If birthers would read the whole paragraph in context then it's pretty clear what the court is saying. Children born in the U.S. of citizen parents are natural-born citizens. There isn't any doubt in that, and I'm not saying there is. But the court goes further and acknowledges that there is more than one definition of who is a natural-born citizen. And that while the court recognizes that there are those who disagree with the expanded definition it also makes it clear that it is not their place as part of the Minor v. Happersett decision to say whether those other definitions are right or wrong. So no, the Supreme Court did not say that only children born in the U.S. of citizen parents are natural-born citizens. It says that it is the only unquestionable way of qualifying for natural-born citizenship.
At BEST, the passage you refer to is ambiguous. Its direct statement is that perhaps not all persons born in the US are citizens of the US at all. The court is probing whether Minor is a citizen at all, when it writes ...
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The court was not seeking to determine if Minor was a natural born citizen. The question was, is she a citizen at all? The court did not write, as you imply that it did, "Some authorities go further and include as natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."