ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

by secondary evidence?

should also be proven. Id. So where the record of a marriage, solemnized by a justice of the peace in Missouri, was certified under this act, the statute which authorized the justice to solemnize the marriage, should also have been proven; as also the statute authorizing the registration. Smith v. Smith, 1 Tex. Can records 625, 626. The records are among the public writings recognized be proved by the common law invested with an official character, and therefore susceptible of proof by secondary means, but which are not of the nature of judicial records or judgments; such as acts and orders of the executive of a State; legislative acts and journals; registers kept in public offices; books which contain the official proceedings of corporations, if the public at large are concerned with them; parish registers, and the like. Snyder v. Wise, 10 Barr, 158. The certificate must state that the attestation is in due form, and by the proper officer. Drummond v. McGruder, 9 Cr. 122; 1 Burr's Trial, 98.

Act of March 27, 1804, 2 S. C. 208.

What are the privileges of citizens?

Who are citizens? 274, 17, 18.

How many classes of citizens of the U.S.?

169.

What is the rule as to

"2. All the provisions of this act, and the act to which this is a supplement, shall apply, as well to the public acts, records, office books, judicial proceedings, courts, and officers of the respective territories of the United States, and countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as to the public acts, records, office books, judicial proceedings, courts, and offices of the several States." Paschal's Annotated Dig. Art. 3711.

This extension is a constitutional exercise of the legislative powers of Congress. Hughes v. Davis, 8 Maryland, 271.

SEC. II.-[1.] The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

220. "THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE."-See Confederation, ante, Art. IV. p. 10. "I find no definition, no authoritative establishment of the meaning of the phrase (citizen of the United States), neither by a course of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government." Bates on Citizenship, 3.

It may be deduced from the previous definitions and all the authorities, that the following classification of "CITIZENS" may satisfy most students:

1. All white persons, or persons of European descent, who were born in any of the colonies, or resided and had been adopted there before 1776, and who adhered to the cause of independence up to colonists of the fourth of July, 1776. Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes 147, 1776? 148, 238, 240, 350; United States v. Ritchie, 17 How. 538; Orson v. Hoag, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 80-85; Jackson v. White, 20 John, 313; Inglis v. The Trustees of the Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99; Kelly v. Harrison, 20 Johns. Cases, 29; Dawson v. Godfrey, 4 Cr. 321; Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cr. 603; Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. 453. The males of these are eligible to the Presidency.

274. 277.

Who of the

2. All the descendants of such persons, who have since been native born? born in any of those thirteen States, or in any new State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, or abroad,

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, 1815), 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?

of 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 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, 237240.

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 earth." 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 varicus 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; noto 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 aturalizaLon?

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;
Delawares, 4th July, 1866, 14 St. 109.

zen?

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 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. Ætna 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 immùnities 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 either 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.

221. "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES."-And the words rights, Define priv privileges, 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.

immunities.

220, 274.

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?

Negroes?

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 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

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »