ons are always viewed with respect and
treated as authority; but we follow the settled construction of the
statutes, not because it is of binding authority, but in pursuance of
a rule of judicial policy.

But there is no pretence that the case of Dred Scott _v._ Emerson
turned upon the construction of a Missouri statute; nor was there any
established rule of property which could have rightfully influenced
the decision. On the contrary, the decision overruled the settled law
for near thirty years.

This is said by my brethren to be a Missouri question; but there is
nothing which gives it this character, except that it involves the
right to persons claimed as slaves who reside in Missouri, and the
decision was made by the Supreme Court of that State. 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. But the Supreme Court of Missouri held, in
this case, that it will not regard either of those laws, without which
there was no case before it; and Dred Scott, having been a slave,
remains a slave. In this respect it is admitted this is a Missouri
question--a case which has but one side, if the act of Congress and
the Constitution of Illinois are not recognised.

And does such a case constitute a rule of decision for this court--a
case to be followed by this court? The course of decision so long and
so uniformly maintained established a comity or law between Missouri
and the free States and Territories where slavery was prohibited,
which must be somewhat regarded in this case. 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.

The courts of Louisiana having held, for a series of years, that where
a master took his slave to France, or any free State, he was entitled
to freedom, and that on bringing him back the status of slavery did
not attach, the Legislature of Louisiana declared by an act that the
slave should not be made free under such circumstances. This regulated
the rights of the master from the time the act took effect. But the
decision of the Missouri court, reversing a former decision, affects
all previous decisions, technically, made on the same principles,
unless such decisions are protected by the lap