in personam rendered against a foreign corporation in a suit begun in a state court by an attachment of property, and, as incident thereto, a service of a copy of the writ and an inventory of the attached property on a resident agent, without appearance by the corporation, is not conclusive in another action to which the corporation is a party in a court of the United States.1 The record of a judgment rendered in another state may be contradicted as to the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction, and its recital of the existence of such facts is not conclusive, and want of jurisdiction may be shown either as to the subject-matter or as to the person, and, in proceedings in rem, as to the res. Therefore, in an action of trespass de bonis, etc., in a court of the United States against a county sheriff of New Jersey for taking the plaintiff's oyster boat, the defendant having pleaded in justification the record of a forfeiture of the boat under a New Jersey statute, authorizing a summary conviction on a hearing by two justices of the county in which the seizure was made, it was held, that the recital in the record of a seizure of the boat in the county in which the justices exercised jurisdiction was open to contradiction by evidence that the seizure was not made within the territorial limits of that county. On the same principle, a recital in a record of a personal service of a summons upon a defendant, may be contradicted by proof that the defendant was not served.3 Administrators in different jurisdictions of the personal estate of the same decedent are not privies in estate to the extent that a judgment in one jurisdiction against one administrator is enforcible in the other jurisdiction against the administrator therein. An objection to the

informality of the authentication of a record cannot be made by a party who has antecedently offered that identical record in another proceeding. A state statute of limitations, providing that suits upon judgments rendered in other states, if not brought within two years shall be barred, is a bar to an action on such a judgment against one who only became a citizen of the state on the day on which suit was brought.2 Wherever a state court refuses in a cause to give due effect to a judgment rendered in a court of the United States, or in a court of another state, having by law jurisdiction of the subject-matter of litigation, and having acquired by due service of process, or otherwise, jurisdiction of the person of the party against whom judgment has been rendered, the action of the state court in so refusing is subject to review in the Supreme Court of the United States under the 25th Section of Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Act of 5 February, 1867.8 The record of a court of the United States is sufficiently proved when certified by the clerk of the court under its seal. And the judgments of the courts of the United States, when sued upon, or set up by way of defense in state courts, are, if rendered in a cause of which the court of the United States had jurisdiction both as to the subject-matter and the res or the person of the defendant, conclusive upon the parties and privies thereto, and enforcible in the state courts to the same extent as in courts of the United States.5 Judgments rendered in courts of the United States in causes, jurisdiction of which was obtained by reason of the citizenship of the parties, and in which the law of

1 Urtetiqui v. D'Arbel, 9 Pet. 692.

2 Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 522.

3 14 Stat. 385. Rev. Stat. Sec. 709.

4 Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418.

5 Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3.

the state within which the court sat was administered, have only that validity and effect which is due to a judgment of a court of the state in such a cause,1 and, therefore, a court of a state which refuses to give a greater effect to such a judgment of a court of the United States cannot be said to decide against a title or right claimed under an authority exercised under the United States.

1 Dupasseur v. Rochercau, 21 Wall. 130.

CHAPTER XI.

RIGHTS OF PERSON AND OF PROPERTY.

111. Citizenship of the United States.

112. Citizenship of a state.

113. The right of suffrage.

114. The right of serving on juries.

115. Congressional regulation of the election of senators and representa

tives.

116. Personal and property rights.

117. The rights within a state of citizens of other states.

118. Foreign corporations.

119. The XIII Amendment. 120. The XIV Amendment.

121. The police power.

111. As Miller, J., pointed out in the judgment in the Slaughter House Cases,1 the Constitution, as originally adopted, did not define citizenship of the United States, although it did, by Section 2 of Article IV, provide that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," and, by Section 2 of Article I, declare citizenship of the United States to be a necessary qualification for election as a representative in Congress. In view of that which the Constitution said, and of that which it left unsaid, upon this subject, it might well be concluded that citizenship of the United States was dependent upon and only incident to citizenship of a state, but the point was never judicially determined. The 1st Section of the XIV Amendment declares, that "all persons born or naturalized in the

1 16 Wall. 72.

United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein

they reside." From and after the adoption of that amendment, therefore, the birth within the United States of a person subject to its jurisdiction, or the naturalization of an alien, makes the person so born, or naturalized, a citizen of the United States;1 and that right of citizenship is entitled to protection under such laws as Congress may enact in execution of the powers conferred by the XIV and XV Amendments. Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." It is, therefore, beyond the power of any state to prescribe the conditions of naturalization, or to admit to citizenship any alien other than those whom the acts of Congress permit to be naturalized;2 nevertheless aliens may be naturalized by proceedings in courts of the states in conformity with the acts of Congress.

3

112. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court determined that a free negro could not be a citizen of a state, but, in his dissenting judgment, Curtis, J., showed that it was an historical fact, that in five of the thirteen original states negroes were not only recognized as citizens, but also admitted to the exercise of the right of suffrage, and that many acts of Congress had, by necessary implication, recognized negroes as citizens; and the weight of authority supports the position, that each state may, so far as the Constitution of the United States does not restrain it, determine the status, and consequently the citizenship, of the persons

1 The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 73; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 548.

2 Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 405. 3 Collet v. Collet, 2 Dall. 294. 419 How. 393.