are citizens of such State, and cannot be denied equality of right simply because they do not reside in that State, but are citizens residing in other States of the Union. The individual plaintiffs in error were entitled to contract with this British corporation, lawfully doing business in Tennessee, and deemed and taken to be a corporation of that State; and no rule in the distribution of its assets among creditors could be applied to them as resident citizens of Ohio, and because they were not residents of Tennessee, that was not applied by the courts of Tennessee to creditors of like character who were citizens of Tennessee.

As to the plaintiff in error, the Hull Coal and Coke Company of Virginia, different considerations must govern our decision. It has long been settled that, for purposes of suit by or against it in the courts of the United States, the members of a corporation are to be conclusively presumed to be citizens of the State creating such corporation: Louisville, Cincinnati, & Charleston Railroad Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. 227, 232; Ohio & Miss. Railroad Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286, 296; Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118, 120; Barrow Steamship Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100; and therefore it has been said that a corporation is to be deemed, for such purposes, a citizen of the State under whose laws it was organized. But it is equally well settled, and we now hold, that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the constitutional provision that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 178, 179; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410, 415; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566, 573. The Virginia corporation, therefore, cannot invoke that provision for protection against the decree of the State court denying its right to participate upon terms of equality with Tennessee creditors in the distribution of the assets of the British corporation in the hands of the Tennessee court.

Since, however, a corporation is a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U. S. 394, 396; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 522), may not the Virginia corporation invoke for its protection. the clause of the amendment declaring that no State shall deprive any person of property without due process, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?

We are of opinion that this question must receive a negative answer. Although this court has adjudged that the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment refer to all the instrumentalities of the State, to its legislative, executive, and judicial authorities (Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346, 347; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 373; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45; and Chicago, Burlington, &c. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 233), it does not follow that, within the meaning of that amendment, the judgment below deprived

the Virginia corporation of property without due process of law, simply because its claim was subordinated to the claims of the Tennessee creditors. That corporation was not, in any legal sense, deprived of its claim, nor was its right to reach the assets of the British corporation in other States or countries disputed. It was only denied the right to participate upon terms of equality with Tennessee creditors in the distribution of particular assets of another corporation doing business in that State. It had notice of the proceedings in the State court, became a party to those proceedings, and the rights asserted by it were adjudicated. If the Virginia corporation cannot invoke the protection of the second section of Article IV. of the Constitution of the United States relating to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, as its co-plaintiffs in error have done, it is because it is not a citizen within the meaning of that section; and if the State court erred in its decree in reference to that corporation, the latter cannot be said to have been thereby deprived of its property without due process of law within the meaning of the Constitution.

It is equally clear that the Virginia corporation cannot rely upon the clause declaring that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That prohibition manifestly relates only to the denial by the State of equal protection to persons "within its jurisdiction." Observe, that the prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law is not qualified by the words "within its jurisdiction," while those words are found in the succeeding clause relating to the equal protection of the laws. The court cannot assume that those words were inserted without any object, nor is it at liberty to eliminate them from the Constitution and to interpret the clause in question. as if they were not to be found in that instrument. Without attempting to state what is the full import of the words, "within its jurisdiction," it is safe to say that a corporation not created by Tennessee, nor doing business there under conditions that subjected it to process issuing from the courts of Tennessee at the instance of suitors, is not, under the above clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, within the jurisdiction of that State. Certainly, when the statute in question was enacted the Virginia corporation was not within the jurisdiction of Tennessee. So far as the record discloses, its claim against the Embreeville Company was on account of coke sold and shipped from Virginia to the latter corporation at its place of business in Tennessee. It does not appear to have been doing business in Tennessee under the statute here involved, or under any statute that would bring it directly under the jurisdiction of the courts of Tennessee by service of process on its officers or agents. Nor do we think it came within the jurisdiction of Tennessee, within the meaning of the amendment, simply by presenting its claim in the State. court and thereby becoming a party to this cause. Under any other

interpretation the Fourteenth Amendment would be given a scope not contemplated by its framers or by the people, nor justified by its language. We adjudge that the statute, so far as it subordinates the claims of private business corporations not within the jurisdiction of the State of Tennessee (although such private corporations may be creditors of a corporation doing business in the State under the authority of that statute), to the claims against the latter corpora tion of creditors residing in Tennessee, is not a denial of the "equal protection of the laws" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to persons within the jurisdiction of the State, however unjust such a regulation may be deemed.

What may be the effect of the judgment of this court in the present case upon the rights of creditors not residing in the United States, it is not necessary to decide. Those creditors are not before the court on this writ of error.

