Viewing page 25 of 41

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

13

They are what we [[strikethrough]] call [[/strikethrough]]familiarly call the sovereign people and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea of abatement comprises a portion of this and are constituent members of this sovereignty. We think they are not and that they are not included and even not intended to be included under the word citizen in the constitution and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

Dred Scott vs Sanford 19 Howard 404.

That the word inhabitants does not include Indians is clear from the context and from other provisions in the Articles of Confederation and such is the opinion of Chief Justice Taury and Justice Curtis in the Dred Scott decision.

19 Howard Pages 418-575.

In the Declaration of Independence the King of Great Brittain is arraigned because "He has incited domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavored to bring upon the inhabitants of our frontiers this merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished distruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." Here the word Indians is contradistinguished from the word inhabitants and shows that in the eyes

[[in left margin]]

347