It has power to raise and support armies. But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

It may provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. But there is reserved to the states the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the mili tia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.

But

Congress has power to declare the punishment of treason. no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

New states may be admitted by congress into the Union. But no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of congress.

CHAPTER IX.

INTERSTATE LAW AS DETERMINED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

107-109. General Principles.

110. Privileges of Citizens.

111. Public Acts and Judicial Proceedings.

112-115. Interstate Extradition.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

107. In all relations not regulated by the federal constitution, the several states of the Union occupy the position of independent powers in close alliance and friendship.

108. As between the several states, and their people, the principles of private international law apply with even greater force than as between the subjects of foreign nations.

109. In matters independent of the constitution, the principle of interstate comity must yield to the interests or the policy of the particular state.

If it were not for the provisions of the constitution of the United States, no state would be legally bound to give effect to the laws or institutions of another state within its own borders or in their application to its own citizens, or to recognize the judgments or decrees of the courts of another state as technically binding on its own courts, or to accord to the citizens of another state, when resi dent within its limits or there engaged in business, any greater rights or privileges than it might see fit to grant to citizens or subjects of foreign nations under like circumstances. In all the most fundamental particulars, this power to discriminate against each other is taken away from the states by the constitutional provisions which we are to consider in the following pages. But in all other matters, the several states, being foreign to each other, will apply the rules of private international law to questions concerning the property,

rights, contracts, or actions of a citizen of one state projected over into another state. These rules, while recognized and enforced by the courts in the absence of any countervailing statute, yet rest on no firmer foundation than the principle of interstate comity, and must give way whenever they are found to be in conflict with the laws or policy of a state in the interests of its own people.1

PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENS.

110. By a provision of the federal constitution, the citizens of each state are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

What Privileges Intended.

2

The supreme court of the United States has declared that it will not undertake to describe and define the rights and privileges of citizens under this clause in any general classification, preferring to decide each case which arises under this provision as it may come up. It is evident, however, that the rights and privileges here intended are only such as belong to citizenship. And a more definite idea of the meaning of the clause may be obtained from a consideration of the purpose with which it was inserted in the constitution. This purpose was to prevent the states from making invidious discriminations against non-residents, and to promote the unification of the American people, by breaking down state lines, in respect to the enjoyment of social and business privileges and the favor and protection of the laws. Accordingly we may say that the "privileges and immunities" secured by this part of the constitution include protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire, possess, and dispose of property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject only to such restrictions as the government may justly prescribe for the general good; the right of a citizen of one state to pass freely into, through, and out of all the other states, or to reside in any other state, for the purposes of trade, professional pursuits,

1 Shaw v. Brown, 35 Miss. 246; Donovan v. Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411.

2 Conner v. Elliott, 18 How. 591.

or otherwise; the right to claim the benefit of its laws, either as a protection against injustice or as a means of enforcing his rights in its courts; and the right to be exempt from all discriminations and from any higher taxes, impositions, or other burdens than are paid by the citizens of the state." A statute which forbids the appointment of any non-resident of the state as trustee in a deed or mortgage or any other instrument except wills, and prohibits any such person so appointed from acting as such trustee, is unconstitutional, as infringing upon the constitutional rights of citizens of other states. For if the acquisition of property in trust could be denied to them, it would be equally possible to forbid them to acquire property in fee.*

What Privileges not Included.

5

This clause of the constitution does not confer upon the citizens of each state the right of voting, of being elected, or of holding office in the other states. These are political privileges which each state may justly reserve for its own citizens. But it would not be competent for the state to deny to non-residents the right to acquire citizenship among its own people, upon abandoning their former domicile, as a preliminary to exercising the right of suffrage. Nor does this constitutional provision entitle the citizens of the various states to share in the common property of citizens of a particular state, e. g., the right of fishing in navigable waters of the state. is not infringed by a state law confining the right of fishing in such waters to citizens of the state." While a citizen of the United States not resident within the state cannot be denied access to the courts, a statute which restricts the right of commencing the process of foreign attachment to citizens of the state is not repugnant to this clause of the constitution. Nor does it prevent the requirement that non-resident plaintiffs shall furnish security for costs in actions

7

It

8 Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230; McCready v. Com., 27 Grat. 985; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 430; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35.

4 Roby v. Smith, 131 Ind. 342, 30 N. E. 1093. Campbell v. Morris, 3 Har. & McH. 535, 554.

6 McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391; State v. Tower, 84 Me. 444, 24 Atl.,

7 Kincaid v. Francis, Cooke (Tenn.) 49.

commenced by them in the courts of the state. Nor is a statute unconstitutional on this ground which authorizes actions to be begun against non-resident defendants by a constructive service of process by publication and the attachment of property within the jurisdiction of the court."

Who are Citizens..

Since the constitution provides that the citizens of "each state” shall be entitled to these privileges and immunities, it may well be questioned whether citizens resident in the territories and the District of Columbia may claim the benefit of this clause. The same reason which excludes them from the right to sue citizens of the states in the federal courts would seem to be operative here. But the point has not been judicially decided. But it is settled that corporations are not citizens, within the meaning of this provision; it is intended to apply to natural persons only. Hence a state may lawfully either grant or refuse to foreign corporations the privilege of doing business within its limits, and if it accords the privilege, it may impose terms and conditions on its exercise.10

Discriminating Taxes.

A state statute imposing a license tax upon peddlers, salesmen, or traveling merchants, must not make any discrimination against citizens of other states, either by placing a heavier burden of taxation upon them than is borne by the citizens of that state, or by giving to its own citizens privileges which are not accorded to non-residents in the same line of business. If it does, it is obnoxious to the clause under consideration.11 And any tax law of a state

Holt v. Railroad Co., 81 Md. 219, 31 Atl. 809; Cummings v. Wingo, 31 S. C. 427, 10 S. E. 107.

Reid v. Mickles (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 563.

10 Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, Id. 566; Warren Manuf'g Co. v. Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501, Fed. Cas. No. 17,206; Pembina C. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737; Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305, 12 Sup. Ct. 403; Slaughter v. Com., 13 Grat. 767; People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 68; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521; Fire Department v. Helfenstein, 16 Wis. 136; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114, 10 Sup. Ct.

11 Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; McGuire v. Parker, 32 La. Ann. 832;