The final judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee must be affirmed as to the Hull Coal and Coke Company, because it did not deny to that corporation any right, privilege, or immunity secured to it by the Constitution of the United States. (Rev. Stat. § 709.) As to the other plaintiffs in error, citizens of Ohio, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion; and it is so ordered.1

[THIS was an application in a territorial court of Utah for release from arrest under warrant of the governor of that Territory for extradition on the demand of the governor of Pennsylvania. The applicant appealed to this court from an order refusing the writ of habeas corpus.]

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This case arises under §§ 5278 and 5279 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provide:

"SEC. 5278. Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice of the

1 MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered a dissenting opinion, in which MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER concurred.

executive authority of any State or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the State or Territory to which such person has filed to cause him to be arrested and secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within six months from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged. All costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing, and transmitting such fugitive to the State or Territory making such demand shall be paid by such State or Territory.

"SEC. 5279. Any agent, so appointed, who receives the fugitive into his custody, shall be empowered to transport him to the State or Territory from which he has fled. And every person who, by force, sets at liberty or rescues the fugitive from such agent while so transporting him, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year." 1 Stat. 302, ch. 7, §§ 1, 2.

It is not necessary to consider the question suggested by counsel as to the right of the governor of the Territory to have withheld the papers upon which he based his warrant for the arrest of the accused; for the record shows that the requisition and accompanying papers from the governor of Pennsylvania constituted the evidence upon which he acted, and were submitted to the court to which the writ of habeas corpus was returned.

Under the act of Congress, it became the duty of the governor of Utah to cause the arrest of Reggel, and his delivery to the agent appointed to receive him, when it appeared: 1. That the demand by the executive authority of Pennsylvania was accompanied by a copy of an indictment, or affidavit made before a magistrate, charging Reggel with having committed treason, felony, or other crime within that State, and certified as authentic by her governor. 2. That the person demanded was a fugitive from justice.

The first of these conditions was met by the production to the governor of Utah of the indictment (duly certified as authentic) of the grand jury of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the City and County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, wherein the accused was charged with having committed the crime of obtaining by false pretences certain goods with the intent to cheat and defraud the persons therein named; which offence, as was made to appear from the statutes of that Commonwealth (a copy of which, duly certified as authentic, accompanied the indictment), is a misde

meanor under the laws of Pennsylvania, punishable by a fine not exceeding $500, and imprisonment not exceeding three years.

It was objected in the court of original jurisdiction that there could be no valid requisition based upon an indictment for an offence less than a felony. This view is erroneous. It was declared in Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 99, that the words "treason, felony, or other crime" in section 2 of Article I. of the Constitution include every offence, from the highest to the lowest, known to the law of the State from which the accused had fled, including misdemeanors. It was there said by Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the whole court, that, looking to the words of the Constitution, "to the obvious policy and necessity of this provision to preserve harmony between the States and order and law within their respective borders, and to its early adoption by the Colonies, and then by the Confederate States whose mutual interest it was to give each other aid and support whenever it was needed, the conclusion is irresistible, that this compact engrafted in the Constitution included, and was intended to include, every offence made punishable by the law of the State in which it was committed." It is within the power of each State, except as her authority may be limited by the Constitution of the United States, to declare what shall be offences against her laws; and citizens of other States, when within her jurisdiction, are subject to those laws. In recognition of this right, so reserved to the States, the words of the clause in reference to fugitives from justice were made sufficiently comprehensive to include every offence against the laws of the demanding State, without exception as to the nature of the crime.

Although the constitutional provision in question does not, in terms, refer to fugitives from the justice of any State, who may be found in one of the Territories of the United States, the act of Congress has equal application in that class of cases, and the words "treason, felony, or other crime" must receive the same interpretation, when the demand for the fugitive is made, under that act, upon the governor of a Territory, as when made upon the executive authority of one of the States of the Union.

Another proposition advanced in behalf of the appellant is, that the indictment which accompanied the requisition does not sufficiently charge the commission of any crime; of which fact it was the duty of the governor of Utah to take notice, and which the court may not ignore in determining whether the appellant is lawfully in custody. In connection with this proposition, counsel discusses, in the light of the adjudged cases, the general question as to the authority of a court of the State or Territory, in which the fugitive is found, to discharge him from arrest, whenever in its judgment the indictment, according to the technical rules of criminal pleading, is defective in its statement of the crime charged. It is sufficient for the purposes of the present case to say that, by the laws of Pennsylvania,