LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Class STUDIES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW A TREATISE ON AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BY JOHN S. WISE OF THE NEW YORK BAR EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY NORTHPORT, LONG ISLAND, N. Y 1906 Copyright 1905 by EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY All rights reserved INTRODUCTORY. THIS book was prepared at the solicitation of the publishers, but in obedience to a long-cherished wish to see the discussion of the origin, nature, and obligations of American citizenship, state and na- tional, reduced to compendious form in one volume. The subject is not only one concerning which the legal profession should have a convenient text-book, but is an indispensable part of the education of every man who makes pretension to a fair education and knowledge of the history of his country. I have, I may say without vanity, had unusual need for the study of all these questions, for as I grew up they were the great points of difference between our people. As they were settled one by one, I studied the reason and argument of the de- cision, and later in life questions of citizenship and suffrage have been involved in many of the cases I have tried. It is not believed that this is a perfect book, nor is it doubted that in time it will be supplanted by another or others dealing more ably with the sub- jects discussed and grouping them more conven- iently, but for the present, at least, it is hoped that it will supply, as no other text-book known to the author does, the basis for special lectures on this most important topic in our law schools, and a con- venient key for references to the active members of our profession. iii 166382 INTRODUCTORY It is believed that in it will be found every decision of the Supreme Court upon the questions discussed. No effort has been made to pad the volume with the arguments pro and con upon points decided, or to cite opinions on the same point, distinguishing one case from another. The principles decided have been given their ap- propriate places. The discussions concerning why one case decided did not fall within the principle decided by another case, have been purposely omitted as tending to make a volume of case law as distinguished from one of legal principles. Such discussions tend to befog the legal principle decided rather than make it plain, and to weary even the professional man. They must be encountered when the authorities cited are examined. The whole object of the author has been attained if he has succeeded in putting the origin, nature, and obligations of the citizen in form sufficiently attractive to enlist a more widespread understand- ing among educated Americans of their rights and obligations as American citizens; for the present ignorance of our people and the confusion in their apprehension of the subject would be something incredible in older countries. In the hope that the need of the book is real, and not imaginary, that it may be accepted in a spirit of charity, and that some one better equipped may soon arise to improve upon it, it is respectfully submitted to the profession and to the public. JOHN S. WISE. "New York. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. OF CITIZENSHIP GENERALLY. PAGE Definition of Citizenship. . 2 American Citizenship Its Origin and Kinds 4 State Citizenship 5 Citizenship of the Northwest Territory 13 Citizenship of the United States 17 Qualified Citizenship in Territorial and Acquired Possessions... 34 Hawaii Its Government 37 Porto Rico 39 Guam 42 Philippine Islands 42 Citizenship in Our Insular Possessions 46 CHAPTER II. HOW AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP MAY BE ACQUIRED. In the Nation: By Birth 51 By Naturalization 53 Length of Residence Necessary 55 In a State: By Birth 61 By State Enactments 61 By Federal Enactments 62 Outside the Nation or States 62 Of the Persons who May be Citizens 63 National and State Citizenship Not Necessarily Coexistent 66 CHAPTER III. OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES OF THE CITIZENS TO THE NATION AND THE STATE. Allegiance 6ft Different Kinds of Allegiance 69 Formal Compact Not Necessary to Create Allegiance 69 Of Dual Allegiance 70 v VI TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Of Patriotism 73 Of Treason 74 Of Dual Treason 80 Elements of the Offense 83 CHAPTEE IV. OF THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES OF THE CITIZEN. In General 92 Source of American Plan of Government and Rights of Citi- zenship 93 Rights of Citizens of the States 98 State Bills of Rights 100 National Declaration of Independence 104 The Federal Constitution 106 Rights, Privileges, and Immunities Granted or Guaranteed to the Citizen of the United States Ill Taxation of the Citizen 152 Of the Immunity of the Citizen from Arrest, While Attending Congress, and in Going to and Returning from the Same, and from Being Questioned in any other Place for any Speech or Debate 153 Of the Immunity of the Citizen from State Interference with the Regulation of Commerce with Foreign Nations, and amcug the Several States and with the Indian Tribes 154 Right of the Citizen to the Writ of Habeas Corpus 159 Of the Immunity of the Citizen Against Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws 163 Of the Immunity of the Citizen Against State Laws Impairing the Obligation of Contracts 165 Of the Right of the Citizens of Each State to All the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States 167 Of the Federal Guarantee of Extradition of Fugitives from Justice 174 The Guarantee to the Citizen that Persons Held to Service or Labor in one State and Escaping to another Shall Not Be Discharged Thereby from Such Service or Labor but Shall Be Delivered up 178 Of the Federal Guarantee to the Citizen that His State Shall Have a Republican Form of Government 178 The Immunity of the Citizen Against any Law of Congress Re- specting an Establishment of Religion or Prohibiting the free Exercise Thereof 185 Of the Right of the Citizen to Free Speech 188 TABLE OF CONTENTS Vll PAGE Of the Freedom of the Press 189 Rights Guaranteed by Amendments II to VIII, XI, and XII... 190 CHAPTEE V. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE WAR AMENDMENTS. The Thirteenth Amendment 192 The Fourteenth Amendment 194 Of the Regulation of Ordinary Business Pursuits by the States 211 The Right to Regulate Woman's Rights 214 The Right to Regulate the Practice of Professions 215 Of Suffrage 215 Reduction of the Representation of the States in Congress 223 The Right of States to Regulate State Procedure Especially Concerning the Summoning and Constitution of Juries .... 235 Of the Power of the State to Control and Regulate the Business of Corporations in the State 241 The Right to Control the Conduct of Individuals and Bodies of Citizens in Public Places 243 Of the Power of the State to Regulate State Taxation 246 Of the Right of the State to Control State Elections 249 Due Process of Law 249 Of the Equal Protection of the Law 254 The Fifteenth Amendment 257 CHAPTER VI. OF THE PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD 261 CHAPTER VII. OF EXPATRIATION, ALIENS, AND WHO MAY NOT BECOME CITIZENS. Expatriation 263 Aliens 267 Immigration of Chinese 275 i A TREATISE ON AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. CHAPTER I. OF CITIZENSHIP GENERALLY. T is not proposed, in this work, to cast back in the Chapter history of government, to the ethnic origin of the terms citizen and citizenship, or to institute origin and i it ft n nature of any comparisons between the grade or quality of citizenship enjoyed by those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or the States com- posing it, and that possessed by citizens of other governments, ancient or modern. Such researches and comparisons, however interesting they might prove, would be almost endless, and, in a book of this character, would tend to divert the student from a study of the origin and nature of American citizen- ship, national and state, without shedding any prac- tical light upon the real question to which the volume is addressed. We shall therefore proceed to ascertain the origin and define the nature and quality of citizenship en- joyed by individuals who are subject to the juris- diction of the United States, either as citizens of the United States, or as citizens of some particular component State, Territory, or possession of the United States. i CITIZENSHIP Definition of Citizenship. status of The latest approved definition of the term citizen- the citizen. ship . g that found in ^ Standard Dictionary (1898), which describes it as "the status of a citizen with its rights and privileges." 1 The status of a citizen implies the existence of (1) A political body established to promote the general welfare and collective, as well as individual, rights of those composing it. (2) Individuals who have established, or sub- mitted themselves to the dominion of, that political body. 2 (3) Such benefit from, or participation in, the administration of that political body by the individ- uals composing it, that they may be designated as citizens, and not as mere subjects of a despot or an absolute monarch under whom they have no voice in administration. The same authority above quoted defines a citizen as "a member of a nation or sovereign state, espe- cially a republic; one who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it." That definition is broad enough to make every sub- ject a citizen of the government to which he owes allegiance, and from which he receives protection; * See also Webster's Dictionary ; Century Dictionary ; 6 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 15; Abrigo v. State, (1890) 29 Tex. App. 149. 2 " Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted them- selves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights." U. S. v. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 542. CITIZENSHIP but the term citizen, as it is commonly understood, implies membership of a political body in which the individual enjoys popular liberty to a greater or less degree. 3 It does not necessarily follow from this definition, that the grade or quality or privileges of citizenship must be identical in all citizens, even in republican governments. In the Eoman govern- ment, a citizen might or might not be invested with all the civil privileges of the government. 4 In many cases arising under our system, it has been repeat- edly decided that the bestowal of political privileges upon an individual is not essential to constitute him a citizen. 5 3 For the purpose of designating by a title tho person and the relation he bears to the nation, " the words ' subject,' ' inhabitant,' and ' citizen ' have been used, and the choice between them is some- times made to depend upon the form of the government. * Citizen ' is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican gov- ernment, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their sepa- ration from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States." Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162. " The word is never used of the people in a monarchy, since it involves an idea not enjoyed by subjects, to wit: the inherent right to partake in the government. The republics of the Old World were cities, and the word citizen has been usually in human history only applied to inhabitants of cities. As, however, states have in mod- ern times arisen, and republics have been established, in which the word subjects could not be properly applied, the people of those republics have been called citizens, for the simple and obvious rea- son that their relation to the state was such as was the relation of citizens to the city. They were a part of its sovereignty they were entitled to its privileges, its rights, immunities and franchises. White v. Clements, (1896) 39 Ga. 232. ^Thomasson v. State, (1860) 15 Ind. 449; Amy V. Smith, (1822) 1 Litt. (Ky.) 332. 6 6 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 15 and cases cited ; Minor V. Hap- persett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162; Lyons v. Cunningham, (1884) 66 Cal. 42; Blanck v. Pausch, (1885) 113 111. 60; Laurent v. State, (1863) 1 Kan. 313; Opinion of Justices, 44 Me. 507; Pomeroy's CITIZENSHIP Ordinarily the term citizen, applied to the indi- vidual unit in any government, implies that he en- joys a greater degree of participation in the affairs of his government than would be implied if he were referred to as a subject. wSS tr lu 1 I n a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain, the individual units composing it are referred to indifferently as citizens or as subjects. In an abso- lute monarchy like Bussia, the idea of subjection to the ruler overshadows that of citizenship, and the individual subject is seldom referred to as a citizen, except in diplomatic intercourse between his govern- ment and other nations. In a free democracy like the United States, where there is no sovereign and no subject, the units com- posing the political body are properly designated as citizens. This subject is discussed in a most inter- esting way by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Minor v. Happersett. 6 American Citizenship Its Origin and Kinds. SoSai I n the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the British government planted or acquired thirteen dis- tinct colonies on the continent of North America, and governed them, prior to July 4, 1776, under the system of English laws as applied by the co- lonial policy of Great Britain, with George III as a constitutional monarch. Each of these colonies had Municipal Law, pt. 11, c. 2, p. 425; Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 422; U. S. v. Morris, (1903) 125 Fed. Rep. 325; Dorsey V. Brigham, (1898) 177 111. 258, 69 Am. St. Rep. 232 ; Gougar v. Timberlake, (1897) 148 Ind. 41, 62 Am. St. Rep. 489. e (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162; see also The Pizarro, (1817) 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 227. CITIZENSHIP 5 been founded or acquired separately and at a differ- chapter ent time, and each was governed under its own dis- ' tinct charter or commission. The inhabitants of all the colonies were British citizens or subjects. The several local governments, under which the colonies respectively conducted their domestic affairs, were not independent political societies, of which they might be said to be citizens. While they were in- habitants of their respective colonies, they were citi- zens of Great Britain, and their local governments were mere dependencies, acting under concessions from the parent government. A comparison of the several colonial administrations of these colonies will make plain at once how different were their several domestic administrations. The colonial or- ganization of Massachusetts was altogether different from that of Maryland ; that of Virginia altogether different from that of Ehode Island. The charters of the colonial organizations of South Carolina and New York had little resemblance to each other, and so on with all the colonies. The mother country, while exacting paramount allegiance to herself from all her colonies, had, in her dealings with them, permitted each to indulge its idiosyncrasies in matters of local concern, with so little regard to uniformity of administration, that the thirteen colonies grew up with little of simili- tude in their charter rights, and little in common in their local forms of government. What they had in common was their British citizenship, and their common grievances against the parent government, which, as they conceived, had deprived them of the right of local self-government. This British citizen- CITIZENSHIP Chapter ship, in common, was the germ of their united action, and afterwards became the foundation of a new citizenship, known as American citizenship, on which all citizenship, whether of the United States, or of the States and Territories and possessions subject to its jurisdiction, now rests. And this brings us to State Citizenship. Effect of Declara- tion of Independ- ence. New . State constitu- tions. The thirteen independent American colonies, by a joint Declaration of Independence dated July 4, 1776, asserted their common purpose to maintain that they were free, independent, and sovereign States. That declaration, if it could be successfully maintained, carried with it as a result, that their respective inhabitants were no longer citizens or subjects of Great Britain, but were thenceforth citi- zens of the States in which they respectively resided. England resisted this contention until September 3, 1783, at which time she entered into a definitive treaty of peace with the representatives of these colonies, recognizing the colonies, name by name, as free, independent, and sovereign States. After thus gaining their independence, some of the States proceeded to adopt new constitutions forthwith, conforming their government to their changed conditions; while others found their royal charters so well adapted to a free government, that they continued to live under them for many years. The most remarkable instance of this is the State of Ehode Island, which continued to govern itself under the forms of its royal charter until the year 1843. Even then, the attempt to adopt a new con- CITIZENSHIP stitution resulted in a domestic conflict, familiarly Chapter known as Dorr's Rebellion, for a full account of which see the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Luther v. Borden. 7 While the revolutionary struggle lasted, the col- onies, calling themselves States, co-operated with colomsts - each other through the device of a league under the name of the United States, represented by a Conti- nental Congress. The objects for which this league and congress were created, were to assert and prose- cute measures in common for attaining the inde- pendence of the States. Through this league, they also bound themselves by mutual obligations, not to negotiate for peace, or for any other purpose, with the parent country, save through the appointees of the Continental Congress ; and the peace which was finally negotiated was brought about by a treaty entered into on behalf of the United Colonies, by commissioners appointed by the Continental Con- gress. But the independence demanded by the colonies and the citizenship recognized by Great Britain were cSat 3 Britain. the independence and citizenship of thirteen sov- ereign and independent States, and not of any one national political body. This could not have been otherwise, for the words "United States," while they were employed in the Declaration of Independ- ence and in the Articles of Confederation under which the revolutionary struggle was conducted, were manifestly used in a plural sense, as expressing the States united, and the compact entered into be- tween the colonies shows, upon its face, that it was 7 (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 1. 8 CITIZENSHIP Chapter no t entered into to create a new political body reach- ing or operating upon the unit of the citizen. All the powers possessed by the confederated government were derived from and to be exercised upon and through the legislatures which created it, represent- ing States and not individuals. Any effort of the federal authority to command or enforce allegiance to it directly from the citizens of those States, save in a few particulars provided for in the Articles of Confederation, would have aroused indignant pro- tests from the States, and would, perhaps, have re- sulted in a dissolution of the confederacy. The date insisted upon by the thirteen States, as that at which their inhabitants ceased to be colonial subjects of Great Britain, and became citizens of their respective States, was July 4, 1776. The Eng- lish authorities, on the other hand, fixed September 3, 1783, the date of the definitive treaty acknowl- edging the independence of the States, as the true date from which to reckon. 8 This question has long since ceased to be of any importance as bearing upon any property rights, and in so far as it relates to whether State citizenship antedated national citizen- ship, it makes no difference which date is assumed to be correct ; for the relations of the States to the fed- eral compact were substantially the same in 1776 as in 1783. The Declaration of Independence affirmed that the United Colonies ought to be free and independent States. The Articles of Confederation were agreed upon by delegates November 15, 1777. After an- nouncing a name for the confederacy between the singlis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, (1830) 3 Pet. (U. S.) 121. CITIZENSHIP States, it proceeded to declare that each State re- Chapter tained "its sovereignty, freedom and independence, L and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. " The Con- gress was composed of delegates chosen annually, as State legislatures might direct, and the delegates were maintained by the States. In determining questions in the Congress, each State had one vote. The duty of raising their respective quotas of troops was imposed upon the States, and the privilege of naming all officers of or under the rank of colonel. The States undertook to supply all funds to the com- mon treasury, and the taxes for defraying the ex- penses of the confederacy were to be laid and levied by the State legislatures, each State paying her pro- portion. There was no president or common ruler over the confederacy of States, and the limited federal authority conferred upon Congress by the Articles of Confederation was intrusted to the con- trol and direction of a committee of Congress. Such was the confederacy existing between the States when Great Britain acknowledged them as independent sovereign States. It requires little ar- gument to demonstrate that a mere agency such as this, operating under a limited authorization and without any power to levy taxes or draft troops, was not a political body entitled to claim that any indi- vidual was its citizen, and while State citizenship necessarily followed at once to the inhabitants of the colonies, respectively, upon the acknowledgment of their independence, no citizenship of the United States was recognized or even existed. CITIZENSHIP Chapter The writings of Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison, preserved in The Federalist, written long after the A new acknowledgment of the independence of the colonies. citizen- Josed- * are Ml f complaints against the Articles of Con- Ira!ist Fed " federation, on this score. They are appeals for a change from this condition, and urge upon the peo- ple to remedy these defects by adopting the pro- posed constitution and creating the new citizenship. The Constitution of the United States was proposed September 17, 1787, and the operations of the gov- ernment began under it March 4, 1789. The Feder- alist papers were written in that interval, urging the adoption of the Constitution by the States. In the fifteenth paper of The Federalist, 9 Mr. Hamilton dis- cusses "the insufficiency of the present confedera- tion to the preservation of the Union, ' ' as follows : "The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing confederation is the principle of legislation for states or governments, in theii cor- porate or collective capacities, and as contradistin- guished from the individuals o*f which they con- sist. . . . Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money ; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The conse- quence of this is, that although in theory their reso- lutions concerning those objects are laws, constitu- tionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option. . . . If we still adhere to the design of a national The Federalist (Lodge, 1892), p. 86. CITIZENSHIP government ... we must extend the authority Chapter of the Union to the persons of the citizens the _ only proper objects of government." Again, in the twenty-third paper l the same illus- trious authority declared: "If we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities ; we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America." The above citations, which are but two of many, are sufficient to demonstrate that under the peculiar JTstates. organization of the United States, as it was orig- inally formed, the powers or authority of the gen- eral government did not extend to individuals, save in a few isolated instances, and that consequently the only real citizenship was that of States. Mr. Hamilton, in both his references to citizens, spoke of them, not as citizens of the United States, but as citizens of America, doubtless adopting that form of expression as more correct in describing the citi- zens of the States generally. Until the ratification of the Constitution of the United States by nine States, it was a nullity. New shVp. en " Hampshire was the ninth State to ratify. The date of its action was June 21, 1788. Virginia and New York ratified the Constitution a few days later, and before the date fixed for commencing the operations of the government. Thus, for the first time, there was such a thing as citizenship of the United States. That citizenship did not extend to North Carolina until January 28, 1790, or to Ehode Island until June iThe Federalist (Lodge, 1892), p. 137. 12 CITIZENSHIP Chapter i ? 179Q, for those States delayed their ratifications ' until after the operations of the government had begun. In the United States custom house at New York, one may see a list of the vessels which entered the port of New York during the first year after 'the Constitution of the United States went into effect, and in that list, entered as vessels arriving from "foreign ports," are several ships from Ehode Island. Thus we see that, in eleven of the original States, State citizenship antedated Federal citizenship over five years, and in two other States nearly seven years. SweSi Speaking of the interim between the acknowledg- "ndence ment of the independence of the colonies and the lt?o s n~ e adoption of the Constitution, John Fiske, in his History of the United States, says: 2 "Perhaps the only thing that kept the Union from falling, to pieces in 1786 was the Northwestern Territory, which George Eogers Clark had conquered in 1779, and which skilful diplomacy had enabled us to keep when the treaty was drawn in 1782. Virginia claimed this territory and actually held it, but New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut also had claims upon it. It was the idea of Maryland that such a vast region ought not to be added to any one State, or divided between two or three of the States, but ought to be the common property of the Union. Maryland had refused to ratify the Articles of Con- federation until the four States that claimed the Northwestern Territory should yield their claims to e Edition 1900. CITIZENSHIP the United States. This was done between 178(7 and 1786, and thus, for the first time, the United States government was put in possession of valuable prop- erty which could be made to yield an income and 'pay debts. This piece of property was about the first thing in which all the American people were alike interested, after they had won their independ- ence. ' ' In the light of the above historical facts, it is not 2SK2? strange that the discussions, prior to the great Civil War, on the question whether paramount allegiance was due to their State, or to their Nation, by the citi- zens of the States respectively, led to a difference of opinion on that question between citizens. Citizenship of the Northwest Territory. The United States, as constituted under the % r r di a v nce Articles of Confederation, having come into posses- sion of the large unsettled territory above referred to, by the cession of Great Britain and the subse^ quent cession of their rights by the several States which laid claim to it, the Continental Congress un- dertook to pass, in 1787, the famous ordinances lay- ing down certain fundamental laws for the govern- ment of that territory, and in States which might thereafter be formed out of that territory. The States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wis- consin were subsequently erected and admitted into the Union, and those five embrace what was then known as the Northwest Territory. Of the action of the Continental Congress in as- suming to pass these ordinances, Mr. Madison says in the thirty-seventh paper of The Federalist, 3 that s Lodge, 1902, p. 231. 14 CITIZENSHIP chapter i n proceeding to form new States, to erect temporary * governments, to appoint officers for them, and to prescribe the conditions on which such States should be admitted into the confederacy, the Congress acted "without the least color of constitutional au- thority/' The justification for this action stated by him was : * ' The public interest, the necessity of the case, imposed upon them the task of overleaping their constitutional limits. " From this necessity of violating the constitutional authority, he proceeded to argue: "But is not the fact an alarming proof of the danger resulting from a government which does not possess regular powers commensurate to its objects? A dissolution or usurpation is the dreadful dilemma to which it is continually exposed. ' ' cont1nen f Whether the Continental Congress did or did not S*gfc possess power to enact the ordinances of 1787, the necessity that some one should take steps to that end was manifest to every one, and the action of the Continental Congress was not only acquiesced in by all the States, but the ordinance has come down to posterity as one of the wisest charts of govern- ment ever framed. This territory had come into the possession of the United States under the follow- ing circumstances: settlement When the treaty of peace was negotiated between territory. England and ^ United States, the boundary lying between the English possessions and the country whose independence was acknowledged, was fixed as running through the centres of Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Superior, and thence westward through the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi, whereby the vast and rich domain lying between the Great CITIZENSHIP 15 Lakes and tJie Ohio and Mississippi rivers became a part of the country acknowledged as independent. Settlers rapidly flocked to that territory, and condi- tions there called for the organization of some sort of political body for its government. Neither the Federal government, nor the State of Virginia, had been able to discharge their debts to Eevolutionary soldiers, and Virginia, before the cession of her ter- ritory to the United States, had issued many mili- tary land grants in this territory to her soldiers. When the Continental army at Newburg threatened to march upon Philadelphia in the year 1783, because it had not been paid, its violence was allayed by the assurances of General Washington that he would do all in his power to induce the government to make provision for discharging its obligations to the soldiers, in part at least, by military land grants in the Northwest Territory. Pursuant to that pledge, Congress did make large land grants in the North- west Territory, in that portion now known as Ohio, to Eevolutionary soldiers. After the armies were disbanded, large colonies of people from the original States promptly settled in the Ohio territory, under the leadership of Paul Carrington of Virginia, and General Eufus Putnam of Connecticut, and thus it came about that at the time of the passage of this famous ordinance, a considerable and representative body of unorganized people were in occupancy of the Northwest Territory, demanding some form of government and some right of representation. The ordinance passed by the Continental Con- gress, pursuant to this urgency, announced certain compact. fundamental articles, which were to rest upon any 16 CITIZENSHIP Chapter an( j a \i governments formed in the territory, and de- ! clared that the obligation to adopt these fundamental principles should be regarded as a compact between the original States and the people and States in said territory, and that, having been adopted, they should forever remain unalterable, unless by common con- sent. It will be noted, that Congress was so doubtful of its own powers, that it made the compact obligatory, not between the United States and the people of this territory, but between the original States and the people. righS cal and It i g unnecessary to enumerate at length the fun- sh^ e under damental principles laid down for the government of n h ance rdi " the Northwest Territory. 4 The Act provided for the erection of the territory into a district; for a law of descents; and for a form of civil government, Tinder a governor and secretary appointed by Con- gress. It gave the people of the territory the right to elect a general assembly by popular election. In prescribing the qualifications of a candidate, and of voters, it required that they should have been citi- zens of one of the United States for a certain time. It gave the territorial legislature the right to elect a delegate to Congress, who was to possess a seat with the right of debate, but no vote. Without going into further details of this government, it is sufficient to say that it was acceptable to the people and a remarkable spectacle of government. For the United States, which had no citizens of its own, undertook to * See the text of the Ordinance in Vol. 8, Federal Statutes, Anno- tated, p. 17. CITIZENSHIP create and erect a government of citizens, and to prescribe, to the minutest detail, their obligations of citizenship. It is inconceivable that the Continental Congress would have made the qualifications of can- didates and voters depend on their citizenship of one of the original States, if there had been such a thing at the time as citizenship of the United States. The only reference in the Ordinance of 1787 to "citizens of the United States" is in Article IV. That is manifestly a reference to conditions m futuro, made with the knowledge that the Constitu- tion was then in process of formation and likely to be adopted, whereby citizens of the United States would come into existence. Thus we have the second class of American citi- zenship, to wit, citizenship of the Northwest Terri- tory, both of which classes of citizenship antedated citizenship of the United States. Citizenship of t>Ke United States. When the Constitution was ratified by nine of the States composing the old confederacy, and not until then, was there an actual and real citizenship of the United States, however much the term may have been theretofore loosely employed. The States rati- fied the Constitution in the following order : 1. Delaware, December 7, 1787 ; 2. Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787 ; 3. New Jersey, December 18, 1787; 4. Georgia, January 2, 1788 ; 5. Connecticut , January 9, 1788 ; 6. Massachusetts, February 6, 1788; 7. Maryland, April 28, 1788; 2 18 CITIZENSHIP A new govern- ment and new class of citi- zens. 8. South Carolina, May 23, 1788; 9. New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. The Constitution provides, Article VII, that the ratification of the conventions of nine States should be sufficient for the establishment of the Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. The Con- stitution became an established form of government June 21, 1788, in nine States, and the remaining States, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Ehode Island, when they ratified it, came into a gov- ernment already established. This attitude of Vir- ginia and New York was a technical rather than an actual delay, for Virginia ratified the Constitution June 26, 1788, and New York July 26, 1788, and the operations of the government under the new Consti- tution did not begin until March 4, 1789. The radical changes in the form of the federal compact altered the status of the people subject to its jurisdiction, so that, whereas they had thereto- fore been only citizens of the States, they now be- came also citizens of the United States. 5 The first of these organic changes was the provision of Article VT, Clause 2, of the Constitution, which declared the laws of the United States made pursuant thereto, 5 " Every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new po- litical body." Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 406. " Whoever . . . was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, be- came ipso facto a citizen a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the people associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the, people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were." Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162. CITIZENSHIP and all treaties made under its authority, to be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the consti- tution or laws of any State to the contrary notwith- standing. In the next place, the government created by the Constitution was clothed with ample powers, inde- pendent of the States, to maintain itself, and to reach, command, direct, and, if need be, to punish, every individual subject to its jurisdiction. Without going into an enumeration of those powers, it is sufficient to say that the government created by the Constitution became a government with citizens of its own, and was no longer a mere government over States. Yet radical as was this change in the nature and constitution of the federal government, the new citizenship is referred to only three times in the en- tire instrument, as it was originally framed, and then only incidentally. The first reference is in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 2. In describing the qualifications of a member of the House of Eepre- sentatives, one of the qualifications was declared to be, that he should have been ' ' seven years a citizen of the United States." The second reference is in Article I, Section 3, Clause 3, which makes one of the qualifications of a senator, that he should have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." The third reference is in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which enacted that "no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." If these requirements had been literally con- 20 CITIZENSHIP Chapter formed to, there could have been no election for ' representatives to Congress for seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, and no one would have been eligible as a senator for nine years there- after. The language employed by the convention was less careful than that which had been used by Congress in July of the same year, in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Ter- ritory. Congress had made the qualification rest upon citizenship of "one of the United States, " and this was doubtless the intent of the convention which framed the Constitution, for it cannot have meant anything else. who were The silence of the Constitution and its failure to citizens conSitu ew define the meaning of the word citizen, either by way of inclusion or exclusion, has been the subject of much judicial comment. 6 Perhaps the best ex- pression concerning it is that of the Supreme Court of the United States, when it declares : "In this re- spect, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and his- tory of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution." 7 e Prior to the 14th article of amendment to the Federal Consti- tution no definition of the term " citizenship " was to be " found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by Act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals." Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 72. 7U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1897) 169 U. S. 654. " The term ' citizen ' was used in the Constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the sub- sisting common-law principle, in the section which defines the qualifi- cation of the President: 'No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' etc. The CITIZENSHIP 21 In the famous case of Dred Scott v. Sandford 8 it Chapter was said that the words "people of the United L States " and "citizens" are synonymous terms; that they "describe the political body which, accord- ing to our republican institutions, forms the sover- eignty which holds the power and conducts the gov- ernment through its representatives." Sundry opinions of the attorney-generals of the United States are to the same effect. In one of these, rendered in 1862, it is said: "The Constitu- tion of the United States does not declare who are and who are not citizens, nor does it attempt to describe the constituent elements of citizenship; it leaves that quality where it found it, resting on the fact of home birth and upon the laws of the several States." 9 It was not difficult to ascertain, on the principles above announced, who were citizens of the United States under the original Constitution. The citizens of Vermont and Kentucky, when those States were admitted, assumed their relations to the Union as naturally as did those of any of the original States. So, also, the citizens of the region now constituting only standard which then existed of a natural born citizen was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since." Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 656. " The term ' citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely anal- ogous 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 transferred 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.'" State v. Manuel, (1838) 4 Dev. & B. L. (N. Car.) 26, quoted U. S. v. Rhodes, (1866) 1 Abb. (U. S.) 39, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,151. s Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393. Citizenship, (1862) 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 382. 22 CITIZENSHIP Chapter five great States erected in the Northwest Territory : became citizens of the United States the instant the Constitution was adopted. 1 men e t r of ^ ^e Constitution, power was given Congress KbS- ies ' (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Under this power, the process of governing the Territories and organizing them into States was simplified. 2 i Admission on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, involves equality of constitutional right and power, which cannot afterwards be controlled, and it also involves the adop- tion as citizens of the United States of those whom Congress makes members of the political community, and who are recognized as such in the formation of the new State with the consent of Congress. Boyd v. Thayer, (1891) 143 U. S. 143. zM'Culloch V. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; Ameri- can Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; U. S. V. Gratiot, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 526; U. S. v. Rogers, (1846) 4 How. (U. S.) 567; Cross V. Harrison, (1853) 16 How. (U. S.) 164; U. S. v. Coxe, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 100; Gibson v. Chouteau, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 92; Clinton v. Englebrecht, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 434; Beale v. New Mexico, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 535. "The Constitution of the United States (article four, section three ) provides, * That Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, or other property, belonging to the United States/ The term territory, as here used, is merely descriptive of one kind of property; and is equivalent to the word lands. And Congress has the same power over it as over any other property belonging to the United States; and this power is vested in Congress without limitation; and has been considered the foundation upon which the territorial govern- ments rest." U. S. v. Gratiot, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 537. The Constitution empowers Congress "to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and perhaps the power of governing a terri- tory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result neces- sarily from the facts, that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular State, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable conse- CITIZENSHIP 23 By easy transition the territory acquired from Chapter France, known as the Louisiana Territory, and the - Florida cession from Spain, and the territory ac- quired from Mexico by conquest, were first gov- erned territorially. Under these territorial govern- ments the inhabitants made their first attornment as citizens of the United States to the Federal au- thority, and when the States created from this terri- tory were organized and admitted, they assumed their obligations of dual citizenship to State and Nation, of a nature and a quality identical with that of citizens of the old States. Besides these citizens, who became such in a body, a vast number of citizens of the United States were created under the powers of naturalization conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Among the first powers conferred upon Congress by Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, was "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." 3 Laws were passed, and the naturalized citizens admitted under these laws distributed themselves quence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unques- tioned." Per Chief Justice Marshall in American Ins. Co. v. 35S Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511. To the same effect, Sere v. Pitot, (1810) 6 Cranch (U. S.) 332. sQassies v. Ballon, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 761; Dred Scott r. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393; Minneapolis v. Reum, (C. C. A. 1893) 56 Fed. Rep. 580. See also the notes on the Constitution dealing with this subject in Vol. 8, Federal Statutes, Annotated, p. 579. "The Constitution declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. ... It made all alike, citizens of the newly organized nation, and in this respect a homogeneous people. And the very necessity for such a provision to bring all upon a common platform, exhibited in the strongest light the absolute need of guard- ing against different and discordant rules for establishing the right 24 CITIZENSHIP Chapter among the several State or Territorial comnm- nities of which they became members. But it did not follow as a necessary consequence that a naturalized citizen of the United States became also a citizen of any State or Territory. Stfon se Si The original Constitution remained unchanged whftf e jd concerning citizenship, from 1789 until July 28, 1868, habitants, when the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted. Before entering into a discussion of the effect upon citizenship, and the manner of en- forcement, of that amendment, a brief historical statement is necessary. i Even prior to the adoption of the Constitution, sectional jealousies existed between the States. The basis of representation in the national Congress was a fruitful source of controversy between them. The population of the northern colonies was almost ex- clusively white and free, whereas that of the south- ern colonies consisted, to a large extent, of black slaves. The extent to which this black population was to be considered in arranging a basis of repre- sentation gave rise to many of the controversies between the sections, at the outset. The basis of representation in Congress fixed by the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, ap- portioned representatives among the several States according to their respective numbers, which were to be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, three-fifths of all other persons, exclusive of Indians not taxed. of citizenship in future. We therefore find that one of the first powers conferred upon Congress was ' to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States/ " Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 641, 642. CITIZENSHIP 25 The Constitution conferred power on Congress Chapter to dispose of and make all needful rules and regu- L lations respecting the territory, or other property, under - the belonging to the United States. 4 It likewise con- "*" ferred upon Congress the power to admit new States into the Union. 5 The Constitution contained a provision that no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another State, should in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but that he should be delivered up on claim of such party to whom such service or labor might be due. 6 * Const., Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2; M'Culloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; U. S. v. Gratiot, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 526; U. S. v. Rogers, (1846) 4 How. (U. S.) 567; Cross v. Harrison, (1853) 16 How. (U. S.) 164; U. S. v. Coxe, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 100; Gibson V. Chouteau, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 92; Clinton v. Englebrecht, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 434; Beall v. New Mexico. (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 535; Davis v. Beason, (1890) 133 U. S. 333; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. V. Price County, (1890) 133 U. S. 496; Cope v. Cope, (1891) 137 U. S. 682; Church of Jesus Christ v. U. S., (1890) 136 U. S. 1; Dooley v. U. S., (1901) 182 U. S. 222; Downes v. Bidwell, (1901) 182 U. S. 244; Dooley v. U. S., (1901) 183 U. S. 151. s Const., Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 1 ; American Ins. .Co. v. 356 Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; Pollard v. Hagan, (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 212; Cross V. Harrison, (1853) 16 How. (U. S.) 164. e Const., Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 539; Jones v. Van Zandt, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 215 j Strader v. Graham, (1850) 10 How. (U. S.) 82; Moore v. Illi- nois, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 13; Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393; Ableman v. Booth, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 516; Callan V. Wilson, (1888) 127 U. S, 540; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Ala- bama, (1888) 128 U. S. 96. " Historically, it is well known that the object of this clause was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete right and title of ownership in their slaves, as property, in every State in the Union into which they might escape from the State where 26 CITIZENSHIP Chapter The relative strength of the sections North and South was altogether different at that time from lnd ere vilws w ^ a ^ ^ i g at P resen t 5 even the white population of and ^outh. the southern States, in which slavery existed, as compared with that of the northern States, where slavery did not exist, was proportionately larger than it is at present, and on the basis set forth above the northern States were jealous of the preponder- ance of representation given to the southern States. It was argued by those opposed to the Constitution in the North, that it placed the northern States, especially the small ones, at the mercy of the southern States, in the Union, It was this argu- ment, no doubt, that made Ehode Island reluctant to become a member of the Union. On the other hand, the southern States realized that the population of the North was growing much more rapidly than that of the South, and that it was spreading into the Ter- ritories and would demand that those Territories be formed into new States and admitted into the Union as free States. It was argued by those opposed to the Union in the South, that such a result was inevi- table; that in a short time the slaveholding States would be dominated by the free States of the North and West, and that they, by the control thus gained in Congress over the Territories and concerning the they were held in servitude. The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the security of this species of property in all the slaveholding States; and, indeed, was so vital to the preservation of their domestic interests and institutions, that it can- not be doubted that it constituted a fundamental article, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines and principles preva- lent in the non-slaveholding States, by preventing them from inter- meddling with, or obstructing, or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves." Prigg v. Pennsylvania, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 611. CITIZENSHIP 27 admission of free States, would put the slave States Chapter at the mercy of the free States in federal affairs. It - L was doubtless by arguments like this, that North Carolina was restrained so long from becoming a member of the Union. The Constitution contained no definite expression upon the right of the States to withdraw from the Union if they became dissatisfied. In spite of many attempts to have that right defined, the convention refused to do so. These conditions gave rise from the outset to such antagonism between the sections, that it was found impossible to procure the assent of Congress to the admission of new States, except in couplets, one with and one without slavery. This method of admitting States began with the States of Vermont and Kentucky, and continued until the controversies over the regulation of slavery in the Territories, the returning of fugitive slaves, and the right of States to secede, culminating in an attempt in the year 1861, on the part of the slave States, to withdraw from the Union, and a consequent civil war, in which the northern States were triumphant. While the controversy over slavery was at its |j tt Dred height, a case was decided by the Supreme Court of decision - the United States, in which the status of the negro race, under the Constitution, was defined. 7 The de- cision was rendered in the year 1857, and the ques- tion involved was deemed to be of such importance that the opinions delivered occupied two hundred and forty pages of the volume in which they appear. The points relating to citizenship decided by the 7Dred Scott V. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393. 28 CITIZENSHIP Supreme Court, in an opinion of great power deliv- ered by Chief Justice Taney, were : " A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. . . . When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as mem- bers of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its * people or citi- zens.' Consequently the special rights and im- munities guaranteed to citizens do not apply to them. . . . The only two clauses in the Consti- tution which point to this race treat them as per- sons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves." This finally adjudged status of the negro race continued to be the law of the land until it was changed by the following events. fnd ess ematt- In December, 1862, the war between the United States and the States which had attempted to secede from the Union, having then been flagrant for nearly two years, with its result still in doubt, the President of the United States issued a proclamation con- ditionally emancipating all the slaves in the States whose armed forces were opposed to those of the United States. By subsequent proclamations, this conditional emancipation of the slaves was made absolute. The President did not claim to justify this proclamation by any express warrant of the Consti- tution, but it was claimed by him to be a war meas- ure, legitimate as a means of weakening and injuring an enemy in arms. We need not therefore consider CITIZENSHIP 29 Chapter I. it further as a measure of law. It was emphatically a measure of the war. In April, 1865, the armies of the United States conquered the armies of the States which attempted ment ' to secede, and those States, with their people, were at the mercy of the conqueror, subject to such terms as it saw fit to impose. In anticipation of this vic- tory, the Congress of the United States, February 1, 1865, proposed to the legislatures of the several States an amendment, known as Article XIII, in ad- dition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States, in the words and figures following: "ARTICLE XIII. " SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ex- cept as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." 8 December 18, 1865, the secretary of state pro- Ratifica- tion of XIII s White v. Hart, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 646; Osborn v. Nichol- Amend- son, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 654; Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36; Strander v. West Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 303; Ex p. Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 339; Civil Rights Case, (1883) 109 U. S. 3; Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) 163 U. S. 537; 'Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897) 165 U. S. 275. " When the armies of freedom found themselves upon the soil of slavery they could do nothing less than free the poor victims whose enforced servitude was the foundation of the quarrel. . . . The proclamation of President Lincoln expressed an accomplished fact as to a large portion of the insurrectionary districts, when he de- clared slavery abolished in them all. But the war being over, those who had succeeded in re-establishing the authority of the Federal government were not content to permit this great act of emancipa- tion to rest on the actual results of the contest or the proclamation of the Executive, both of which might have been questioned in after times, and they determined to place this main and most valuable result in the Constitution of the restored Union as one of its funda- mental articles. Hence the thirteenth article of amendment of that instrument." Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 68. ment. 30 CITIZENSHIP Chapter claimed that twenty-seven of the thirty-six States ' had, by their legislatures, ratified this amendment. This included ratification by the legislatures of the States of Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia, all of which States had attempted to se- cede, and were completely within the control of the Federal military power at the date of their alleged ratification of this amendment. It has since been claimed that they were under duress at the time of their alleged ratifications, but the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of White v. Hart? con- sidered and disposed of this plea of duress, as it re- lated to the State of Georgia, in a way so effectual that it need not be further referred to. 1 Satuf ed ^ ne ne r having thus been emancipated by the negro. p 0wer O f war? an( j j^g status changed from that of a slave to a freeman, it was proposed, for reasons sat- isfactory to the dominant party, to alter his. civil and political status as it had been defined by the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Accordingly, the Congress of the iUnited States, on January 16, 1866, proposed to the legislatures of the several States the follow- ing amendment to the Constitution : 9 13 Wall. 646. 1 The power exercised in putting down the late rebellion is given expressly by the Constitution to Congress. That body made the laws and the President executed them. The granted power carried with it not only the right to use the requisite means, but it reached further and carried with it also authority to guard against the re- newal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils arising from it in so far as that could be effected by appropriate legislation. At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligation were unaffected and re- mained the same. White v. Hart, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 651. CITIZENSHIP 31 "ARTICLE XIV. " SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the The XIV United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State ment. shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdic- tion the equal protection of the laws." 2 The amendment contains three other sections, but none of them refer to citizenship. July 21, 1868, by a joint resolution of Congress, the Fourteenth Amendment was declared to have mSft nd been adopted. Not only did it work a revolution in the citizenship of the negro race, but its effect upon United States citizenship, upon the citizenship of 2 Among the first acts of legislation adopted by several of the States in the legislative bodies which claimed to be in their normal relations with the Federal government, were laws which imposed upon the colored race onerous disabilities and burdens, and curtailed their rights in the pursuit of life, liberty, and property to such an extent that their freedom was of little value, while they had lost the protection which they had received from their former owners from motives both of interest and humanity. . . . These circum- stances, whatever of falsehood or misconception may have been min- gled with their presentation, forced upon the statesmen who had conducted the Federal government in safety through the crisis of the rebellion, and who supposed that by the thirteenth article of amendment they had secured the result of their labors, the convic- tion that something more was necessary in the way of constitutional protection to the unfortunate race who had suffered so much. They accordingly passed through Congress the proposition for the four- teenth amendment, and they declined to treat as restored to their full participation in the government of the Union the States which had been in insurrection, until they ratified that article by a formal vote of their legislative bodies. Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 70. 32 CITIZENSHIP Chapter States, upon the status of every class of people in the United States, and upon the relations between the .United States and the States, has given rise to more discussion, and been the subject of more de- cisions, than any other part of the Federal Constitu- tion. 3 The Supreme Court of the United States alone has, in a period of thirty-five years, rendered about three hundred decisions on questions arising upon this amendment. To discuss those decisions at length is impossible within the limits of any one volume. Many of them relate to laws abridging the privileges and immuni- ties of citizens ; many to what constitutes due process of law ; many to the denial of the equal protection of the laws. A few, defining the reasons which led to the adoption of the amendment, and the effects of the amendment upon the rights of citizens, will suffice in this chapter, while others will be considered when we come to discuss the method by which this denned citizenship may be acquired or protected. In the Slaughter-House Cases* which were the first to arise under this amendment, and in which opinions of unsurpassed ability were rendered, it is said: "This clause declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born with- in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States." S laughter- House Cases. 3 See the exhaustive collection of authorities in Vol. 9, Federal Statutes, Annotated. * Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 73; to same effect see Elk v. Wilkins, (1884) 112 U. S. 101; U. S. V. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) 169 U. S. 676. CITIZENSHIP 33 And in the case of U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 5 it is Chapter again said: "The Fourteenth Amendment of the L Constitution, in the declaration that 'all persons ^Jg^im born or naturalized in the United States, and subject Ark - to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside/ con- templates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturali- zation can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizen- ship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." "The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, 'All persons born in the United States,' by the addition, 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, 7 would ap- pear to have been to exclude by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic repre- sentatives of a foreign state both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England, and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." . S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) 169 U. S. 682. 34 CITIZENSHIP Chapter Qualified Citizenship in Territorial and Acquired L / Possessions. Eecent events, the result of which was not fore- seen, have created an entirely new and unprecedented citizenship in the United States. It is the limited and rudimentary citizenship of the inhabitants of our newly acquired territory in Alaska, Porto Eico, the Philippine and the Ladrone Islands, and in Hawaii. The status of those citizens is the result of changed conditions in the territory which they in- habit. The oldest of these possessions is Alaska, purchased by the United States from Eussia, and governed as a Territory. The latest expression of the Supreme Court of the United States, defining the status of Alaskan citizenship, is in an opinion deliv- ered April 10, 1905. 6 In April, 1898, the United States declared war acquired. against the Kingdom of Spain, in a quarrel between the two nations concerning the government by Spain of the island of Cuba, a Spanish possession. In May, 1898, the naval forces of the United States in- vaded the Philippine Islands, another Spanish pos- session, soon followed by the land forces of the United States. In July, 1898, the military forces of the United States invaded the island of Porto Eico, another Spanish possession. By a protocol dated August 12, 1898, 7 hostilities were suspended between the United States and Spain, upon the understand- ing that Spain would cede to the United States the island of Porto Eico, and other islands under Span- Rassmussen v. U. S., (1905) 197 U. S. 516 7 U. S. Stat. at L., Vol. 30, p. 1742. CITIZENSHIP 35 ish sovereignty in the West Indies, also an island in the Ladrones to be selected by the United States. By a treaty dated December 10, 1898, 8 Spain ac- Treaties tually ceded to the United States the island of Porto JRico, and the other islands under Spanish sover- eignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Ladrone group, and by the same treaty she ceded to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, by boundaries. Provision was made in the treaty for the protection of Spanish subjects, natives of the peninsula residing in the ceded territory, for the protection of the religion of the inhabitants of the territories ceded, and for the protection of certain civil rights. By a treaty dated November 7, 1900, 9 Spain ceded all islands be- longing to the Philippine archipelago, lying outside the lines described in the prior treaty, particularly the islands of Sulu and Sibitu. By a protocol dated March 29, 1900, 1 the period fixed by the former treaty for Spanish subjects to declare their intention to retain their Spanish na- tionality was extended six months. Thus, within a year from the outbreak of the war with Spain, the United States acquired all the above- named islands, with many millions of inhabitants, and undertook by Article IX of the Treaty of De- cember 10, 1898, that "the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress." While these events were transpiring the Eepublic s See U. S. Stat. at L., Vol. 30, p. 1755, 7 Fed. Stat. Annot. 