k in public interest.

When after the second argument the judges took up the case in
conference for decision, the majority held that the judgment of the
Missouri Federal tribunal should simply be affirmed on its merits. In
conformity to this view, Justice Nelson was instructed to prepare an
opinion to be read as the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United
States. Such a paper was thereupon duly written by him, of the
following import: It was a question, he thought, whether a temporary
residence in a free-State or Territory could work the emancipation of
a slave. It was the exclusive province of each State, by its
Legislature or courts of justice, to determine this question for
itself. This determined, the Federal courts were bound to follow the
State's decision. The Supreme Court of Missouri had decided Dred Scott
to be a slave. In two cases tried since, the same judgment had been
given. Though former decisions had been otherwise, this must now be
admitted as "the settled law of the State," which, he said, "is
conclusive of the case in this court."

This very narrow treatment of the points at issue, having to do with
the mere lifeless machinery of the law, was strikingly criticised in
the dissenting opinion afterwards read by Justice McLean, a part of
which, by way of anticipation, may properly be quoted here. He denied
that it was exclusively a Missouri question.

[Sidenote] 19 Howard, pp. 555-64.

It involves a right claimed under an act of Congress and the
Constitution of Illinois, and which cannot be decided without the
consideration and construction of those laws.... Rights sanctioned
for twenty-eight years ought not and cannot be repudiated, with any
semblance of justice, by one or two decisions, influenced, as
declared, by a determination to counteract the excitement against
slavery in the free-States.... Having the same rights of
sovereignty as the State of Missouri in adopting a constitution, I
can perceive no reason why the institutions of Illinois should not
receive the same consideration as those of Missouri.... The
Missouri court disregards the express provisions of an act of
Congress and the Constitution of a sovereign State, both of which
laws for twenty-eight years it had not only regarded, but carried
into effect. If a State court may do this, on a question involving
the liberty of a human being, what protection do the laws afford?