upon perjury. The pursuit of slaves became a regular business, and its
operation was often indescribably horrible. These cruelties were
emphasized chiefly in the presence of those who were known to be averse
to slavery in any form, and they could not escape from the revolting
scenes.

The culmination of this was in what is known as the Dred Scott
decision. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. He was by his master
taken to Fort Snelling, now in the state of Minnesota, then in the
territory of Wisconsin. This was free soil, and the slave was, at least
while there, free. With the consent of his former master he married a
free woman who had formerly been a slave. Two children were born to
them. The master returned to Missouri, bringing the negroes. He here
claimed that they, being on slave soil, were restored to the condition
of slavery.

Scott sued for his freedom and won his case. It was, however, appealed
to the Supreme Court of the United States. The first opinion of the
court was written by Judge Nelson. This treated of this specific case
only. Had this opinion issued as the finding of the court, it would not
have aroused general attention.

But the court was then dominated by the slave sentiment, and the
opportunity of laying down general principles on the subject of slavery
could not be resisted. The decision was written by Chief Justice Taney,
and reaches its climax in the declaration that the negro "had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect." Professor T. W. Dwight says
that much injustice was done to Chief Justice Taney by the erroneous
statement that he had himself affirmed that the negro "had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect." But while this may be