814. U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 31, p. 1942, 7 Fed. Stat. Annot. 819. i U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 31, p. 1882, 7 Fed. Stat. Annot. 818. ^;^>? ITY 36 CITIZENSHIP Chapter o f Hawaii, whose government extended over a group . of islands in the Pacific, known as the Hawaiian Islands, formally signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution, to cede absolutely and without reservation to the United States of America, all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands or their dependencies, and also to cede and transfer to the United States the ab- solute fee and ownership of all public, government, or crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto apper- taining. This proposition was presented to the Con- gress of the United States, and accepted July 7, 1898, by a joint resolution, 2 which provided that "said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are hereby, annexed as a part of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereign dominion thereof, and that all and singu- lar the property and rights hereinbefore mentioned are vested in the United States of America." Senfp'f It was further provided that "until Congress shall provide for the government of such islands all the civil, judicial, and military powers exercised by the officers of the existing government in said islands shall be vested in such person or persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacan- 2 U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 30, p. 750, 3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 183. CITIZENSHIP 37 cies so occasioned." The municipal legislation of the Hawaiian Islands, subject to certain limitations, was to remain in force until the Congress of the United States should otherwise determine. The United States government assumed the debts of the islands, not to exceed $4,000,000. An act was passed forbidding the immigration of Chinese. The President was required to appoint five commission- ers to recommend to Congress such legislation con- cerning the Hawaiian Islands as they should deem necessary or proper. 3 Thus it will be seen, that in the year 1898 the United States gained an immense accession of citi- zenship in territory lying far beyond its original confines, inhabited by people altogether different from those who had constituted its citizens thereto- fore. It will also be seen, both in the joint resolu- tion accepting sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands, and in the treaty accepting the cession of the Spanish possessions, that the United States assumed complete authority to govern all the newly acquired territory. Let us now consider what government it has, up to the present time, provided for these several pos- sessions, an examination essential to an understand- ing of the grade and quality of citizenship which their inhabitants enjoy. Hawaii Its Government. Congress, by an Act approved April 30, 1900, 4 passed an Act to provide a government for the Terri- 3 See title " Hawaiian Islands," in Vol. 3, Fed. Stat. Annot. 181. *U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 31, p. 141, 3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 186. 38 CITIZENSHIP Chapter tory of Hawaii. In Chapter I, Section 4, of that Act, '. it was set forth that all persons who were citizens of the Eepublic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii; and all citizens of the United States residing in the Ha- waiian Islands, and who were residing there on or since August 12, 1898, and all citizens of the United States who shall hereafter reside in the Territory of Hawaii for one year, shall be citizens of the Terri- tory of Hawaii. The fifth section declared that the Constitution and laws of the United States, except such as are locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect in the Territory as elsewhere in the United States, with certain specific exceptions. The Act provides for a legislature composed of a senate and a house of representatives, for general elections, and that all legislative proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. It confers a large degree of legislative power upon the legisla- ture, and extends a broad franchise to all inhabitants who are citizens of the United States and have re- sided in the Territory not less than a year, twenty- one years old, registered, and able to speak, read, and write the English or the Hawaiian language. It pro- vides, however, for the appointment by the President of the {United States of a governor, secretary, chief justice and justices of the Supreme Court, and judges of the circuit courts ; and that the governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and con- sent of the senate of the Territory appoint, an attor- ney-general, treasurer, commissioner of public lands, commissioner of agriculture and forestry, super- CITIZENSHIP 39 intendent of public works, superintendent of public instruction, auditor, and other officers; but all the officers appointed under the Act are to be citizens of the Territory. By the terms of the Act, Section 85, the delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve during each Congress, shall be elected by the voters qualified to vote for members of the house of representatives of the legislature; such delegate shall possess the qualifications neces- sary for membership of the senate of the legisla- ture of Hawaii. Every delegate shall have a seat in the United States House of Eepresentatives, with the right of debate but not of voting. From the foregoing recital of the Constitution and government of Hawaii, it will be seen that the government organized in that Territory is very sim- ilar in its general characteristics to that organized in the Northwest Territory by the Ordinance of 1787. Porto Rico. Congress proceeded April 12, 1900, to enact a civil of he Apr C n government for the island of Porto Eico and adja- cent islands. 5 The Act provides that all inhabitants continuing to reside in Porto Eico, who were Spanish subjects on the llth day of April, 1899, and then re- sided in Porto Eico, and their children born subse- quent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of Porto Eico, and as such entitled to the protec- tion of the United States, and they, together with such citizens of the United States as may reside in Porto Eico, shall constitute a body politic under the name of The People of Porto Eico, with governmental BU. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 31, p. 77, etc., 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 761. 40 CITIZENSHIP Chapter powers as conferred in the Act. ^By Section 14, the statutory laws of the United States not locally inap- plicable, except as otherwise provided, and except the internal-revenue laws, are to have the same force and effect in Porto Eico as in the United States. Section 16 provides that all judicial pro- cess shall run in the name of the United States, to wit, the President of the United States, and that all penal prosecutions in the local courts shall be conducted in the name and under the authority of the people of Porto Eico, and that all officials author- ized by the Act shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the laws of Porto Eico. The legislative authority provided by the Act ii al p p rto er was empowered to amend, alter, modify, or repeal any law or ordinance, civil or criminal. Congress, however, retained the right in the President to appoint a governor and other executive officers and members of an executive council. The leg- islative body consists of the executive coun- cil and the house of delegates, and is known as the Legislative Assembly of Porto Eico; the house of delegates comprises thirty-five members elected biennially by the qualified voters from the seven districts into which the island is divided. All citizens of Porto Eico, bona fide residents for a year, and possessed of other qualifications under the laws and military orders, are allowed to vote. The legis- lative authority extends to all matters of a legisla- tive character not locally inapplicable, including the power to create, consolidate, and reorganize the mu- nicipalities, and to amend, alter, modify, or repeal all CITIZENSHIP laws and ordinances of Porto Eico, not inconsistent with the provisions of the bill. A judicial power is created, but the judges are appointed by the Presi- dent of the United States, and Porto Eico is made a judicial district for the purposes of Federal juris- diction, with appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. The writ of habeas corpus is ex- tended to the Territory, and a commission was appointed to compile and revise the laws of Porto Eico and report a permanent plan of government within a year. By acts passed in 1902, a cadet at West Point and a midshipman at Annapolis are authorized from the Territory of Porto Eico, 6 and citizens of Porto Eico are made eligible for enlistment in the Porto Eico regiment, with the right to order them outside the service of the island. By a proclamation dated July 25, 1901, the Presi- dent declared that the civil government of Porto Eico had been organized in accordance with the pro- visions of the Act of Congress. 7 From the foregoing, it will be seen that the gov- 5>to e f ernment of Porto Eico is even more like that pro- ?rnm n en?. v " vided for the Northwest Territory, than the govern- ment of Hawaii, as the legislative body of Porto Eico consists of an executive council appointed by the President to act in conjunction with the house of delegates /but the acknowledgment that the inhab- itants of Porto Eico are citizens of the United States is expressly withheld in the declaration of the Act of Congress of April 12, 1900, Section 7, /which says U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 32, Part 1, pp. 1011, 1198, 934. 7 U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 32, Part, 2, p. 1983. 42 CITIZENSHIP Chapter that all inhabitants continuing to reside therein who ! were Spanish subjects on the llth day of April, 1899, and then resided in Porto Eico, and their children born subsequent thereto, should be deemed and held to be citizens of Porto Eico and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, and they, to- gether with such citizens of the United States as may reside in Porto Eico, shall constitute a body politic under the name of The People of Porto Eico. Guam. No special provision of law seems to have been enacted concerning the inhabitants of the island of Guam, or defining the status of their citizenship. The Philippine Islands. M h a e rch ct 2 f The Philippine Islands occupy an immense space upon the map. Their inhabitants consist of a vast number of tribes, varying in intelligence and civili- zation. By an Act of Congress passed March 2, 1901, the President of the United States was author- ized to establish a temporary civil government over the Philippine Islands, 8 in the following language: "All military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the Philippine Islands, acquired from Spain by the treaties concluded at Paris on the 10th day of December, 1898, and at Washington on the 7th day of November, 1900, shall, until otherwise provided by Congress, be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the Presi- dent of the United States shall direct, for the es- tablishment of civil government and for maintaining s See U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 31, p. 910, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 711. CITIZENSHIP 43 and protecting the inhabitants of said islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and re- ligion, " etc. Pursuant to the powers vested in him, the Presi- ent rn ~ dent of the United States created a civil commission, which has, from that time until the present, con- on mi tinned to administer the affairs of the Philippine Islands. By an Act passed July 1, 1902, Congress 9 ap- proved and ratified and confirmed the action of the President in creating the Philippine Commission, and in authorizing the commission to exercise the powers of government to the extent and in the man- ner and form and subject to the regulation and con- trol set forth in the instructions of the President to the Philippine Commission dated April 7, 1900; in creating the offices of civil governor and vice-gov- ernor of the Philippine Islands, and authorizing said civil governor and vice-governor to exercise the powers of government to the extent and in the man- ner and form set forth in the executive order dated June 21, 1901, and in establishing four executive de- partments of government in the islands, as set forth in the Act of the Philippine Commission. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the organization of that commission. It is sufficient to say that it was organized for the purpose of securing to the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands a stable and safe government by the United States until such time as its people shall be deemed capable of a larger degree of self-government. U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. 32, Part 1, p. 691, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 718. 44 CITIZENSHIP Congress by the Act of July 1, 1902, Section 5, 1 provided a series of safeguards for the protection The Act of of life and liberty of the inhabitants of the Philip- Sis in pines. The rights guaranteed by that section are ippiifes! 1 " those set forth in the Declaration of Independence, modified by the condition of the inhabitants. Among those rights are, the guarantee that no per- son shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; the right of the criminal to be heard by himself and counsel and to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; the guar- antee that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense or be compelled to testify against himself ; the right to bail ; that no law shall be passed impairing the obligation of contracts; that there shall be no imprisonment for debt; that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended; that no ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be passed ; in fact, all the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. ?wiS?pinc f Section 4 2 of the Act declares that all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside there- in who were Spanish subjects on the llth day of April, 1899, and then resided in said islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States. It expressly fails to declare that they shall be deemed citizens of the United States. Section 6 3 provides for a census. i 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 719. 2 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 719. 85 Fed. Stat. Annot. 720. CITIZENSHIP 45 Section 7 4 provides for a general election two chapter years after the completion of the census, on certain _ _ conditions, to choose delegates to a popular assem- bly, and that after such assembly shall have convened ly. assem and organized, the legislative power theretofore conferred on the Philippine Commission in all that part of the islands not inhabited by Moros and non- Christian tribes should be vested in a legislature consisting of two houses, the Philippine Commis- sion and the Philippine Assembly. The qualifica- tion of electors shall be the same as now provided by law in the case of electors in municipal elections. The act contains sundry other provisions looking to an enjoyment of the rights of citizenship for the inhabitants of the islands. By the same Act a Bureau of Insular Affairs of ? n u f a u r of the War Department is created. The business as- signed to that bureau embraces all matters relating to the civil government in the island possessions of the United States, subject to the jurisdiction of the War Department. Under the foregoing acts, a most thorough and Senf^en- efficient government has been provided for the S^bflip. Philippine Islands. There is little doubt that the inhabitants of Hawaii, Porto Rico, and the Philip- pines are better governed than they were before, and with the humane and gentle tyranny to which the inhabitants of the Philippines are subjected by the United States, they are doubtless being stim- ulated to a degree of intelligent conception of our ideals of liberty and self-government, and to a *5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 720. 46 CITIZENSHIP Chapter standard of civilization much higher than they ever L heretofore conceived. Citizenship in Our Insular Possessions. These ends may be invoked to justify the means employed, but four facts concerning the inhabitants of Porto Eico, the Philippines, and Guam remain undisputed, as follows: 1. That the United States commands their alle- giance. 2. That they never did voluntarily assume that allegiance. 3. That the qualified citizenship, the restricted liberty, and the limited right of self-government which they possess, are of a nature far inferior to those enjoyed by the inhabitants of the continent of North America who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 4. That both the qualified citizenship conferred upon them and the form of government imposed upon them are different from any citizenship or gov- ernment that was contemplated by the framers of the Constitution of the United States, when it was proposed and adopted. As a legal proposition, there can be little doubt of the power of the United States to acquire all these possessions, and of the obligation resting upon it to govern them wisely and judiciously after acquir- ing them. Tlie Supreme Court of the United States has had coSrt. me occasion to consider and define the status of these islands. A careful study of the case of DeLima v. Bidwell? and the group of cases in the same B (1901) 182 U. S. 1. CITIZENSHIP 47 volume collectively designated as the "insular tariff Chapter cases, " is recommended to the student who is ! particularly interested in this subject. The argu- ments and the decisions rendered place the reader in full possession of the facts and circumstances under which these possessions were acquired, the status of the people as regards the United States, the nature of the governments under which their affairs are administered, and the constitutional pro- visions, civil and military, relied upon to justify and sustain the United States in the government it has established. Not the least surprising result of such a study will be the discovery of a great divergence of opinion among the learned and able lawyers who compose the Supreme Court of the United States, concerning the ground on which the right of the United States to govern these people rests, and the status of their inhabitants as citizens of the govern- ment of the United States. By far the ablest and most concise statement of the law, justifying the acquisition of these islands and sustaining the au- thority of Congress to define and determine the status of their inhabitants, is found in the concur- ring opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, in the case of Downes v. Bidwell* The power granted to the United States to make f h e 1 Source of the power war and make treaties, unquestionably involved the and a gov- ire crn. right to acquire these territories by conquest, and the power to govern them seems to be a necessary incident of the power to acquire them. 7 The semi- e (1901) 182 U. S. 345. t Sere v. Pitot, (1810) 6 Cranch (U. S.) 332; American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; Dred Scott v. Sand- ford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393; Stewart v. Kahn, (1870) 11 48 CITIZENSHIP Chapter barbarous inhabitants of the Philippines, at least, ' have everything to gain and nothing to lose, from the protection and qualified citizenship accorded to them by the American Eepublic, but the wisdom of assumption by the United States of this class of guardianship over outlying territory has given rise to much debate. dons " and ^e territorial government heretofore exercised arguments.. ^ y ^ United States over national territory con- tiguous to the States was a temporary government, It was only intended to last, and only lasted, until the new settlers, flowing from the States into the organized Territories, attained such numbers and other requisites as justified their organization into new States. In such cases the transition from the territorial condition into Statehood was easy, rapid, and sure. The difference in the nature and quality of the citizenship between inhabitants of Territories and those of States was only a difference in name, and State citizenship only brought with it a few added political rights. But there can be no such progressive development and rapid growth to in- dependence of Federal supervision in these insular acquisitions. Possession of them involves the neces- sary strengthening of our naval power, and an in- creased danger of foreign complications. Their in- habitants are of an alien stock which has never comprehended our ideals of government, or had any conception of the principles of republican liberty or Wall. (U. S.) 507; Shively v. Bowlby, (1894) 152 U. S. 48; De Lima v. Bidwell, (1901) 182 U. S. 196; Dowries v. Bidwell, (1901) 182 U. S. 250; U. S. v. Nelson, (1886) 29 Fed. Rep. 204, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 115; Gardiner v. Miller, (1874) 47 Cal. 575; Franklin v. U. S., (1867) 1 Colo. 38. CITIZENSHIP 49 democratic self-rule, such as we have understood and Chapter practiced. If they are ever able to comprehend - them, it will only be after generations, if not cen- turies, of paternal rule and education to elevate them to our standard. It is doubtful if they will ever as- similate to our institutions and whether they will not always need a strong government. It is question- able whether the injury to our home government from the ill effects on its simplicity resulting from this practice of strong government upon our alien subjects will not be greater than any benefit which we are likely to bestow on them. These are the arguments which have arisen against the inaugura- tion of this new insular policy and the adoption of this surprising new citizenship. In a treatise like this, it is sufficient to state the argument without attempting to draw conclusions. What these in- sular governments may some day become, the future alone will disclose. At present, they are substan- tially citizens without a voice in their government, and subjects without a king. They are free, pro- vided they conform to the standard of right and wrong fixed for them by a well-meaning and benevo- lent despot, fixed from a viewpoint altogether differ- ent from their own. The United States had its birth in the protest of Henry against the dictation of foreign rulers. Sum- ming up and denouncing the usurpations of King George, he said: "If this be treason, make the most of it." The nation which sprung into being upon this issue has now become the foreign ruler of an alien people by conquest. It has assumed to revo- lutionize their mode of existence, mental, moral, 4 50 CITIZENSHIP Chapter physical, and political. In its determination to bear L__ the torch of liberty to the remotest people of the earth, it has marched among them, planted its stand- ard, proclaimed its rule, and answered their every protest with the announcement, ' ' This is liberty, and you must make the most of it." History will record the success or failure of the experiment. This completes the enumeration of the different kinds of citizenship existing under our system of government. CHAPTER H. HOW AMEBICAN CITIZENSHIP MAY BE ACQUIBED O. IN THE NATION. By Birth. />/*^* PURSUANT to the provisions of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Federal statutes provide as fol- lows: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. "* This language has been held to include a person citizens by birth. born in the United States of parents of Chinese de- scent and subjects of the Emperor of China, they be- ing at the time of his birth domiciled residents, en- gaged in business in the United States. 