St. 1191, Art. 3; Kickapoos, 28th June, 1862, 13 St. 623, Art. 3; zen ? 205α. 12. Whether a corporation is "a citizen," within the meaning of Is a corpora this clause does not seem to be clearly determined. Bank of tion a citiUnited States v. Devaux, 5 Cr. 61; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 586; Slocomb v. Bank of Vicksburg, 14 Pet. 60; Louisville Railroad Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 556; People v. Islay, 20 Barb. 68; Warren Manufacturing Co. v. Etna Ins. Co. 2 Paine, 502; Holmes v. Nelson, Phila. R. 218, 219. As they are citizens of a State who may sue citizens of another State; as they are artificial persons; and as the guaranty secures the rights, whether the citizen of a State ever goes into another State or not, it is difficult to see why the rule will not apply, that the private corporation shall have all the privileges and immunities which like corporations have in the State where the right is asserted, not where the artificial person is created. See Mills v. The State, 23 Tex. 295, 302, 306; Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes 202, 203, 639. It will thus be seen that all citizens of the United States are either native born or naturalized. The native born, who owe allegiance to the United States from the moment of their birth, ought to be citizens; and about it there never would have been any dispute, but for color and the extreme doctrines of States Rights, which maintained that there was no national citizenship. The adopted or naturalized citizens have been made so by treaties, statutes, and uniform rule of naturalization. 221. "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES."-And the words rights, Define privprivileges, and immunities, are abusively used, as if they were ileges and immunities. synonymous. The word "rights" is generic, common, embracing whatever may be lawfully claimed. Bates on Citizenship, 22. Privileges are special rights belonging to the individual or class, and not the mass. Properly an exemption from some duty, an immunity from some general burden or obligation; a right peculiar to some individual or body. Ex parte Coupland, 26 Tex. 420. Immunities are rights of exemption only-freedom from what otherwise would be a duty or burden. Bates on Citizenship, 22. "In my opinion the meaning is, that in a given State, every citizen of every other State shall have the same privileges and immunities-that is, the same rights-which the citizens of that State possess. They are not subject to the disabilities of alienage; they can hold property by the same titles by which every other citizen may hold it, and no other; discriminating legislation against them would be unlawful." Lemmon v. The People (Denio, J.), 20 N. Y. R. 608. But the clause has nothing to do with the distinctions founded on domicile. The citizen cannot carry the legal institutions of his native State with him. The privileges and immunities are not limited by time, but are permanent and absolute. Any law which should deny ingress or egress to citizens would be void. Id. The States possess the power to forbid the introduction into their territory of paupers, criminals, or fugitive slaves. (Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13.) Lemmon v. The People, 20 N. Y: R. 610. 220, 274. How far can the State determine the status The State may determine the status of persons within its jurisdiction, except so far as it has been modified or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. (Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. of persons? 419; Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13; City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 131, 139.) Lemmon v. The People, 20 N. Y. R. 603. See Articles of Confederation, ante, p. 10, Art. IV., Federalist, Nos. 42, 80; Story's Const. § 1098, 1804-1809. What are the privileges and immunities here guaranteed? Can a State zen of the United States? Negroes? This is confined to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. They may be all comprehended under the following general heads-Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and to obtain happiness and safety,-subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State, to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or Constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 380-1; Smith v. Moody, 26 Ind. 302. And to this clause of the Constitution, it seems, may be properly referred the right which, it has been asserted, is possessed by a citizen of one State to pass freely with his slaves through the territory of another State, in which the institution of slavery is not recognized. United States v. Williamson, 4 Am. L. R. 19; see The People v. Lemmon, 5 Law Rep. 486. It does not embrace privileges conferred by the local laws of a State. Conner v. Elliott, 18 How. 591. Such as the rights of representation or election. Murray v. McCarty, 2 Munf. 393. And see the questions fully discussed in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 399. Since the adoption of the Constitution no State can, by any submake a citi- sequent law, make a