페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

19.

the annexation of

since the enabling acts of Congress (Indians not taxed or tribal 468, 469. Indians excepted). That is, all free white persons born within 503, 504. 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.

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

of Florida 1 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 trealy is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the priv. 220. ileges, 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.

5. All the free inhabitants of Texas at the date of the annexation Who becamo of that republic (29th December, 1845), descendants of Africans citizens by and Indian tribes excluded. 9 St. 108; Paschal's Annotated Digest, p. 46, note 159 ; Calkin v. Coche, 14 How. 227.

Texas! 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. annexation

of Texas tion of individual immigrants, have no application to the respective citizens 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, 98. ney, 18 How. 240; Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes 148, 237– 240.

6. All the inhabitants of California and other territory acquired who of the by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 20 February, 1848 inhabitants

of California (št. 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 independ. ence 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 origio in the four quarters of the earth.” 'Also to the decree of the oth

upon citi.

zona?

actuents?

April, 1823, which reaffirms the three guaranties of the plan of

Iguala, viz.:-). Independence; 2. The Catholic religion ; 3. Union Mexicans. 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. Who of Ari- 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. Are there 8. A few who have been naturalized by special enactments, as any by

La Fayette. special en

9. All the slaves. who, by the laws of war, the proclamations of Who of the the Presidents, the oaths of amnesty and allegiance required by foriner slaves and

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 tieaties with the Indians, the

Civil Rights Bill, and the fourteerch (?) constitutional amendment, 6, 18. have become citizens of the U:sited States. 14 St. 358 (Treaties),

pp. 72, 85, 102, 117; Paschzi's Annotated Digest, Art. 5382 ; note 144, p. 37; note 120, p. 24; note 1062, p. 786; note 1174, p. 930.

10. All persons naturaiized according to "uniform rule.” 2 St. naturaliza

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 93.

1168-1172, pp. 919–925 ; Story's Const. S 1806. 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, S 2; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 5411. Who of the 11. All such Indians as have ceased their tribal relations, and Indian

been declared citizens of the United States by treaties or acts of

Congress: as the Choctaws, who remained citizens of Missis. 21, 91, 92. sippi 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 274.

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

[ocr errors]

Who by

tion?

tribes!

zen!

200a

St. 1191, Art. 3; Kickapoos, 28th June, 1862, 13 St. 623, Art. 3, Indians Delawares, 4th July, 1866, 14 St. 109.

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 citi. United States v. Devaux, 5 Cr. 61; Bank of Auglista 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. Ætna Ins. Co. 2 Paine, 502; Holines v. Nelson, Phila. R. 218, 219.

As they are citizens of a State who may suo citizens of another State; as they are artificial persons; and as the guaranty secures the rights, whether the citizen of a Slate 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 Uuited 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 abont 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, Desne prive privileges, and immunilies, are abusively used, as if they were

lleges and

iminunities synonymous. The word "rights” is generic, compion, embracing 220, 274. 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 poa-ess. They are not subject to the disabilities of alienage; they can hold property by the same titles by which every other citizen my 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 Tire State may determine the status of persons within its juris. the State

diction, except so far as it has been modified or restrained by the determine the status

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

This is confined to those privileges and immunities which are, in the privi. their nature fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens op leges and immunities

all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed here guar

by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union, anteed :

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 other. wise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to insti. tute 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, mir be proper y refe.red 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 Constitutiou no State can, by any subinake a citi- sequent law, make a foreigner, or any description of persons, United

citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and States! privileges secured to citizens by that instrument. Scott v. Sand

ford, 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 National 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

Can a State

zen of the

6.

[ocr errors]

privileges of a citizen in any other State. Jd. 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 citi. persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which the zens of the

United 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.

**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.” (Williem Wirt, Attorney-General, 1 Op. 7th Nov. 1821, vol. 1, p. 506.). Bates on Citizenship, 10 Op. 383, 389.

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 pember of the body politic. Id. 18.

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, nesto,

citizen of for he owes it not in consequence of an oath of allegiance." (1 Op.

Virginia ? 006, 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 heid 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 August. 1856, which restricts the right to citize:Ls. (William L. ang State Marey. 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 conse. quently 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 th> 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

« 이전계속 »