2 It has also been held to embrace the half-breed children of a iRev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 1992, 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 785; The Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 83 U. S. 36; In re Rodriguez, (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 353. " While this amendment . . . was intended primarily for the benefit of the negro race, it also confers the right of citizenship upon persons of all other races, white, yellow, or red, born or natu- ralized in the United States, and * subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The language has been held to embrace even Chinese, to whom the laws of naturalization do not extend." In re Rodriguez, (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 353. 2U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) 169 U. S. 649; Citizenship, etc., (1884) 21 Fed. Rep. 905; Lee Sing Far v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1899) 94 Fed. Rep. 834; In re Yung Sing Hee, (1888) 36 Fed. Rep. 437; In re Giovanna, (1899) 93 Fed. Rep. 659; In re Wy Shing, (1888) 36 Fed. Rep. 553; Ex p. Chin King, (1888) 35 Fed. Rep. 354. 51 52 CITIZENSHIP white father and an Indian mother living apart from her tribe, born within the United States, reared and educated as other children of citizens ; 3 and even under the XIII Amendment colored persons were held to be citizens. 4 But an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States does not, merely by reason of his birth in the United States and his separation from his tribe and resi- dence among white citizens, become a citizen. 5 A negro born in slavery and afterwards becoming a 3U. S. v. Hadley, (1900) 99 Fed. Rep. 437; U. S. V. Ward, (1890) 42 Fed. Rep. 320; U. S. v. Higgins, (1901) 110 Fed. Rep. 609, distinguishing U. S. v. Higgins, (1900) 103 Fed. Rep. 348. See also Farrell v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1901) 110 Fed. Rep. 942; Ex p. Rey- nolds, (1879) 5 Dill. (U. S.) 394. * Hall v. De Cuir, (1877) 95 U. S. 509. See also U. S. v. Rhodes, (1866) 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 27 Fed. Gas. No. 16,151. 5 Elk v. Wilkins, (1884) 112 U. S. 94; U. S. v. Osborne, (1880) 6 Sawy. (U. S.) 406; U. S. v. Boyd, (C. C. A. 1897) 83 Fed. Rep. 547. " Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geo- graphical sense born in the United States, are no more * born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign na- tions. . . . Such Indians, then, not being citizens by birth, can only become citizens in the second way mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment, by being ' naturalized in the United States/ by or under some treaty or statute." Elk v. Wilkins, (1884) 112 U. S. 94. By Act of Congress, of Feb. 8, 1887, every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States to whom allotments of land shall have been made under the provisions of the act, or under any law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is declared to be a citizen of the United States and entitled to all the rights, privi- leges, and immunities of such citizens. U. S. v. Kopp, (1901) 110 CITIZENSHIP 53 citizen of the Cherokee Nation has been held to be Chapter not an Indian. 6 IL By special enactment, all persons born in the country formerly known as the Territory of Oregon and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States on the 18th day of May, 1872, are declared citizens of the United States. 7 By Naturalization. We have already seen that the power to enact a uniform system of naturalization laws was among the first bestowed upon Congress by the Constitu- tion. Naturalization is defined to be the act of adopting K at - may a foreigner and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen. 8 The power of naturalization is vested exclusively in Congress by the Constitu- Fed. Rep. 160; In re Celestine, (1902) 114 Fed. Rep. 553; State V. Denoyer, (1897) 6 N. Dak. 586. See also U. S. v. Boyd, (C. C. A. 1897) 83 Fed. Rep. 547. e Alberty V. U. S., (1896) 162 U. S. 499. The term " Indian " is one descriptive of race, and therefore men of other races who are adopted into an Indian tribe do not thereby become Indians. They may by such adoption become en- titled to certain privileges in the tribe, and make themselves amen- able to its laws and usages. Yet they are not Indians. Respon- sibility to the laws of the United States cannot thus be thrown off, and a right acquired to be treated by the government and its officers as if they were Indians born. U. S. v. Rogers, (1846) 4 How. (U. S.) 567. See also Westmoreland v. U. S., (1895) 155 U. S. 545; Roff v. Burney, (1897) 168 U. S. 218; Raymond v. Raymond, (C. C. A. 1897) 83 Fed. Rep. 721. 7 Rev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 1995, 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 788. sBouvier's Law Dictionary. Osborn v. U. S. Bank, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 827; Boyd V. Thayer, (1892) 143 U. S. 162; Post- master at New Orleans, (1858) 9 Op. Atty.-Gen., 259; Minneapolis V. Reum, (1893) 12 U. S. App. 446; Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.), Vol. 6, p. 19. 54 CITIZENSHIP Chapter tion, and cannot be exercised by the State. 9 Al- ! though the power to enact naturalization laws ex- isted from the time the Constitution went into effect in 1789, the earliest Act of Congress on the subject of naturalization was passed April 14, 1802, thir- teen years after the Constitution went into effect. Under the last named Act and sundry amendments, admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons was provided for, to wit: First, aliens who had resided for a certain time within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, to be naturalized individually by pro- ceedings in a court of record. 1 Second, the children of persons so naturalized dwelling within the United States and being under U. S. v. Villato, (1797) 2 Dall. (Pa.) 373; Thurlow v. Massa- chusetts, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 504; Smith v. Turner, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 283; Chiracs. Chirac, (1817) 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 269; Collet v. Collet, (1792) 2 Dall. (U. S.) 294; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) 169 U. S. 649. That the exercise of the power to pass naturalization laws by the State governments is incompatible with the grant of a power to Congress to pass uniform laws on that subject, is obvious, from the consideration that the former would be dissimilar and frequently contradictory; whereas the system is directed to be uniform, which can only be rendered so by the exclusive power in one body to form them. Golden v. Prince, (1814) 3 Wash. (U. S.) 313. Our foreign intercourse being exclusively committed to the gen- eral government, it is peculiarly their province to determine who are entitled to the privileges of American citizens, and the protec- tion of American government. And the citizens of any one State being entitled by the Constitution to enjoy the rights of citizenship in every other State, that fact creates an interest in this particular in each other's acts, which does not exist with regard to their bank- rupt laws; since State acts of naturalization would thus be extra- territorial in their operation, and have an influence on the most vital interests of other States. Ogden V. Saunders, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 277. i See U. S. Rev. Stat., Title XXX, Sec. 2165, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 200. CITIZENSHIP 55 the age of twenty-one at the time of such natural!- zation. 2 Third, foreign-born children of American citizens coming within the definitions prescribed by Con- gress. 3 Length of Residence Necessary. As early as 1813 Congress enacted that an alien, to be entitled to admission as a citizen, must have resided within the United States for a continuous term of five years. 4 This general provision is modi- fied by several special enactments, as follows : An alien who has enlisted and has been honorably discharged from the regular volunteer forces of the army of the United States is not required to prove more than one year's residence. 5 A seaman being a foreigner who declares his in- tention of becoming a citizen and then serves three years aboard a merchant vessel of the United States is entitled to be admitted. 6 An alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise : 7 First, a preliminary declaration of intention must t? e n la of "in- be made. It must be made at least two years prior to his admission to citizenship. It must be made under oath before a circuit or district court of the (United States or a district or supreme court of the 2 See U. S. Rev. Stat., Title XXX, Sec. 2172, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 209. a U. S. Rev. Stat., Title XXX, Sec. 1993, 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 786. *U. S. Rev. Stat., Title XXX, Sec. 2170, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 208. 5 U. S. Rev. Stat., Sec. 2166, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 205. eU. S. Rev. Stat., Sec. 2174, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 210. TU. S. Rev. Stat., Sec. 2165, 5 Fed. Stat. Annot. 200. 56 CITIZENSHIP Chapter Territories, or a court of record of any of the States ' having common-law jurisdiction, 8 and a seal and a clerk. 9 The declaration must state that it is the bona fide intention of the applicant to become a citi- zen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, poten- tate, state, or sovereignty, particularly by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which 8 Congress has power to confer and the State courts authority to accept and exercise the power to naturalize aliens. Levin v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1904) 128 Fed. Rep. 826; Croesus Min, etc., Co. v. Colorado Land, etc., Co., (1884) 19 Fed. Rep. 78. A State court is the judicial agency of the Federal Government in such proceed- ings. People v. Sweetman, (Supm. Ct. Gen. T. 1857, 3 Park. Crim. (N. Y.) 374; In the Matter of Christern, (1878) 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 523. Congress cannot constrain a State court to exercise this juris- diction, and the State legislatures may, if they see fit, limit or re- strain the exercise of this jurisdiction by the State courts. Rush- worth v. Judges, (1895) 58 N. J. L. 97; Ex p. Knowles, (1855) 5 Cal. 300; Matter of Ramsden, (N. Y. Super. Ct. Spec. T. 1857) 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 429. Concerning the meaning of " having common-law jurisdiction " see Levin v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1904) 128 Fed. Rep. 826; U. S. v. Power, <1877) 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 223; Gladhill, Petitioner, (1844) 8 Met. I joyed by citizens of the States composing the origin of United States, whether as citizens of the rights, fegS and States or of the United States, originated in rights possessed or claimed by the inhabitants of the thir- teen American colonies, while they were dependen- cies of Great Britain. The struggle of the Ameri- can colonists for independence was based upon the claim that they were denied, by the parent govern- ment, rights, privileges, and immunities which were their common heritage as British freemen, or which had from time to time been granted specifically to the American colonies. No written chart in existence, then or now, has ever attempted to enumerate, classify, and define in one succinct expression, the rights, liberties, and franchises possessed by English subjects, nor is it the purpose of this volume to attempt to do that. It is sufficient to say that the liberties and right of self-government of the British people, beginning with the declarations of Magna Charta, have been ascer- tained and declared from time to time, during six centuries of conflict between the people of the Brit- ish realm and their successive sovereigns, until they are now well established and quite thoroughly under- stood. 92 CITIZENSHIP 93 Notwithstanding the British people have retained Chapter in their government the form of a limited monarchy, they have established for themselves, as against their constitutional monarch, a measure of popular sov- united the ereignty and personal liberty as great as that pos- sessed by any other people in the world. Our boast is that ours is a free republic; that it is doubtful whether, although we have a president instead of a king, and a supreme court with certain power to control both executive and legislative action, the King of England, on the whole, possesses as much independent authority as the President of the United States. Although the struggle of the American colonists }**? was based upon the claim that the parent govern- Colonies - ment denied the inhabitants of the colonies the guar- anteed rights of British citizens, the American colo- nists, even under British dominion, were accorded and actually enjoyed many rights, privileges, and franchises, peculiar to themselves, not enjoyed by Englishmen at home, or even of British origin; some of which have not, to this day, been adopted in their entirety in England. Source of American Plan of Government and Rights of Citizenship. Many of the declarations of popular rights set c e e >" forth in the American Declaration of Independence Holland were of rights which were not of English origin. The American colonists had become familiar with the rights of citizenship possessed in other countries, both from the fact that some of them resided in Hol- land for a time, before they came to America, and 94 CITIZENSHIP Chapter from the further fact that the New York colony was essentially Dutch in its original settlement and gov- ernment. It is plain to see, by comparison with other historic documents, that the Declaration of In- dependence of 1776 was modeled, to a large extent, not upon English precedents, but upon the written constitution of the Netherlands Republic, called 11 The Union of Utrecht, " of 1579. The manifesto issued by the rebels at the time of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia in 1676 contains much from the same source. The Union of Utrecht and Bacon's Rebellion antedated, one by one hundred years and the other by three years, the Exclusion Act of 1679, by which James II of England was deposed, and which, by some writers, has been referred to as the source from which the claims set forth in the Declaration of Independence were derived. Nor did the American ideas of a written con- fro r m e En g - stitution and a supreme court emanate altogether instances, from Englishmen. They were the results of the cooperative labors of Puritans and Cavaliers, Dutch- men, Huguenots, and Scotch-Irishmen, assembled in convention in America, working for a common end, upon models derived from many countries with whose governments they were familiar. For exam- ple, the demand for the separation of Church and State, which is a leading tenet of American govern- ment, is not of British origin. Virginia was fore- most in this contention. She abolished tithes and forfeited glebe lands. The change was brought about through the influence of Patrick Henry, a Scotch dissenter; and of Thomas Jefferson, a man CITIZENSHIP 95 of Welsh origin, with views derived from a study chapter of Dutch precedents. ! So, too, the abolition of privileged classes was distinctly anti-English. The American system of land tenures, the aboli- tion of entails and primogenitures, and our methods of transfer of real estate, are all anti-English in prosecu- 7 tors. their origin. Entails and primogenitures were cher- ished institutions of England. Our system of trans- ferring real estate by the registration of deeds came from Holland, and has not, even to the present day, been fully adopted in England. Our laws govern- ing the transfer of personal property and our whole system of mercantile law are adaptations of Conti- nental and Koman methods, modified so as to make them applicable to our modern conditions. We owe nothing to England for our system of elections or for our public prosecutors. The idea of a public prosecutor or commonwealth's attorney came from Holland. Our system of charitable institutions, hospitals, and prisons is not modeled upon English prece- dents. The charitable institutions, hospitals, and prisons of the colonies antedated those in England. The first of these established in the American colo- nies were copied from Dutch models, and the admir- able system now existing in England is derived largely from a study and adoption of those which were first established in the Dutch colony of New York and in the Quaker colony of Pennsylvania. So, too, the American citizen derived his princi- Religious toleration. pies of religious toleration, not from England, but from the Dutch. As late as 1663, when the repre- 96 CITIZENSHIP chapter sentatives of the Crown in the English colonies were, under orders from England, persecuting Quakers and Anabaptists and demanding that they take the oath of allegiance and conformity or suffer punish- ment; when Puritans were driving Pilgrims from Massachusetts into Ehode Island, and Virginians placing the King's broad arrow on the houses of dissenters in Maryland, the Dutch colony of New York was receiving orders from Amsterdam pro- claiming that the conscience of men ought to remain free. The orders read: "Let every one remain free as long as he is modest, moderate, his political conduct irreproachable, and as long as he does not offend others or oppose the government." 1 This was twenty years before Penn came to America, and, even after he came, the Scotch-Irish and Germans were driven from Pennsylvania by Logan's oppress- ive administration of the Quaker laws, and sought asylum in the Shenandoah valley of Virginia. The Pilgrims in Ehode Island proscribed Cath- olics and deprived them of suffrage, on account of their religion, from 1719 to 1783. Mr. Madison is authority for the statement that the example of Holland led to the constitutional pro- vision forbidding Congress from making any enact- ment "respecting an establishment of religidn" or abridging the freedom of the press. Perhaps there is no other thing in which the citizen of the United States takes greater pride than in our system of public education. The privilege of public-school education for his children is pos- sessed by every citizen of the United States in the iBroadhead's History of New York, 1770. CITIZENSHIP 97 State of which he is a citizen, no matter how humble or ignorant he may be or how limited his own rights. This privilege, like the others named, is distinctly not of English origin. At the time of the departure of the original colonists from England for America, no system of public education existed in Great Britain. None exists there to-day, comparable, in thoroughness, with our own. Long residence in Hol- land made some of the earliest American settlers familiar with the benefits of public education and the advantages of the free school system of the Dutch. But a thorough system of free education was in- stalled in the Dutch colony of New York fully twenty years before any school system was adopted by the New England colony. Sparseness of population in the southern colonies rendered free schools almost impracticable there. But they were established in the populous Dutch communities and among the Scotch-Irish of the Shenandoah valley in Virginia, from the time of the earliest settlements there. Notwithstanding the southern colonies were School lands backward, the greatest impetus to public education {f jjjj w-t in the Northwest Territory, after the colonies were Terntor y- independent, came from the southern section; for when Virginia ceded her rights in the Northwest Territory to the Federal government, she demanded through her representatives in Congress, Eichard Henry Lee and Paul Carrington, the condition in the Ohio ordinances of 1787, requiring that alternate sections of the public lands should be dedicated to purposes of public education. 2 2 "The practice of setting apart section No. 16 of every town- ship of public lands, for the maintenance of public schools, is trace- able to the ordinance of 1785, being the first enactment for the 7 98 CITIZENSHIP Chapter Having now traced the ideas of the American IV< colonists concerning plans of government and rights of citizenship to the sources whence they sprung, let us next consider how far these rights have been incorporated in the governments which they estab- lished. 3 Rights of Citizens of the States. Let us first examine the rights of citizens as citi- zens of the States; for these clearly antedate what- ever rights they possess as citizens of the United States, by a period equal to that which elapsed be- tween the acknowledgment of the independence of the thirteen independent colonies by Great Britain, and the formation of the Union by the States themselves. 