foreigner, or any description of persons, citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. Negroes are not "citizens" intended to be included in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. Id. 404. We must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within citizenship? its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. Id. 405. He may have all the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and National privileges of a citizen in any other State. Id. Nor have the States surrendered the power and privilege of conferring the rights and privileges of citizens, by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or Can a State any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of make citipersons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which the zens of the word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled States? to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. Id. The State cannot make a man a member of the community of the United States by making him a member of its own. Id. 406. United "I fully concur in the statement that the description, citizen of the 19, 30, 35, 63 United States, used in the Constitution, has the same meaning that 69, 170. it has in the several acts of Congress passed under the authority of the Constitution." (William Wirt, Attorney-General, 1 Op. 7th Nov. 1821, vol. 1, p. 506.) Bates on Citizenship, pp. 17, 18. But it means in them all the simple expression of the political status of the person in connection with the nation--that he is a member of the body politic. Id. 18. citizen of 93. It is said in the opinion that "the allegiance which the free man Was a free of color owes to the State of Virginia, is no evidence of citizenship, negro a for he owes it not in consequence of an oath of allegiance." (1 Op. Virginia? 506, Wirt.) "This proposition surprises me; perhaps I do not understand it. The oath of allegiance is not the cause but the consequence of citizenship. Upon the whole I am of the opinion that free persons of color in Virginia are not citizens of the United States, within the intent and meaning of the acts regulating the coasting and foreign trade." (1 Op. 510, Wirt.) Bates on Citizenship, 19. As an authority this opinion is rebutted by the opinion of Attorney-General Legaré, of 15th March, 1843. (4 Op. 147.) Bates, Id. He held that a colored man was a citizen of the United States, entitled to a pre-emption. Id. "If this be so (that is, if they be negroes), they are not citizens Were free of the United States," entitled to passports under the act of 18th negroes in any State August, 1856, which restricts the right to citizens. (William L. entitled Marcy, Sec'y of State, 4th Nov. 1856.) Bates on Citizenship, 20. to all the But see the certificate offered, which is equivalent to a passport. privileges? Id. The citizens here spoken of are those who are entitled to "all the privileges and immunities of citizens." But free negroes, by whatever appellation we call them, were never in any of the States entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens, and consequently were not intended to be included when this word was used in the Constitution. (The State of Tennessee v. Ambrose, 1 Meigs, 331.) Bates on Citizenship, 21. The meaning of the language is that no privilege by, or immunity Construe the allowed to the most favored class of citizens in said State shall be language? withheld from a citizen of any other State. (Tennessee v. Ambrose, 1 Meigs, 331.) Bates on Citizenship. Either a free negro is not a citizen in the sense of the Constitution, or, if a citizen, he is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the most favored class of citizens. But this latter consequence will be contended for by no one. It must then follow that they are not How does the Consti citizens. (Tennessee v. Ambrose. 1 Meigs, 331.) Bates on Citizenship. But the Constitution speaks of citizens only, without any tution speak reference to their rank, grade, or class, or to the number or magnitude of their rights and immunities-citizens simply, without an adjective to qualify their rights. Id. of citizens? 221. 274. What was of the guaranty? Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, reviewed. Id. 24. It is shown that it only determines that persons of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood, who have been brought to this country and sold, are not citizens of Missouri in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution. Bates on Citizenship. Indeed the exclusive right of the State of Missouri to determine and regulate the status of persons within her territory was the only point in judgment in the Dred Scott case, and all beyond this was obiter. (Ex parte Simmons, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 396; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 508; Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 92.) Lemmon v. The People, 20 N. Y. (6 Smith), 624. The intention of this clause was to confer on the citizens of each the intention State all the privileges and immunities which the citizens of the same would be entitled to under the like circumstances. (Story's Const. § 1806.) Smith v. Moody, 26 Ind. 301. Among which privileges and immunities is the right to become a citizen of any one of the several States, by becoming a resident thereof. Id. Is Scott v. Sandford law? 6. 