Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Citizenship rights remain in full force, and may presumably be vindicated by resort to the laws of the State for redress. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 17. Siler v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 213 U. S. 175. Applicability to District of Columbia.-It is conceded that the constitutional provision does not purport to extend to authority exercised by the United States, but it does not follow that Congress, in exercising its power of legislation within and for the District of Columbia, may, therefore, deny to persons residing therein the equal protection of the laws. Lappin v. District of Columbia, 22 App. Cas. (D. C.) 68. Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the first eight amendments are among the privileges and immunities protected by the fourteenth amendment, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the Federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that is is the character of the right claimed, whether specified as above or not, that is controlling. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581. Distinction Between Residence and Citizenship Residence and citizenship are wholly different things within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws defining and regulating the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States. Steigleder v. McQuesten, 198 U. S. 143. Although this amendment declares that citizens of the United States are citizens of the States in which they reside, there may be a temporary residence in one State, with intent to return to another, which will not create citizenship in the former. Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130. There is nothing in this clause which requires and justifies a rule that "the bare averment of the residence of the parties is sufficient, prima facie, to show jurisdiction" when the jurisdiction bears upon the citizenship of the parties. Robertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 650. Definition of "Citizen " In general. The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of the word "citizen," either by way of inclusion or exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration in this amendment. In this respect, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 654. Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Citizenship In the Constitution and laws of the United States the word "citizen" is generally, if not always, used in a political sense, to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State or of the United States. Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 690. In Scott v. Sandford (19 How. 393) the judgment of the court was to the effect that a slave of African descent is not a citizen of the State of his domicile in the sense in which the word "citizen" is used in the Constitution, and because of that fact, the negro slave being the plaintiff in error, the suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. But it should be noted in this case that seven of the nine judges who sat in this case concurred in the judgment announced by the Chief Justice, but only two-Wayne and Daniel-concurred entirely. All the justices of the majority concurred in the opinion of Justice Nelson, which was originally prepared to stand as the opinion of the court. Of the seven who concurred in the judgment announced by the Chief Justice, only three held that the plea in abatement was open, and hence that the question of the status of free negroes was before the court. Justice Catron held that the plea was not open. Justice Grier evaded the question, and Justices Nelson and Campbell based their opinions on grounds which made it unnecessary to pass upon the question. Of the two dissenting, Justice Curtis held that the plea was before the court and Justice McLean held that it was not. Six judgesTaney, Wayne, Daniel, Grier, Campbell, and Catron-held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The historic importance of this case lies in the dicta in the announcement of the Chief Justice rather than in the decision of the court that it had no jurisdiction.1 Corporation not a citizen.2-A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of this provision, and hence has not "privileges and immunities" secured to citizens against State legislation. Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 561. Selover v. Walsh, 226 U. S. 112. Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U. S. 359. Women as citizens.-Women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of this amendment as since. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 165. Effect on citizenship of marriage with alien.-Act of Congress which provides "That any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband" is valid even as to a woman who, after marriage with a foreigner, remains a resident of this country. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299. 1 Evans' Cases on Constitutional Law, p. 93. See p. 639" Corporations." Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Citizenship Distinction Between Citizenship of United States and of a State The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. Slaugherhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 73. For a definition of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," see U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 682. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 99. U. S. v. Nice, 241 U. S. 591. Indians as citizens.-An Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made becomes a citizen of the United States and no longer a ward of the Government. Matter of Heff (197 U. S. 488), in which case the act of Congress of January 30, 1897, making it unlawful to give or sell intoxicating liquors to such Indian, was held unconstitutional under this amendment. Privileges and Immunities In General The prohibition against the abridgment of the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" means only privileges and immunities incident to citizenship of the United States as distinguished from citizenship of the several States. Protection extends only to those privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the Federal Government and granted or secured by the Constitution; they are not identical with those referred to in Article IV, section 2, clause 1. Slaugherhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 74. The purpose of this clause was to confer upon the colored race perfect equality of civil and political rights with whites, and to prevent any person or class from being made the object of discriminating or hostile legislation. But the equality contemplated was not social equality. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 318. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 39. See also Connor v. Elliott, 18 How. 593. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366. Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 585. Sec. 1.-Citizenship Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 624. Not a Grant of New Privileges Nothing more than the rights of the citizens previously existing, and dependent wholly on State laws for their recognition, is placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Government and secured by the Federal Constitution. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 133. In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 448. State Control Over Court Procedure Regulating right to sue on cause of action arising in another State. Where a statute in one State gives a right of action to the widow or personal representative for wrongful death in that State, the privileges and immunities of a widow of a citizen of that State who was killed therein, are not abridged by being denied the right to sue on that cause of action in the courts of another State. Chambers v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 207 U. S. 142. Right of asylum against unlawful abduction of fugitives.-The right of asylum in a State to which a fugitive from justice has fled is not a right of privilege or immunity which he can claim as against an unlawful abduction to a State in which an indictment is pending against him. Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 707. Regulation of juries. No person charged with a crime involving life or liberty is entitled, by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, to have his race represened upon the grand jury that may indict him or upon the petit jury that may try him. And so far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, service upon grand and petit juries in the courts of the several States may be restricted to citizens of the United States. It rests with each State to prescribe such qualifications as it deems proper for jurymen, taking care only that no discrimination in respect to such service be made against any class of citizens solely because of their race. In re Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U. S. 297. A State statute as construed by the State court to mean that "although a person called as a juryman may have formed an opinion based upon rumor or upon newspaper statements, but has expressed no opinion as to the truth of the newspaper statement, he is still qualified as a juror if he states that he can fairly and impartially render a verdict thereon in accordance with the law and the evidence, and the court shall be satisfied of the truth of such statement," does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 168. Prohibiting setting aside verdicts.-A statute which forbids the setting aside of a verdict as being against the weight of evidence, when three verdicts upon the facts in favor of the same party Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens Sec. 1.-Citizenship have been rendered, does not amount to an arbitrary deprivation of the rights of the citizen. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Woodson, 134 U. S. 623. Statutes regulating the manufacture and sale of goods do not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 16. Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 77. Lemieux v. Young, 211 U. S. 489. Kidd, etc., Co. v. Musselman Gro. Co., 217 U. S. 461. Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U. S. 260. Relation of Employer and Employee 1 Regulating hours of labor.-A State statute providing that the period of employment of mine workers shall be eight hours per day, except in cases of emergency where life or property is in imminent danger, does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. These employments, when too long pursued, the legislature has judged to be detrimental to the health of the employees, and so long as there are reasonable grounds for believing that this is so, its decision upon this subject can not be reviewed by the Federal courts. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 380. Employment of labor on public works.-A statute which provides that "In the construction of public works by the State or a municipality, or by persons contracting with the State or such municipality, only citizens of the United States shall be employed; and in all cases where laborers are employed on any such public works, preference shall be given citizens of the State of New York," does not abridge the privileges and immunities of contractors and those of their alien employees. Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175. Employers' liability.2-A statute making a railroad company liable to its employees for injuries resulting from the negligence of fellow servants and depriving the company of the defense of contributory negligence does not abridge its privileges and immunities under this clause. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Castle, 224 U. S. 541. 1 See same subject. p. 98, as to Federal regulation. * See also same subject, p. 99. 5896-S. Doc. 96, 67–2- -41 |