2iumer" en No State in the Union has ever sought to embody rights?* in one written chart a full expression of all the rights, privileges, and immunities of its citizens. Nor will disposal by sale of the public lands in the western territory. The appropriation of public lands for that object became a fundamental principle by the ordinance of 1787, which settled terms of compact between the people and States of the northwestern territory, and the original States, unalterable except by consent. One of the arti- cles affirmed that ' religion, morality, and knowledge, being neces- sary for good government and the happiness of mankind/ and ordained that 'schools, and the means of education, should be for- ever encouraged/ This principle was extended, first by congres- sional enactment (1 Stat. at Large, 550, 6), and afterward, in 1802, by compact between the United States and Georgia, to the southwestern territory. The earliest development of this article, in practical legislation, is to be found in the organization of the State of Ohio, and the adjustment of its civil polity, according to the ordinance, preparatory to its admission to the Union." Cooper v. Roberts, (1855) 18 How. (U..S.) 177. 3 So persuasive of all our early acts were the examples of the Dutch that even our national emblem is singularly like the flag of the United Netherlands. CITIZENSHIP 99 the attempt now be made. On this subject we shall Chapter- content ourselves with the language of Mr. Justice ! Washington, construing Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States, which pro- vides: "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the sev- eral States. " He said: "The inquiry is, What are the privileges and wishing. immunities of citizens in the several States? We ca n ? s s ifi- cation. feel no hesitation in confining these expressions 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. What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the govern- ment; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the gov- ernment may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole/' 4 Mr. Justice Miller, in the Slaughter-House Cases, 5 said, with reference to this observation of Mr. Justice Washington: ^Corfield v. Coryell. (1823) 4 Wash. (U. S.) 371. See also Ward V. Maryland, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 430. 16 Wall, (U. S.) 7. "The Constitution does not define the privileges and immunities 100 CITIZENSHIP hapter "The description, when taken to include others TV . not named, but which are of the same general character, embraces nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted." While it is undoubtedly true that the attempt to enumerate these rights of citizenship would be more tedious than difficult, and while it may be unneces- sary to enumerate and classify them, especially as the order of their enumeration varies in the different States, it seems proper to advert to the earlier ex- pressions in the first bill of rights framed by one of the original States, to ascertain what our Eevo- lutionary forefathers conceived to be the most important of the rights for which they were contending. State Bills of Rights. nia V Bm The Bill of Eights of Virginia, drafted by George of Rights. M ason? i s perhaps the most famous of all these bills of rights, and may be taken as an example, as it was made the model of many States afterwards formed. It was unanimously adopted by the Vir- ginia convention, June 12, 1776. 6 It recites the following as basic and foundational principles of government, and declares that they pertain to the good people of the commonwealth and their pos- terity : e^an?" 1- Tnat a11 men are ^ nature equally free, in- dependent, and have certain inherent rights, of citizens. For that definition we must look elsewhere." Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 170. Revised Code of Virginia, 1819, Vol. I, page 31. CITIZENSHIP of which, when they enter into a state of chapter society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoy- ment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pur- suing and obtaining happiness and safety. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and se- fhe d ma- curity of the people, nation, or community; of all the various forms and modes of gov- ernment, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubi- table, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. 4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privi- leges from the community, but in considera- tion of public services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of mag- istrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary. 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the State should be separate and distinct 102 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. Right of suffrage. Suspen- sion of laws. Rights of persons charged with crime. from the judiciary; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppres- sion, by feeling and participating the bur- thens of the people, they should, at fixed pe- riods, be reduced to a private station, return into the body from which they were origi- nally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct. 6. That election of members to serve as repre- sentatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good. 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised. 8. That, in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without CITIZENSHIP 1Q3 whose unanimous consent be cannot be found chapter guilty; nor can be be compelled to give evi- IV> dence against himself ; tbat no man be de- prived of bis liberty except by tbe law of tbe land, or tbe judgment of bis peers. 9. Tbat excessive bail ougbt not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and * unusual punishments inflicted. 10. Tbat general warrants, whereby an officer or ^J| rc ^g. messenger may be commanded to search sus- ures< pected places without evidence of a fact com- mitted, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted. 11. That, in controversies respecting property, jj r j ivil tria! and in suits between man and man, the an- cases - cient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the J/ e 3? m great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be press ' restrained but by despotic governments. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of JjfJy mil ~ the body of the people, trained to arms, is power< the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 14. That the people have a right to uniform gov- uniform govern- ernment; and therefore, that no government ment - 104 CITIZENSHIP Adherence to funda- mental princi- ples. Religious freedom. Effect on the Decla- ration and Constitu- tion. separate from, or independent of, the gov- ernment of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof. 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by fre- quent recurrence to fundamental principles. 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and convic- tion, not by force or violence ; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exer- cise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity, towards each other. This immortal declaration of the principles of popular sovereignty has been set forth at length be- cause it embodies in itself the substance of all similar declarations in the other colonial conventions, and was either incorporated into the Declaration of In- dependence itself, which was adopted twenty-two days later, or into the earliest amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which may be considered as adopted contem- poraneously with the Constitution itself, six merely reaffirm the principles enunciated in George Mason's bill of rights. National Declaration of Independence. When we come to a study of the Declaration of Independence itself we find a reassertion of princi- CITIZENSHIP 1Q5 pies concerning the equality of men, their unalien- Chapter able rights, that government is instituted to secure IV> those rights, that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and the right of the people, when it becomes destructive of those ends, to alter l or abolish it and institute a new government. After declaring that long established govern- ments should not be changed for light and transient causes, it proceeds to arraign the British govern- ment for a long train of abuses and usurpations. We may gather, from the enumeration of those abuses, the following claims made by the revolu- tionists concerning the rights, privileges, and immu- nities of citizens : 1. The right of representation in the legisla- ture, a right inestimable to them. 2. The right to have representative bodies as- sembled at usual and comfortable places con- venient to the depository of their public records. 3. The right to have frequent sessions of the legislature. 4. The right to have a system of naturalization laws. 5. The right to have an independent judiciary. 6. The right to oppose a multitude of offices. 7. The right to oppose standing armies in time of peace. 8. The right to have the civil power superior to the military power. 9. The right to resist quartering of armed troops among them. 10. The right to trade with the outside world. 106 CITIZENSHIP Chapter n. The right to a voice in taxation. IV ' 12. The right to trial by a jury of the vicinage. 13. The right of local self-government. The Federal Constitution. have already seen that during the period in thl s Ar n t?- er which the States cooperated under articles of conf ed- eration, the rights, privileges, and immunities of eratton. 7 their citizens were derived exclusively from their respective States, and that the power of the United States did not extend to the control of the individual, save in a few limited and specified cases; and that as then constituted the United States did not at- tempt to grant or guarantee to the individual citizen any rights, privileges, or immunities, save to citi- zens of one State in another State. 7 Extension When, upon the adoption of the Federal Consti- |e o yhe un " tution, Federal power operated directly upon individ- tution. ua } citizens of the United States, the number of Fed- eral guarantees of their rights was extended also. These guarantees were the necessary correlatives of the specific powers granted to the Federal gov- ernment, and are the supreme law of the land on the subjects to which they refer. 7 "The Confederation was a league of friendship of the States with each other, so declared in the articles and entered into ' for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pre- tense whatever.' But its articles did not form a constitution or ordinance of government, with power to enforce its provisions upon each other, or even a compact having any coherence or binding force other than that of a league of friendship, which its members only claimed them to constitute." Wharton v. Wise, (1894) 153 U. S. 167. CITIZENSHIP 107 tions of Federal power. But it by no means follows from this that the chapter Federal government is supreme concerning all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizen. On the contrary, while it is supreme in its sphere and possesses ample authority to enforce the powers ex- pressly delegated to it by the Constitution, it is only a government of delegated and limited powers, and the States, in forming it, expressly retained and re- served in themselves the absolute control, direction, and sovereignty over their citizens concerning a vast residuum of rights, privileges, and immunities which, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, they had regulated exclusively. 8 For instance, it has never been contended that the Constitution, as orig- inally framed, created in the Federal government any power to establish any code of municipal law ap- plicable to the States composing it, regulative of all private rights between man and man in society, or that Congress may usurp the powers of State legis- latures concerning such legislation. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly taken oc- casion to point out that no such power exists, either under the original Constitution or by virtue of any s" A reasonable interpretation of that instrument [the Federal Constitution] necessarily leads to the conclusion that the powers so granted are never exclusive of similar powers existing in the States, unless where the Constitution has expressly, in terms, given an exclusive power to Congress, or the exercise of a like power is pro- hibited to the States, or there is a direct repugnancy or incompati- bility in the exercise of it by the States. The example of the first class is to be found in the exclusive legislation delegated to Congress over places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for forts, arsenals, dock-yards, etc.; of the second class, the prohibition of a State to coin money or emit bills of credit; of the third class, as this court have already held, the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and the delegation of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In all other 108 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. Construc- tion of the consti- tutional amend- ments. of the amendments. 8 * As we shall see later, a vast amount of litigation which has arisen under the constitutional amendments has been based upon a confused notion that the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments in some way altered and extended the general scope of Federal powers, even to the point of effecting this fundamental change. But an un- broken line of Federal decisions has denied that such a change in the organic structure of the Federal government was either contemplated or effected by the amendments, and points out that the legislation which Congress is authorized to enact under the amendments is not general legislation upon the rights of citizens, but only certain corrective legis- lation, if such be necessary, to counteract State leg- islation prohibited by the amendments upon special subjects named in the amendments. When we come to examine the multitudinous de- cisions of the Supreme Court on questions which have arisen under the amendments it will be seen cases not falling within the classes already mentioned, it seems unquestionable that the States retain concurrent authority with Congress, not only upon the letter and spirit of the Eleventh Amend- ment of the Constitution, but upon the soundest principles of gen- eral reasoning. There is this reserve, however, that in cases of concurrent authority, where the laws of the States and of the Union are in direct and manifest collision on the same subject, those of the Union, being * the supreme law of the land/ are of paramount authority, and the State laws, so far, and so far only, as such incompatibility exists, must necessarily yield." Houston V. Moore, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 49. See also M'Culloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 405; Cohen v. Virginia, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 414; Ableman v. Booth, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 516; Legal Tender Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 545; Tarble's Case, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 406; Ex p. Siebold, (1879) 100 U. S. 398; Chinese Exclusion Case, (1889) 130 U. S. 604; In re Quarles, (1895) 158 U. S. 535. 8* Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 3. CITIZENSHIP 109 that the cases have for the most part not originated in any alleged act of the Federal government in- vading the sphere of State action, but upon the contention made by citizens of the States that Fed- eral powers, as enlarged by the amendments, are much more far-reaching and restrictive upon State powers than the Federal courts themselves have been willing to admit. The decisions rendered by the Supreme Court have in an overwhelming ma- jority of cases been against the broad effect of the constitutional amendments as authorizing extended Federal powers, or as restricting State powers, con- tended for by the citizens; and they declare unani- mously the continuing power of the States, notwith- standing the amendments, to regulate exclusively the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens upon the matters in issue, subject only to the particular limitations named in the amendments. 9 9" A State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or re- strained by the Constitution of the United States. By virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness, and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends, where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise, is not surrendered or restrained in the manner just stated. All those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called ' internal police/ are not thus surrendered or restrained; and consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified, and ex- clusive." New York v. Miln, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 139. " Both the States and the United States existed before the Con- stitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted, with powers greatly restricted, only upon HO CITIZENSHIP Chapter Seeing now that the rights, privileges, and im- ! munities of the citizens are dependent, for acknowl- edgment and protection, upon dual governments, just as the allegiance of the citizen is due to dual governments, let us next consider the safeguards and protections of those rights offered to the citi- zen by the Federal and State governments. And, as the Federal government, although limited in its sphere, is supreme, and as all other rights, not de- rived from or guaranteed by it, depend for their recognition and protection upon the States, the or- derly method of consideration would seem to be, to inquire first what rights of the citizen the Federal government grants or undertakes to protect, and what it has neither granted nor undertaken to guar- antee. For all rights not so granted or guaranteed by the Federal government are dependent for their existence and their continuance upon the State of which the individual is a citizen. 1 the States. But in many articles of the Constitution the necessary existence of the States, and, within their proper spheres, the inde- pendent authority of the States, is distinctly recognized. To them nearly the whole charge of interior regulation is committed or left; to them and to the people all powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved. The general condition was well stated by Mr. Madison in The Federalist, thus : * The Federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers and designated for different purposes.'" Lane County v. Oregon, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 76. i Under the very peculiar constitution of this government, al- though the citizens owe supreme allegiance to the Federal govern- ment, they owe also a qualified allegiance to the State in which they are domiciled. Their persons and property are subject to its laws. The Brig Amy Warwick, (1862) 2 Black (U. S.) 673. CITIZENSHIP Chapter Rights, Privileges, and Immunities Granted or Guar- iv. anteed to the Citizen by the United States. These may be classified as follows : classifi- cation of 1. Bights granted or guaranteed by the Consti- rights - tution of the United States as originally framed, or by the first twelve amendments thereto. 2. Eights granted or guaranteed by the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments. First, then, the rights, privileges, or immunities granted or guaranteed to the citizen by the Consti- tution of the United States as originally framed, or by the first twelve amendments thereto, are, in the order of their enumeration, or by necessary impli- cation, as follows: 1. A right. That citizens of the States com- E e le ion of posing the Union, having the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the f State legislature, shall possess the right and privi- lege of electors for members of the House of Rep- resentatives of the United States chosen every second year by the people of the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. I.) 2 2. A privilege. That such citizens shall be eli- gible to membership of the House of Representatives, sentatlves - if they possess certain qualifications of age, length 2 Ex p. Yarbrough, (1884) 110 U. S. 651; In re Green, (1890) 134 U. S. 377; McPherson v. Blacker, (1892) 146 U. S. 1; Wiley v. Sinkler, (1900) 179 U. S. 58; Swafford v. Templeton, (1902) 185 U. S. 487. "The right to vote for members of the Congress of the United States is not derived merely from the constitution and laws of the State in which they are chosen, but has its foundation in the Con- stitution of the United States." Wiley v. Sinkler, (1900) 179 U. S. 58, avvrovinp Ex p. Yarbrough, (1884) 110 U. S. 651. 112 CITIZENSHIP IV. Appor- tionment of repre- sentation and tax- ation. Census. Chapter o f citizenship, and are inhabitants of the State from which they are chosen. (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 2.) 3. A right. That representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned, among the several States, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. This clause is, however, amended, in respect to apportionment of representation, by the XIV Amendment, Sec. 2. 3 4. A right. To have an enumeration or census, every ten years, according to law, to determine the basis of representation, but with a proviso that rep- resentatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, aDred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 533; Scholey v. Hew, (1874) '23 Wall. (U. S.) 331; De Treville v. Smalls, (1878) 98 U. S. 517; 'Gibbons v. District of Columbia, (1886) 116 U. S. 404; Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1895) 157 U. S. 429; Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 158 U. S. 601; Thomas v. U. S., (1904) 192 U. S. 363. See infra, note 9, p. 114. "The men who framed and adopted that instrument [the Con- stitution] had just emerged from the struggle for independence, whose rallying cry had been that 'taxation and representation go together.' . . . The States were about, for all national purposes embraced in the Constitution, to become one, united under the same sovereign authority, and governed by the same laws. But as they still retained their jurisdiction over all persons and things within their territorial limits, except where surrendered to the general government or restrained by the Constitution, they were careful to see to it that taxation and representation should go together, so that the sovereignty reserved should not be impaired, and that when Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, whers it was specifically provided that all revenue bills must originate, voted a tax upon property, it should be with the consciousness, and under the responsibility, that in so doing the tax so voted would propor- tionately fall upon the immediate constituents of those who imposed it." Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1895) 157 U. S. 429. CITIZENSHIP but that each State shall have at least one represent- chapter ative. (Art. I, Sec. 2, 01. 3, Par. 2.) 4 5. A privilege. That citizens possessing de- fined qualifications of age, length of residence, and ators> habitation, shall be eligible as United States sena- tors. (Art. I, Sec. 3, 01. 3.) 6. An immunity. Against the trial of impeach- ments by any other body than the Senate, or con- viction without a concurrence of two-thirds of the members present; and against any judgment in such case extending further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 3, 01. 6.) 5 7. An immunity. From arrest, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, while attend- congress. ing Congress as a member or going to or returning from the same; and from being questioned for any speech or debate in either House. (Art. I, Sec. 6, 01. I.) 6 8. A right. That all bills for raising revenue biifs enue shall originate in the House of Representatives. (Art. I, Sec. 7, 01. 1.) 7 * " The direct and declared object of this census is, to furnish a standard by which ' representatives, and direct taxes, may be appor- tioned among the several States which may be included within this Union."' Loughborough v. Blake, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 317. 5 " The House of Representatives has the sole right to impeach officers of the government, and the Senate to try them." Kilbourn V. Thompson, (1880) 103 U. S. 190. e Anderson v. Dunn, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 204; Coxe v. M'Clenachan, (1798) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 478; Kilbourn v. Thompson, (1880) 103 U. S. 168. Field v. Clark, (1892) 143 U. S. 649; Twin City Bank v. Nebe- ker, (1897) 16V U S. 196. " The construction ol this limitation is practically well settled 8 CITIZENSHIP Chapter 9. A right. To have the executive sanction of all laws before they become effective, unless they be passed over the President's veto. (Art. I, Sec. 7, CL 2.) 8 10. A right. That all duties, imposts, and ex- etc. c i seg i m p ose( i by Congress shall be uniform through- out the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. I.) 9 by the uniform action of Congress. According to that construction, it * has been confined to bills to levy taxes in the strict sense of the words, and has not been understood to extend to bills for other pur- poses which incidentally create revenue.'" U. S. v. Norton, (1875) 1 U. S. 569; Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, (1897) 167 U. S. 202. s Field v. Clark, (1892) 143 U. S. 649; U. S. V. Ballin, (1892) 144 U. S. 1; Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, (1897) 167 U. S. 196; La Abra Silver Min. Co. v. U. S., (1899) 175 U. S. 423; Wilkes County v. Coler, (1901) 180 U. S. 506; Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S., (1901) 183 U. S. 176. " The purpose of the Constitution is to secure to the people of this country the best legislation by the simplest means. Its framers being mindful of the errors and oversights which are bred in the heat and strife and divided responsibility of legislative assemblies, and which they had repeatedly beheld in State legislatures, deter- mined to secure to the people the benefits of revision, and to unite with the power of revision the check of undivided responsibility, and to place the power in the hands of the person in whom the nation reposed, for the time being, the most confidence." U. S. v. Weil, (1894) 29 Ct. 01. 540. Hylton v. U. S., (1796) 3 Ball. (U. S.) 171; M'Culloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; Loughborough v. Blake, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 317; Osborn v. U. S. Bank, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 738; Weston V. Charleston, (1829) 2 Pet. (U. S.) 449; Dobbins v. Erie County, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 435; Thurlow V. Massachusetts, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 504; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 299; McGuire v. Massachusetts, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 387; Van Allen v. Assessors, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 573; Bradley v. People, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 459; License Tax Cases, (1866) 5 Wall. (U. S.) 462; Pervear v. Massa- chusetts, (1866) 5 Wall. (U. S.) 475; Woodruff v. Parham, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123; Hinson V. Lott, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148; Veazie Bank v. Fenno, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 533; Collector v. Day, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 113; U. S. v. Singer, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) Ill; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 300; U. S. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1872) 17 Wall. CITIZENSHIP -Q5 11. An immunity. From any laws passed by Chapter any State, or other authority than Congress, regulat- IV> ing commerce with foreign nations and among: the Int ? r - national several States, and with the Indian tribes. (Art. I, J} e i Sec. 8,01. 3.) 1 (U. S.) 322; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Peniston, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 5; Scholey v. Hew, (1874) 23 Wall. (U. S.) 331; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. U. S., (1879) 101 U. S. 1; Springer v. U. S., (1881) 102 U. S. 586; Legal Tender Case, (1884) 110 U. S. 421; Head Money Cases, (1884) 112 U. S. 580; Van Brocklin V. Tennessee, (1886) 117 U. S. 151; Field v. Clark, (1892) 143 U. S. 649, New York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1894) 153 U. S. 628; Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1895) 157 U. S. 429; U. S. V. Realty Co., (1896) 163 U. S. 427; In re Kollock, (1897) 165 U. S. 526; Nicol v. Ames, (1899) 173 U. S. 509; Knowlton v. Moore, (1900) 178 U. S. 41; De Lima v. Bidwell, (1901) 182 U. S. 1; Dooley V. U. S., (1901) 182 U. S. 222; Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S., (1901) 183 U. S. 176; Felsenheld v. U. S., (1902) 186 U. S. 126; Thomas v. U. S., (1904) 192 U. S. 363. See supra, note 3, p. 112. i Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Brown v. Mary- land, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 419; Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., (1829) 2 Pet. (U. S.) 245; Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 515; New York v. Miln, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 102; U. S. v. Coombs, (1838) 12 Pet. (U. S.) 72; Holmes v. Jen- nison, (1840) 14 Pet. (U.S.) 540; Thurlow v. Massachusetts, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 504; Smith v. Turner, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 283; Nathan V. Louisiana, (1850) 8 How. (U. S.) 73; Mager v. Grima, (1850) 8 How. (U. S.) 490; U. S. V. Marigold, (1850) 9 How. (U. S.) 560; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 299; The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 443; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 518; Veazie V. Moor, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 568; Smith v. Maryland, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 71; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 421; Sinnot v. Davenport, (1859) 22 How. (U. S.) 227; Foster v. Davenport, (1859) 22 How. (U. S.) 244; Conway V. Taylor, (1861) 1 Black (U. S.) 603; U. S. v. Holliday, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 407; Gilman v. Philadelphia, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 713; The Passaic Bridges, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 782; Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 31; Crandall v. Nevada, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35; White's Bank v. Smith, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 646; Waring v. Mobile, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 110; Paul v. Virginia, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168; Thomson v. Pacific R. Co., (1869) 9 Wall. (U. CITIZENSHIP S.) 579; Downham v. Alexandria, (1869) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 173; Clinton Bridge, (1870) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 454; The Daniel Ball, (1870) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 557; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, (1870) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 566; The Montello, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 411; Ex p. McNiel, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 236; State Freight Tax Case, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 232; State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 284; Osborne v. Mobile, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 479; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fuller, (1873) 17 Wall. (U. S.) 560; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 129; Delaware Railroad Tax, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 206; Peete v. Morgan, (1873) 19 Wall. (U. S.) 581; Dubuque, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, (1873) 19 Wall. (U. S.) 584; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Maryland, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 456; The Lottawanna, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 558; Welton v. Missouri, (1875) 91 U. S. 275; Henderson v. New York, (1875) 92 U. S. 259; Chy Lung v. Free- man, (1875) 92 U. S. 275; South Carolina v. Georgia, (1876) 93 U. S. 4; Sherlock v. Ailing, (1876) 93 U. S. 99; U. S. V. 43 Gallons Whisky, (1876) 93 U. S. 188; Foster v. New Orleans, (1876) 94 U. S. 246; McCready v. Virginia, (1876) 94 U. S. 391; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Husen, (1877) 95 U. S. 465; Pound v. Turck, (1877) 95 U. S. 459; Hall v. De Cuir, (1877) 95 U. S. 485; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U. S. 1; Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, (1877) 97 U. S. 25; Cook v. Pennsylvania, (1878) 97 U. S. 566; Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. V. Wheeling, (1878) 99 U. S. 273; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, (1879) 100 U. S. 423; Guy v. Baltimore, (1879) 100 U. S. 434; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, (1879) 100 U. S. 491; Howe Mach. Co. v. Gage, (1879) 100 U. S. 676; Trade-mark Cases, (1879) 100 U. S. 82; Wilson v. McNamee, (1881) 102 U. S. 572; Tiernan v. Rinker, (1880) 102 U. S. 123; Lord v. Good- all, etc., Steamship Co., (1881) 102 U. S. 541; Mobile County v. Kimball, (1881) 102 U. S. 691; Western Union Tel. Co. V. Texas, (1881) 105 U. S. 460; Newport, etc., Bridge Co. v. U. S., (1881) 105 U. S. 470; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, (1882) 107 U. S. 365; Turner v. Maryland, (1882) 107 U. S. 38; Escanaba, etc., Transp. Co. v. Chicago, (1882) 107 U. S. 678; Miller v. New York, (1883) 109 U. S. 385; Moran v. New Orleans, (1884) 112 U. S. 69; Foster v. Kansas, (1884) 112 U. S. 201; Head Money Cases, (1884) 112 U. S. 580; Cardwell v. American Bridge Co., (1885) 113 U. S. 205; Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, (1885) 113 U. S. 727; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1885) 114 U. S. 196; Brown v. Houston, (1885) 114 U. S. 622; Railroad Commis- sion Cases, (1886) 116 U. S. 307, 347, 352; Walling v. Michigan, (1886) 116 U. S. 446; Coe v. Errol, (1886) 116 U. S. 517; Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co., (1886) 117 U. S. 34; Tennessee v. Pullman Southern Car Co., (1886) 117 U. S. 51; Morgan's Steam- CITIZENSHIP ship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, (1886) 118 U. S. 455; Chapter Wabash, etc., R. Co. f. Illinois, (1886) 118 U. S. 557; U. S. V. IV. Kagama, (1886) 118 U. S. 375; Philadelphia Fire Assoc. v. New York, (1886) 119 U. S. 110; Johnson v. Chicago, etc., Elevator Co., (1886) 119 U. S. 388; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., (1887) 120 U. S. 489; Corson v. Maryland, (1887) 120 U. S. 502; Fargo v. Michigan, (1887) 121 U. S. 230; Philadelphia, etc., Steamship Co., v. Pennsylvania, (1887) 122 U. S. 326; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, (1887) 122 U. S. 347; Sands v. Man- istee River Imp. Co., (1887) 123 U. S. 288; Smith v. Alabama, (1888) 124 U. S. 465; Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, (1888) 125 U. S. 1; Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1888) 125 U. S. 181; Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (1888) 125 U. S. 465; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atty.-Gen., (1888) 125 U. S. 530; California v. Central Pac. R. Co., (1888) 127 U. S. 1; Ratter- man v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1888) 127 U. S. 411; Leloup v. Mobile, (1888) 127 U. S. 640; Kidd v. Pearson, (1888) 128 U. S. 1; Asher V. Texas, (1888) 128 U. S. 129; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Alabama, (1888) 128 U. S. 96; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, (1889) 129 U. S. 141; Kimmish v. Ball, (1889) 129 U. S. 217; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama State Board of Assessment, (1889) 132 U. S. 472; Fritts v. Palmer, (1889) 132 U. S. 282; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mississippi, (1890) 133 U. S. 587; Leisy v. Hardin, (1890) 135 U. S. 100; Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., (1890) 135 U. S. 641; McCall v. California, (1890) 136 U. S. 104; Nor- folk, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1890) 136 U. S. 114; Minnesota v. Barber, (1890) 136 U. S. 318; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., (1890) 137 U. S. 48; Brimmer v. Rebman, (1891) 138 U. S. 78; Manchester v. Massachusetts, (1891) 139 U. S. 240; In re Rahrer, (1891) 140 U. S. 545; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1891) 141 U. S. 18; Massachusetts v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1891) 141 U. S. 40; Crutcher v. Kentucky, (1891) 141 U. S. 47; Voight v. Wright, (1891) 141 U. S. 62; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, (1891) 141 U. S. 679; In re Garnett, (1891) 141 U. S. 1; Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., (1891) 142 U. S. 217; Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., (1892) 142 U. S. 651; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, (1892) 142 U. S. 339; Horn Silver Min. Co. V. New York, (1892) 143 U. S. 305; Field v. Clark, (1892) 143 U. S. 649; O'Neil V. Vermont, (1892) 144 U. S. 323; Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., (1892) 145 U. S. 1; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1892) 145 U. S. 192; Harman v. Chicago, (1893) 147 U. S. 396; Monongahela Nav. Co. V. U. S., (1893) 148 U. S. 312; Brennan V. Titusville, (1894) 153 U. S. 289; Brass v. North Dakota, (1894) 153 U. S. 391; Ashley v. Ryan, (1894) 153 U. S. 436; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., (1894) 153 U. S. 525; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Charleston, (1894) 153 U. S. 692; Cov- 118 CITIZENSHIP Chapter ington, etc., Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, (1894) 154 U. S. 204; Inter- IV. state Commerce Commission v. Brimson, (1894) 154 U. S. 447; Plumley v. Massachusetts, (1894) 155 U. S. 461; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Transp. Co., (1895) 155 U. S. 585; Hooper V. California, (1895) 155 U. S. 648; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Adams, (1895) 155 U. S. 688; U. S. V. E. C. Knight Co., (1895) 156 U. S. 1; Emert v. Missouri, (1895) 156 U. S. 296; Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Bates, (1895) 156 U. S. 577; Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Louisiana, (1895) 156 U. S. 590; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hefley, (1895) 158 U. S. 98; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1895) 158 U. S. 431; In re Debs, (1895) 158 U. S. 564; Greer v. Con- necticut, (1896) 161 U. S. 519; Western Union Tel. Co. tf. James, (1896) 162 U. S. 650; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, (1896) 163 U. S. 1; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, (1896) 163 U. S. 142; Hennington v. Georgia, (1896) 163 U. S. 299; Osborne v. Florida, (1897) 164 U. S. 650; Scott V. Donald, (1897) 165 U. S. 58; Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, (1897) 165 U. S. 194; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio, (1897) 165 U. S. 365; New York, etc., R. Co. v. New York, (1897) 165 U. S. 628; Gladson v. Minne- sota, (1897) 166 U. S. 427; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, (1897) 166 U. S. 150; St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Com'rs, (1897) 168 U. S. 349; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Solan, (1898) 169 U. S. 133; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Haber, (1898) 169 U. S. 613; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co., (1898) 169 U. S. 311; Rhodes v. Iowa, (1898) 170 U. S. 412; Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., (1898) 170 U. S. 438; Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, (1898) 171 U. S. 1; Collins v. New Hampshire, (1898) 171 U. S. 30; Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of Agriculture, (1898) 171 U. S. 345; New York v. Roberts, (1898) 171 U. S. 658; Hopkins v. U. S., (1898) 171 U. S. 578; Anderson v. U. S., (1898) 171 U. S. 604; Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., (1898) 172 U. S. 58; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. V. Ohio, (1899) 173 U. S. 285; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, (1899) 173 U. S. 592; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McCann, (1899) 174 U. S. 580; Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. U. S., (1899) 175 U. S. 211; Louisiana v. Texas, (1900) 176 U. S. 1; U. S. v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., (1900) 176 U. S. 211; Lind- say, etc., Co. v. Mullen, (1900) 176 U. S. 126; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 28; New York L. Ins. Co. V. Cravens, (1900) 178 U. S. 389; Scranton v. Wheeler, (1900) 179 U. S. 141; Williams v. Fears, (1900) 179 U. S. 270; Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobson, (1900) 179 U. S. 287; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. i?. Kentucky, (1900) 179 U. S. 388; Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister, (1900) 179 U. S. 445; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, I, . (1901) 180 U. S. 452; Rasmussen v. Idaho, (1901) 181 U. S. 198; Smith v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., (1901) 181 U. S. 248; Capital CITIZENSHIP 12. A right. To uniform Federal laws of nat- chapter uralization and bankruptcy throughout the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 4.) 2 City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, (1902) 183 U. S. 238; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, (1902) 183 U. S. 503; Nutting v. Massachu- setts, (1902) 183 U. S. 553; McChord v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1902) 183 U. S. 483; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Eubank, (1902) 184 U. S. 27; Stockard v. Morgan, (1902) 185 U. S. 27; Minne- apolis, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1902) 186 U. S. 257; Reid V. Colorado, (1902) 187 U. S. 137; Western Union Tel. Co. v. New Hope, (1903) 187 U. S. 419; Diamond Glue Co. v. U. S. Glue Co., (1903) 187 U. S. 611; Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, (1903) 188 U. S. 385; U. S. v. Lynah, (1903) 188 U. S. 445; Cummings v. Chicago, (1903) 188 U. S. 410; The Roanoke, (1903) 189 U. S. 185; Montgomery v. Portland, (1903) 190 U. S. 89; Patterson v. Bark Eudora, (1903) 190 U. S. 169; Allen v. Pull- man's Palace Car Co., (1903) 191 U. S. 171; New York v. Knight, (1904) 192 U. S. 21; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Taylor, (1904) 192 U. S. 64; Grossman v. Lurman, (1904) 192 U. S. 189; St. Clair County v. Interstate Sand, etc., Co., (1904) 192 U. S. 454; Butt- field v. Stranahan, (1904) 192 U. S. 470; American Steel, etc., Co. v? Speed, (1904) 192 U. S. 500; Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., (1904) 193 U. S. 197. 2Sturges v. Crowninshield, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 122; M'Millan v. M'Neill, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 209; Farmers* etc., Bank v. Smith, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 131; Ogden V. Saunders, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 213; Boyle v. Zacharie, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 348; Gassies V. Ballon, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 761; Beers 17. Haughton, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.)' 329; Suydam v. Broadnax, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 67;' Cook tf. Moffat, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 295; Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393; Nishi- mura Ekiu v. U. S., (1892) 142 U. S. 651; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, (1902) 186 U. S. 181. The power of Congress to pass bankrupt laws is not exclusive, but that power may be exercised by the States except when it is actu- ally exercised by Congress and the State laws conflict with the Federal law. It is not the mere existence of the power to enact such laws, but its* exercise by Congress, which is incompatible with the exercise of the same power by the State. Otherwise with the power to pass uniform Federal laws of naturalization. "The citi- zens of any one State being entitled by the Constitution to enjoy the rights of citizenship in every other State, that fact creates an interest in this particular in each other's acts, which does not exist with regard to their bankrupt laws; since State acts of natu- 120 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. Coinage, weights and meas- ures, postal system. 