274. 18. Who were meant by citizens of the several States? A citizen of the United is a citizen of that State. v. Moody, 26 Ind. 301. States residing in any State of the Union, (Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Peters, 761.) Smith The thirteenth article of the Constitution of Indiana denies these rights to all persons of African descent. Id. The case of Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 417, 422, 423, quoted. Id. The opinions of Attorneys-General Bates and Legaré, ante, quoted. Id. 303. The opinion in Scott v. Sandford, though never formally overruled, is now disregarded by every department of the government. Id. 304. Passports are granted to free men of color; Congress declares them to be citizens; the Supreme Court of the United States admits them to its bar. Id. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, all free nativeborn inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors on equal terms with other citizens. (The State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. Bat. 20.) Smith v. Moody, 26 Indiana, 304. 222. "OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES."-This was intended to secure to the citizens of every State, within every other, the privileges and immunities (whatever they might be) accorded in each to its own citizens, and no others. Lemmon v. The People, 144, 221, 206. 20 N. Y. (6 Smith), 627. See Confederation, Art. IV. ante, p. 10. It did not mean that the citizens of Virginia, who were entitled to hold slaves there, could bring those slaves into New York and hold them as such, in accordance with the laws of Virginia. Lem 221. mon v. People, 20 N. Y. (6 Smith), 627. Jackson v. Bulloch, 12 Conn. 38. As a general principle, the slaves who were carried from slave to What was free States, with the permission of their masters, and permitted to the effect of carrying reside there, obtained their freedom; and the owners could not slaves from resume their control over them as slaves upon the return of such a slave to a slaves to such slave States. Harry v. Lyles, 4 H. & McHen. 215; free State? Baptiste v. Volundrum, 5 H. & Johns. 86; Davis v. Jaquin, Id. 100, 107: Respublica v. Blackmore, 2 Yates, 234; C. S., Addis. 284; David v. Porter, 4 H. & McHen. 418; Gilmer v. Fanny Gilmer, Id. 143; Lewis v. Fullerton, 1 Rand. 15; Butler v, Hopper, 1 Wash. C. C. 499; Vincent v. Duncan, 2 Missouri, 214; Milly v. Smith, Id. 36; Winney v. Whitesides, 1 Id. 472; Julia v. McKinney, 3 Id. 270; Nat. v. Ruddie, Id. 400; Vincent v. Duncan, 2 Id. 214; Rankin v. Lydia, 2 A. K. Marshall, 467. See the cases fully collected in Wheeler's Law of Slavery, 335-388; Cobb on Slavery. 221. The result of the cases seems to be that the citizen of one State does not carry the local laws of his State, which are repugnant to the laws of his new domicile into that State. But when he goes 18, 226–228. into a State, he is entitled to all the rights and privileges of the citizens of that State, no more, no less. He is not entitled to vote, as one of his privileges, until the Constitution or laws of that State give him the power. See Story's Confl. Laws, § 321–327. It is fresh in the memory of all that the Southern school occupied the ground that this was not the law as to the Territories, but that the citizen might carry his slave there, and hold him as a slave, despite any law of Congress or the Territories, until a State Constitution was formed for admission into the Union. The opposite extreme held, that neither Congress nor the Terri- 226–228. torial legislature, nor both combined, could legalize slavery in the common territory;" but that it could only be legalized by a State Constitution, when the people were about to apply for admission into the Union. A subject which led to such opposite absurdities, might well be called a very obscuring one. See Cobb on Slavery passim, Douglas's Speeches for ten years; the Debates in Congress from 1848 to 1860; Benton's Thirty Years, and the political platforms everywhere. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. This "GUARANTY" applies to the people of the United States, whether existing in States complete, or in inchoate States called Territories. 6 Op. 304. The fourth article of the Confederation quoted (ante, p. 10). Congress refused to insert the word "white." Id. It is clear that under the Confederation, and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, free colored persons of African descent might be, and by reason of their citizenship in certain States were, citizens of the United States. Smith v. Moody, 26 Ind. 305; Bates on Citizenship. 226. p. 9. the obliga [2.] A person charged in any State with treason, What are felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and tions as to be found in another State, shill, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, fugitives from justice? |