since the enabling acts of Congress (Indians not taxed or tribal Indians excepted). That is, all free white persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and all born abroad, whose parents are citizens absent on business. Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 5410, Act of 10th Feb. 1855; 10 St. 604. 3. All the free white or European inhabitants of Louisiana, and Who of the the Creoles of native birth, residing there at the time of the pur- Louisiana chase from Napoleon the First, by the treaty of 30th April, 1803, territory? and who remained in and adhered to the United States, and the descendants of all such. 6 St. Art. III. p. 202. of Florida? 4. All the inhabitants of Florida, at the date of the treaty of What of the cession of 24th October, 1819, who adhered to the United States, inhabitants and remained in the country. Treaty with Spain, 8 St. p. 256, Art. VI. This included those who had left their native domiciles, and were on their way to Florida at the time of the exchange of flags. Levy's (Yulee's) Case. This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of citizens of the United States. (American Insurance Company v. Carter, 1 Pet. 542, 543; and see United States v. Gratiot [4 Pet. 526]; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 189); S. C., Whiting, 332. 19. 220. 5. All the free inhabitants of Texas at the date of the annexation Who became of that republic (29th December, 1845), descendants of Africans citizens by and Indian tribes excluded. 9 St. 108; Paschal's Annotated tion of Digest, p. 46, note 159; Calkin v. Cocke, 14 How. 227. the annexa Texas? annexation When the Congress of the United States, under the authority to What was admit new States, receives a foreign nation into the confederacy, the effect of the laws of these respective nations, in relation to the naturaliza- of Texas tion of individual immigrants, have no application to the respective upon citicitizens of each. By the very act of union, the citizens of each zenship? become citizens of the government or governments formed by this union. Cryer v. Andrews, 11 Tex. 105. See Sabariego v. McKin- 229, 93. ney, 18 How. 240; Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes 148, 237– 240. of California 6. All the inhabitants of California and other territory acquired Who of the by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 2d February, 1848 inhabitants (St. 929, Art. VIII.), who remained and adhered to the United became citiStates. Sabariego v. McKinney, 18 Howard, 289; Paschal's Anno- zens? tated Digest, p. 39, note 147. By the plan of Iguala, adopted by the revolutionary government Who were of Mexico, 24th Feb., 1821, it is declared that "all inhabitants of citizens of Mexico? New Spain, without distinction, whether Europeans, Africans, or Indians, are citizens of this monarchy, with a right to be employed in any post, according to their merit and virtues ;" and that the person and property of every citizen will be respected and protected by the government." We are also referred to the treaty of Cordova, of 24th August, 1821, and the declaration of independence of the 28th September, 1821, reaffirming the principles of the plan of Iguala. Also to the decree of the 24th February, 1822, by which "the sovereign Congress declares the equality of civil rights to all free inhabitants of the empire, whatever may be their origin in the four quarters of the earthi." Also to the decree of the 9th Who of Arizona? Are there any by special enactments? Who of the former slaves and 6, 18. April, 1823, which reaffirms the three guaranties of the plan of Iguala, viz.:-1. Independence; 2. The Catholic religion; 3. Union of all Mexicans of whatever race. The United States v. Ritchie, 17 How. 538. The decree of the 17th September, 1822, with a view to give effect to the 12th article of the plan of Iguala, declared that classification of the inhabitants, with regard to their origin, shall be omitted. Id. The foregoing solemn declarations of the political power of the government, had the effect, necessarily, to invest the Indians with the privilege of citizenship, as effectually as had the declaration of independence of the United States of 1776, to invest all those persons with these privileges, residing in the country at the time, and who adhered to the interests of the colonies. (Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 121.) Id. 540. Under the Constitution and laws of Mexico, as a race, no distinction was made between the Indians, as to rights of citizenship and the privileges belonging to it, and the European or Spanish blood. Id. Paschal's Annotated Digest, note 350. Therefore, all these inhabitants, without distinction of race or color, seem to have been made citizens of the United States. 7. All the inhabitants (Mexican citizens) of Arizona, at the date of the Gadsden treaty (1854), who adhered to and remained in the United States. 10th St. 1035, Art. V. 8. A few who have been naturalized by special enactments, as La Fayette. 9. All the slaves, who, by the laws of war, the proclamations of the Presidents, the oaths of amnesty and allegiance required by President Johnson, the thirteenth amendment of the Constitution free persons of the United States, and the various amendments of the Constituof color? tions of the fifteen slave States, the treaties with the Indians, the Civil Rights Bill, and the fourteenth (?) constitutional amendment, have become citizens of the United States. 14 St. 358 (Treaties), pp. 72, 85, 102, 117; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 5382; note 144, p. 37; note 120, p. 24; note 1062, p. 786; note 1174, p. 930. 10. All persons naturalized according to "uniform rule." 2 St. 153, 292, 811; 3 St. 53, 259; 4 St. 69, 310; 9 St. 240; 10 St. 604; 13 St. 957; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Arts. 5392-5412, notes 1168-1172, pp. 919-925; Story's Const. § 1806. Who by aturalization? 93. What rule as And " any woman who might be lawfully naturalized under the to women? existing laws, married, or who shall be married, to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen." 10 St. 604, 2; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 5411. Who of the Indian tribes? 21, 91, 92. 274. 11. All such Indians as have ceased their tribal relations, and been declared citizens of the United States by treaties or acts of Congress as the Choctaws, who remained citizens of Mississippi and Alabama, under the treaty of 1833; Wilson v. Waul, U. S. C., December 7, 1867, 6 Wall. 000. The Ottawas, by treaty of June 24 and July 28, 1862, to take effect five years from the ratification thereof, 12 St. 315; and 24th June, 1862, 12 St. 1237, Art. 1; the Wyandottes, 31st Jan. 1855, 10 St. 1159, Art. 1; Ottawas and Chippewas, of Michigan, 11 St. 621, Art. 5; Chippewas, 2d Aug. 1855, 11 St. 633, Art. 6; Pottawattomies, 15th Nov. 1861, 12 St. 1191, Art. 3; Kickapoos, 28th June, 1862, 13 St. 623, Art. 3; zen? 12. Whether a corporation is "a citizen," within the meaning of Is a corporathis 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 205a. 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 cither 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. immunities. 220, 274. 221. "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES."-And the words rights, Define privprivileges, and immunities, are abusively used, as if they were leges and 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. 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 guar anteed? Can a State zen of the United States? 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 Negroes? 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 6. 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 inake 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, 80, 85, 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 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 93. understand it. The oath of allegiance is not the cause but the consequence of citizenship. Upon the whole I am of the opinion tnat 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. entitled "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 August, 1856, which restricts the right to citizens. (William L. any State 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 |