ts, nor
to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.

9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African
race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution,
cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and
administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was
formed and adopted.

10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in
abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as
slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the
Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that
character in the Circuit Court.

11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of
the plaintiff on the plea in abatement, was erroneous.

II.

1. But if the plea in abatement is not brought up by this writ of error,
the objection to the citizenship of the plaintiff is still apparent on
the record, as he himself, in making out his case, states that he is of
African descent, was born a slave, and claims that he and his family
became entitled to freedom by being taken by their owner to reside in a
territory where slavery is prohibited by act of Congress--and that, in
addition to this claim, he himself became entitled to freedom by being
taken to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois--and being free when he
was brought back to Missouri, he was by the laws of that State a
citizen.

2. If, therefore, the facts he states do not give him or his family a
right to freedom, the plaintiff is still a slave, and not entitled to
sue as a "citizen," and the judgment of the Circuit Court was erroneous
on that ground also, without any reference to the plea in abatement.

3. The Circuit Court can give no judgment for plaintiff or defendant in
a case where it has not jurisdiction, no matter whether there be a plea
in abatement or not. And unless it appears upon the face of the record,
when brought here by writ of error, that the Circuit Court had
jurisdiction, the judgment must be reversed.

The case of Capron _v._ Van Noorden (2 Cranch, 126) examined, and the
principles thereby decided, reaffirmed.

4. When the record, as brought here by writ of error, does not show that
the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, this court has jurisdiction to
revise and correct the error, like any other error in the court below.
It does not and cannot dismiss the case for want of