13. A right. To a Federal coinage and stand- ard of weights and measures. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 5.) 3 14. A right. To an established Federal postal system and post roads. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 6.) 4 ralization would thus be extra-territorial in their operation, and have an influence on the most vital interests of other States. On these grounds, State laws of naturalization may be brought under one of the four heads or classes of powers precluded to the States, to wit, that of incompatibility." Ogden v. Saunders, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 277. See also Peirce v. New Hampshire, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 585; Dred Scott V. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 405; Gilman v. Lockwood, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 410; Brown v. Smart, (1892) 145 U. S. 457. sBriscoe v. Kentucky Com. Bank, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 267; Fox v. Ohio, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 410; U. S. v. Marigold, (1850) 9 How. (U. S.) 560; Legal Tender Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 545; The Miantinomi, (1855) 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 46, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,521. " The Constitution was intended to frame a government as distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme in some particulars over States and people. It was designed to pro- vide the same currency, having a uniform legal value in all the States. It was for this reason the power to coin money and regu- late its value was conferred upon the Federal government, while the same power as well as the power to emit bills of credit was withdrawn from the States. The States can no longer declare what shall be money, or regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the currency is vested in Congress." Legal Tender Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 545. * Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 421; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U. S. 1; Ex p. Jackson, (1877) 96 U. S. 727; In re Rapier, (1892) 143 U. S. 110; Homer v. U. S., (1892) 143 U. S. 207; In re Debs, (1895) 158 U. S. 564; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Illinois, (1896) 163 U. S. 142; Gladson v. Minnesota, (1897) 166 U. S. 427. " Post-offices and post-roads are established to facilitate the transmission of intelligence. Both commerce and the postal service are placed within the power of Congress, because, being national in their operation, they should be under the protecting care of the national government. ... As they were intrusted to the gen- eral government for the good of the nation, it is not only the right, CITIZENSHIP 15. A right. To a Federal system of patent- chapter rights and copyrights. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 8.) 5 IV ' 16. A right. To a supreme court and a system Patents and copy- of federal courts inferior to the supreme court. riRhts - (Art. Ill, Sees. 1 and 2 ; Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 9.) 6 ^X! 1 17. A right. To Federal protection against offenses against the piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and n a a Y io s f . but the duty, of Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation." Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U. S. 1. "The States before the Union was formed could establish post- offices and post-roads, and in doing so could bring into play the police power in the protection of their citizens from the use of the means so provided for purposes supposed to exert a demoralizing influence upon the people. When the power to establish post-offices and post-roads was surrendered to the Congress it was as a com- plete power, and the grant carried with it the right to exercise all the powers which made that power effective." In re Rapier, (1892) 143 U. S. 134. 5 Grant v. Raymond, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 218; Wheaton V. Peters, (1834) 8 Pet. (U. S.) 591; Trade-Mark Cases, (1879) 100 U. S. 82; Burrow-Giles Lith. Co. v. Sarony, (1884) 111 U. S. 53; U. S. v. Duell, (1899) 172 U. S. 576. "No State can limit, control, or even exercise the power.' Woollen v. Banker, (1877) 2 Flipp. (U. S.) 33, 30 Fed. Gas. No 18,030. sChisholm v. Georgia, (1793) 2 Ball. (U. S.) 419; Stuart V. Laird, (1803) 1 Cranch (U. S.) 299; U. S. v. Peters, (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 115; Cohen v. Virginia, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 264; Martin v. Hunter, (1816) 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 304; Osborn 17. U. S. Bank, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 738; Benner v. Porter, (1850) 9 How. (U. S.) 235; U. S. v. Ritchie, (1854) 17 How. (U. S.) 525; Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 272; Ex p. Vallandigham, (1863) 1 Wall. (U. S.) 243; Pennoyer v. Neff, (1877) 95 U. S. 714; U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., (1878) 98 U. S. 569; Mitchell V. Clark, (1884) 110 U. S. 633; Ames v. Kansas, (1884) 111 U. S. 449; In re Loney, (1890) 134 U. S. 373; In re Green, (1890) 134 U. S. 377; McAllister v. U. S., (1891) 141 U. S. 174; Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897) 165 U. S. 275; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, (1902) 186 U. S. 181. It is manifest that the Constitution requires a supreme court 122 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. Making war letters of marque. offenses against the law of nations. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 10.) r 18. An immunity. Against any declaration of war or the granting of letters of marque and reprisal except by the United States. 'Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. Appro- priations for war purposes. 19. An immunity. Against any appropria- tions for war purposes by Congress, under its power to be established. But Congress is also bound " to create some inferior courts, in which to vest all that jurisdiction which, under the Constitution, is exclusively vested in the United States, and of which the Supreme Court cannot take original cognizance. They might establish one or more inferior courts; they might parcel out the jurisdiction among such courts, from time to time, at their own pleasure. But the whole judicial power of the United States should be, at all times, vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under its authority." Per Story, J., in Martin v. Hunter, (1816) 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 331. 7U. S. v. Palmer, (1818) 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 610; U. S. v. Wilt- berger, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 76; U. S. v. Smith, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 153; U. S. . Furlong, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 184; U. S. v. Arjona, (1887) 120 U. S. 479. The power of the United States to punish an act constituting an offense against the law of nations does not prevent a State from providing for the punishment of the same thing, where the act is an offense against the authority of the State as well as that of the United States. U. S. v. Arjona, (1887) 120 U. S. 479. s Brown v. U. S., (1814) 8 Cranch (U. S.) 110; American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; Mrs. Alex- ander's Cotton, (1864) 2 Wall. (U. S.) 404; Miller v. U. S., (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 268; Tyler v. Defrees, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 331; Stewart v. Kahn, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 493; Hamilton v. Dillin, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 73; Lamar v. Browne, (1875) 92 U. S. 187; Mayfield v. Richards, (1885) 115 U. S. 137; Chinese Exclusion Case, (1889) 130 U. S. 581; Church of Jesus Christ V. U. S., (1890) 136 U. S. 1; Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., (1892) 142 U. S. 651. "The Federal power has a right to declare and prosecute wars, and, as a necessary incident, to raise and transport troops through and over the territory of any State of the Union. If this right is dependent in any sense, however limited, upon the pleasure of a State, the government itself may be overthrown by an obstruction to its exercise." Crandall v. Nevada, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 44. CITIZENSHIP 123 to raise and support armies, for a longer term than Chapter two years. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 12.) 9 IV> 20. A right. To the creation and maintenance Nay y- of a navy by the Federal government. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 13. J 1 21. A right. To the use of the militia under the gj 5 of call of the Federal government, for executing the militia * laws of the Union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 15.) 2 22. A right. To exclusive Federal legislation over gov- ernment territory. 9Crandall v. Nevada, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35; Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., (1892) 142 U. S. 651. "The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even uncautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence." Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. XXVI. " Among the powers assigned to the national government, is the power ' to raise and support armies,' and the power ' to provide for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.' The execution of these powers falls within the line of its duties; and its control over the subject is plenary and exclusive. . . . No interference with the execution of this power of the national government in the formation, organization, and government of its armies by any State officials could be permitted without greatly impairing the efficiency of, if it did not utterly destroy, this branch of the public service." Tarble's Case, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 408. iU. S. v. Bevans, (1818) 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 336; Dynes V. Hoover, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 65. " The authority to build and equip vessels of war is, doubtless, implied in the power to 'declare war,' but the same authority is more directly conferred by the power to 'provide and maintain a navy.'" U. S. v. Burlington, etc., Ferry Co., (1884) 21 Fed. Rep. 340. See also U. S. v. Rhodes, (1866) 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,151. 2 Houston v. Moore, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Martin V. Mott, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 19; Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 124 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. Habeas corpus. by Congress over a territory not exceeding ten miles square as a seat of government, and like authority over all places purchased for forts, magazines, arse- nals, and dockyards. (Art. I, Sec. 8, 01. 17.) 3 23. A right. To the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, save when it may be suspended for How. (U. S.) 1; Crandall v. Nevada, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35; Texas v. White, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700; Presser v. Illinois, (1886) 116 U. S. 252. " So long as the militia are acting under the military jurisdic- tion of the State to which they belong, the powers of legislation over them are concurrent in the general and State government. Congress has power to provide for organizing, arming, and disci- plining them; and this power being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them, according to the disci- pline to be prescribed by Congress, it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. But as State militia, the power of the State governments to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Con- stitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the general government, operating upon the same subject." Houston v. Moore, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 16. 3 Hepburn v. Ellzey, (1804) 2 Cranch (U. S.) 445; Loughbor- ough v. Blake, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 317; Cohen V. Virginia, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 264; American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; Kendall v. U. S., (1838) 12 Pet. (U. S.) 524; U. S. v. Dewitt, (1869) 9 Wall. (U. S.) 41; Dunphy v. Kleinsmith, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 610; Willard V. Presbury, (1871) 14 Wall. (U. S.) 676; Kohl v. U. S., (1875) 91 U. S. 367; Phillips v. Payne, (1875) 92 U. S. 130; U. S. v. Fox, (1876) 94 U. S. 315; Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, (1885) 114 U. S. 525; Gibbons v. District of Columbia, (1886) 116 U. S. 404; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, (1886) 117 U. S. 151; Stoutenburgh V. Hennick, (1889) 129 U. S. 141; Geofroy v. Riggs, (1890) 133 U. S. 258; Benson v. U. S., (1892) 146 U. S. 325; Shoemaker V. U. S., (1893) 147 U. S. 282; Chappell v. U. S., (1896) 160 U. S. 499; Ohio v. Thomas, (1899) 173 U. S. 276; Wight v. Davidson, (1901) 181 U. S. 371. " When the title is acquired by purchase by consent of the legislatures of the States, the Federal jurisdiction is exclusive of all State authority. This follows from the declaration of the Con- stitution that Congress shall have * like authority ' over such places CITIZENSHIP 125 facto public safety in time of rebellion or invasion. (Art. Chapter I, Sec. 9, 01. 2.)^ IV - 24. An immunity. Against any bill of attainder or ex post facto law. (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3.) 5 25. An immunity. Against any capitation or as it has over the district which is the seat of government; that is, the power of * exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.' Broader or clearer language could not be used to exclude all other authority than that of Congress." Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, (1885) 114 U. S. 532. *U. S. v. Hamilton, (1795) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 17; Hepburn v. Ellzey, (1804) 2 Cranch (U. S.) 445; Ex p. Bollman, (1807) 4 Cranch (U. S.) 75; Ex p. Kearney, (1822) 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 38; Ex p. Watkins, (1830) 3 Pet. (U. S.) 193; Ex p. Milburn, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.) 704; Holmes v. Jennison, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 540; Ex p. Dorr, (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 103; Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 1; Ableman v. Booth, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 506; Ex p. Vallandigham, (1863) 1 Wall. (U. S.) 243; Ex p. Milligan, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 2; Ex p. McCardle, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 506; Ex p. Yerger, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 85; Tarble's Case, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397; Ex p. Lange, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163; Ex p. Parks, (1876) 93 U. S. 18; Ex p. Karstendick, (1876) 93 U. S. 396; Ex p. Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 339; In re Neagle, (1890) 135 U. S. 1; In re Frederich, (1893) 149 U. S. 70. " The Constitution also declares that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. No express power is given to Congress to secure this invaluable right in the non-enumerated cases, or to suspend the writ in cases of rebellion or invasion. And yet it would be difficult to say, since this great writ of liberty is usually provided for by the ordinary functions of legislation, and can be effectually provided for only in this way, that it ought not to be deemed by necessary implication within the scope of the legislative power of Congress." Prigg v. Pennsyl- vania, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 619. 5 Fletcher v. Peck, (1810) 6 Cranch (U. S.) 87; Ogden V. Saun- ders, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 213; Watson v. Mercer, (1834) 8 Pet. (U. S.) 88; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, (1854) 17 How. (U. S.) 456; Locke v. New Orleans, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 172; Cum- mings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 277; Ex p. Garland, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333; Drehman V. Stifle, (1869) 8 Wall. above provided for. (Art. I, Sec. 9, 01. 4.) 6 duties. 1 26. An immunity. Against any tax or duty on articles exported from any State. (Art. I, Sec. 9, 01. 5.) 7 ports. 27. An immunity. Against any preference to the ports of one State over those of another; and against the entrance, clearance, or payment of duties by vessels bound to or from the ports of one State to or from the ports of another State. (Art. I, Sec. 9, 01. 6.) 8 5ty? 28. An immunity. Against the granting of any titles of nobility by the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 9, 01. 8.) 5c e , at b e y' 29. Immunities. Against any treaty, alliance, the" States. Pierce V. Carskadon, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 234; Hopt v. Utah, (1884) 110 U. S. 574; Cook v. U. S., (1891) 138 U. S. 157; Neely v. Henkel, (1901) 180 U. S. 109; Southwestern Coal Co. v. Me- Bride, (1902) 185 U. S. 499. e License Tax Cases, (1866) 5 Wall. (U. S.) 462; Springer v. U. S., (1881) 102 U. S. 586; Nicol v. Ames, (1899) 173 U. S. 509. " If Congress sees fit to impose a capitation, or other direct tax, it must be laid in proportion to the census; if Congress determines to impose duties, imposts, and excises, they must be uniform throughout the United States. These are not strictly limitations of power. They are rules prescribing the mode in which it shall be exercised." Veazie Bank v. Fenno, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 541. 7Cooley V. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Pace v. Burgess, (1875) 92 U. S. 372; Turpin v. Burgess, (1886) 117 U. S. 504; Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Bates, (1895) 156 U. S. 577; Nicol v. Ames, (1899) 173 U. S. 509; Williams v. Fears, (1900) 179 U. S. 270; De Lima V. Bidwell, (1901) 182 U. S. 1; Dooley v. U. S., (1901) 183 U. S. 151; Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S. (1901) 183 U. S. 176; Cornell v. Coyne, (1904) 192 U. S. 418. " The purpose of the restriction is that exportation, all expor- tation, shall be free from national burden." Fairbank v. U. S., (1901) 181 U. S. 292. sCooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 421; Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 U. S. 113; Northwestern Union CITIZENSHIP 127 or confederation entered into by any State, and the chapter granting of letters of marque or reprisal by any ' State, 9 and against the coinage of money or emission of bills of credit by any State and the making of anything but gold and silver coin a tender in pay- ment of debts by any State ; and the passage of any bill of attainder or ex post facto law, or law impair- ing the obligation of contracts, or grant of any title of nobility by any State. (Art. I, Sec. 10, 01. I.) 1 Packet Co. v. St. Louis, (1879) 100 U. S. 423; Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, (1881) 105 U. S. 559; Spraigue V. Thompson, (1886) 118 U. S. 90; Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisi- ana Board of Health, (1886) 118 U. S. 455; Johnson v. Chicago, etc., Elevator Co., (1886) 119 U. S. 388. This clause " is a limitation upon the power of Congress to reg- ulate commerce, for the purpose of producing entire commercial equality within the United States, and also a prohibition upon the States to destroy such equality by any legislation prescribing a condition upon which vessels bound from one State shall enter the ports of another State." Per Mr. Justice Wayne, in Norris V. Boston, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 414. See also Pennsylvania V. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 433; Williams v. The Lizzie Henderson, (1880) 29 Fed. Gas. No. 17,726a. " This provision operates only as a limitation of the powers of Congress, and in no respect affects the States in the regulation of their domestic affairs." Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 U. S. 135. 9" A State is forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation. If these compacts are with foreign nations, they interfere with the treaty-making power which is conferred entirely on the general government; if with each other, for political pur- poses, they can scarcely fail to interfere with the general purpose and intent of the Constitution. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, would lead directly to war; the power of declaring which is expressly given to Congress." Per Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in Barren v. Baltimore, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 249. i Decisions relating to making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. Craig V. Missouri, (1830) 4 Pet. (U. S.) 410; Byrne v. Missouri, (1834) 8 Pet. (U. S.) 40; Briscoe V. Kentucky Com. Bank, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 257; Darrington V. Branch Bank, (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 12. Decisions relating to ex post facto law. Calder v. Bull, (1798) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 386; Watson v. Mercer, (1834) 8 Pet. (U. S.) 88; 128 CITIZENSHIP Chapter Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, (1854) 17 How. (U. S.) 456; Locke v. IV. New Orleans, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 172; Ex p. Garland, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333; Gut v. Minnesota, (1869) 9 Wall. (U. S.) 35; Kring v. Missouri, (1882) 107 U. S. 221; Jaehne v. New York, (1888) 128 U. S. 189; Medley, Petitioner, (1890) 134 U. S. 160; Holden v. Minnesota, (1890) 137 U. S. 483; Hawker v. New York, (1898) 170 U. S. 189; Thompson v. Missouri, (1898) 171 U. S., 380; McDonald v. Massachusetts, (1901) 180 U. S. 311; Mallett V. North Carolina, (1901) 181 U. S. 589; Reetz v. Michigan, (1903) 188 U. S. 505. Decisions relating to laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Fletcher v. Peck, (1810) 6 Cranch (U. S.) 87; New Jersey v. Wil- son, (1812) 7 Cranch (U. S.) 164; Sturges v. Crowninshield, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 122; M'Millan v. M'Neill, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 209; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 518; