What caused this amendment? States, by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State. 270. "THE JUDICIAL POWER," and "ANY SUITS IN LAW OR EQUITY," are to be taken as an amendment of the first section of 195, 199, 200, the third article, so as to take away the jurisdiction of suits against 205α, 210, States by individuals. The amendment was caused by the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419, 475; S. C. 2 Cond. 635; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 14, p. 278; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 381, 406. 271. What is now the rule? In what character must the 205. This decision held that the original Constitution embraced suits by as well as against States. Story's Const. § 1683. See Federalist, Nos. 80, 81; 2 Elliot's Debates, 300, 301, 401, 405; Curtis' Com. § 61. The suits against the States were principally for money sequestrated or confiscated in the hands of the debtors of the British loyalists. The amendment was held to extend to all pending suits, and they were dismissed. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 294; Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402; S. C. 3 Dall. 1. So that now no suit lies by citizen or alien against a State, in the courts of the United States. 271. "AGAINST ONE OF THE UNITED STATES."-Where the State is sued, and made a party on the record in its political capaciState sue? ty, this amendment applies; and the State may be considered as a party on the record when its chief magistrate is sued, not by his name, but by his style of office, and the claim made upon him is entirely in his official character. (The Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110, 123, 124.) Curtis' Com. § 67-70. What suits did the amendment include? Does the cases? 205α This amendment was construed to include suits then pending, as well as suits to be commenced thereafter; and accordingly, all the suits then pending were dismissed without any further adjudication. (Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378.) Story's Const. § 1683. For a history of the amendment, see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 406. The amendment only applies to original suits; not to appeals or writs of error for revision. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.) Story's Const. § 1864. 272. "BY CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF ANY FOREIGN STATE." The power of these to sue the State was simply taken away by the amendment. It does not extend to suits of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. suit apply to Olmstead's Case, Brightly, 9. See Ex parte Madrazo, 1 Pet. 127. admiralty If the State be not necessarily a defendant, though its interest may be affected by the decision, the courts of the United States are bound to exercise jurisdiction. Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 550; United States v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115. For the history of this amendment, see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 471, 475. A State, by becoming interested with others in a banking or trading corporation, or by owning all the capital stock, does not impart to that corporation any of its privileges or prerogatives; it lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transactions of the corpora tion, and exercises no power or privilege in respect to those transactions not derived from the charter. Bank of the United States v. Planter's Bank of Georgia, 9 Wh. 904; Bank of Kentucky v. Wiston, 3 Pet. 431; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Id. 324; Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Darrington v. Bank of Alabama, 13 How. 12; Curran v. Arkansas. 15 Id. 309. And see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 264. Where a State sues in its own courts, and obtains a judgment against a citizen, the defendant may prosecute a writ of error in the Supreme Court, and test the constitutionality of a State law. Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; and the Arkansas, Kentucky, and Alabama cases above cited. 1 The State is not a party unless it appears on the record as such, 205, 271. either as plaintiff or defendant. It is not sufficient that it may have an interest in the cause, or that the parties before the court are sued for acts done as agents of the State. (Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall. 411; State of New York v. Connecticut, 3 Dall. 1-6; United States v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115-139; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 15, p. 302; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 846.) Story's Const. § 1865, notes 1, 2. ARTICLE XII. 273. See Art. II., Sec. 3, pp. 164-166, notes 168, 168a, 168h, for this amendment. It was considered proper by the editor to transfer it to its appropriate place. It does not disturb the arrangement in the original Constitution, nor in the analysis and index. See ante, p. 46. ARTICLE XIII. slavery 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except How was as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall abolished? have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their juris diction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article The power? by appropriate legislation. 274. The following is the proclamation which declared the 13th When did amendment in force : WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, to all to whom these presents may come, greeting: Know ye, that whereas the Congress of the United States, on the 1st of February last, passed a resolution which is in the words following, namely:- "A Resolution submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a this article take effect? concurring), That the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely:"-[Here follows the amendment.] And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed, as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of Illinois, Rhode Island, Michigan, Maryland, New York, West Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Tennessee, Arkansas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia; in all twenty-seven States: And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-six; and whereas the before specially-named States, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, constitute three-fourths of the whole number of States in the United States: Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuance of the second section of the act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, entitled "An act to provide for the publication of the laws of the United States and for other purposes," do hereby certify that the amendment aforesaid has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States: In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this eighteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtyfive, and of the independence of the United States of America, the ninetieth. [L. S.] WILLIAM H. SEWARD, This proclamation is given to show the views of the executive, that the seceded States had a right to vote upon the amendment, and did in fact, make up the number necessary to put it into operation. The President had previously given notice, that no State would be regarded as restored until it adopted this amendment. Seward's dispatch to the governor of Florida. List of States which have ratified the amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery, &c., and given official notice thereof, with the respective dates of ratification: In 1865.-Illinois, Feb. 1; Rhode Island, Feb. 2; Michigan, Feb. 2; Maryland, Feb. 1, 3,; New York, Feb. 2, 3,; West Virginia, Feb. 3; Maine, Feb. 7; Kansas, Feb. 7; Massachusetts, Feb. 8; Pennsylvania, Feb. 8; Virginia, Feb. 9; Ohio, Feb. 10; Missouri, Feb. 10; Nevada, Feb. 16; Indiana, Feb. 16; Louisiana, Feb. 17 ; Minnesota, Feb. 8, 23: Wisconsin, March 1; Vermont, March 9 Tennessee, April 5,7; Arkansas, April 20; Connecticut, May ; New Hampshire, July 1; South Carolina, Nov. 13; Alabama, Dec. 2; North Carolina, Dec. 4; Georgia, Dec. 9; Oregon, Dec. 11; California, Dec 20; Florida, Dec. 28 In 1866.--New Jersey, Jan. 23; Iowa, Jan. 24. It will thus be seen that the States which have not ratified the amendment are Delaware, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Texas. Delaware alone, of these, gave notice through the governor, of the rejection. Governor Parker of New Jersey, gave notice of rejection on the first of December, 1865; but the same State afterward ratified it. Because of this amendment Congress had the right to pass the Civil Rights Bill to secure the citizenship of the negro. Smith v. Moody, 26 Ind. 307. In the matter of Elizabeth Turner, on Habeas Corpus, by ChiefJustice Chase (Maryland, 1867). And because of the Civil Rights Bill, the United States Circuit Court had jurisdiction of a Habcas 6, 18, 220. Corpus case, to relieve a child of color from an apprenticeship, under the laws of Maryland, which were in conflict with that law. Id. The apprenticeship, among other things, allowed the assignment of the apprentice's services by the master, with the sanction of the orphan's court. The Chief-Justice said: "The following propositions seem to me to be sound law, and they decide the case: First. The first clause of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States interdicts slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, and establishes freedom as the constitutional right of all persons in the United States. Second. The alleged apprenticeship in the present case is involuntary servitude within the meaning of these words in the amendment." Id. This amendment is the last one made. It trenches directly upon the power of the States and of the people of the States. It is the first and only instance of a change of this character in the organic law. United States v. Rhodes (by Justice Swayne, Kentucky, Oct. T. 1867). In of the The act of Congress (the Civil Rights Bill) confers citizenship. Who are The Constitution uses the words "citizen" and "natural born citizens of citizen;" but neither that instrument nor any act of Congress United has attempted to define their meaning. In Johnson's Dictionary, States? "citizen" is thus defined: "(1) A freeman of a city; not a 18, 19, 35, 46, 93, 169, 205α, foreigner; not a slave; (2) a townsman, a man of trade; not a 206, 220-222 gentleman; (3) an inhabitant; a dweller in any place." Jacob's Law Dictionary (edition of 1783) the only definition given is as follows: "Citizens (cives) of London are either freemen or such as reside and keep a family in the city, &c.; and some are citizens and freemen, and some are not, who have not so great privileges as others. The citizens of London may prescribe against a statute because their liberties are re-enforced by statute. (1 Roll. 105.)" Id. "The word civis, taken in the strictest sense, extends only to him that is entitled to the privileges of a city of which he is a member, and in that sense there is a distinction between a citizen and an inhabitant within the same city, for every inhabitant there is not a citizen." (Scott qui tam v. Swartz, Com. Rep. 68.) Id. "A citizen is a freeman who has kept a family in a city." (Roy v. Hanger, 1 Roll. Rep. 138, 149.) Id. What was the Ameri tion upon 220. "The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law; and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been changed from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the State." (The State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Batt. 26.) Id. During the war each party claimed the allegiance of the natives the effect of of the colonies as due exclusively to itself. The Americans insisted can Revolu- upon the allegiance of all born within the States, respectively; and Great Britain asserted an equally exclusive claim. The treaty of citizenship? 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American States, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the States on each side, and the inhabitants thereof: in the language of the seventh article, it was a 'firm and perpetual peace between his British majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other.' Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her, and were claimed by her as subjects, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens." (Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 247.) United States v. Rhodes (Justice Swayne). All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent's Com. 3d ed. 1; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.) The common law has made no distinction on account of race or color. None is now made in England nor in any other Christian country of Europe. The fourth of the articles of confederation, (ante, p. 10) quoted; also Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 575. Id. When the Constitution was adopted, free men of color were clothed with the franchise of voting in at least five States, and were a part of the people whose sanction breathed into it the breath of life. (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 573; The State v. Manuel, 2 Dev. & Batt. 24, 25.) United States v. Rhodes. "Citizens under our Constitution and laws mean free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress." (1 Kent's Com. 292, note.) It is further said in the note in 1st Kent's Commentaries, before referred to: "If a slave born in the United States be manumitted or otherwise lawfully discharged from bondage, or if a black man born in the United States become free, he becomes thenceforward a citizen, but under such disabilities as the laws of the several States may deem it expedient to prescribe to persons of color." Id. |