas Jefferson the leader of the latter. In 1796, Mr. Adams was inaugurated president; and, during his administration, the alien and sedition laws were passed, the unpopularity of which defeated him at the next election, and made Mr. Jefferson president, who was re-elected in 1804. In 1808, and in 1812, the republican party elected James Madison president. In the latter year there was a division in the party; the New York republican legislature nominating De Witt Clinton, who had been selected as the candidate by the opposition convention which assembled in New York city, composed of representatives from eleven states. In 1816, the republican party elected James Monroe; and the opposition, or federal party, nominated Rufus King. In 1820, Mr. Monroe was re-elected without opposition. In 1824, party excitement was higher than ever it was before. Washington had been nominated as a candidate by popular manifestation. The republican party, formed during the latter term of Washington's presidency, was the first to organise for the nomination of candidates. After

this, and until 1824, the members of Congress nominated the candidates for the presidency. The nominating meeting, or the party organised in a convention composed of the members of Congress, was called a "Caucus." In 1824, the party refused to unite in caucus; and the division produced what was called the "Scrub-race." The candidates were John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, Andrew. Jackson of Tennessee, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and William H. Crawford of Georgia. The latter gentleman, however, was the nominee of the fractional caucus. The term "democratic" began at this time to be applied to the republican party. The "federal" party had ceased to exist; and, after 1824, the republican party was merged into a new combination, called national republican. The " Scrub-race" of 1824 resulted in no election by the people. General Jackson had 99 electoral votes; Mr. Adams, 84; Mr. Crawford, 41; and Mr. Clay, 37. The election was carried to the House of Representatives, where, according to the constitution, the first three candidates were voted for, according to states-that is to say, each state, however large or small, had one vote. There were then twentyfour states, or twenty-four votes; and of these, Mr. Adams, by the union of Mr. Clay's friends, received 13 votes; General Jackson, 7; aud Mr. Crawford, 4. Mr. Adams was inaugurated president, and Mr. Clay was appointed secretary of state, an office considered a certain stepping-stone to the presidency. The friends of General Jackson immediately charged Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay with having bargained the election in the house; and though there was not the slightest foundation for the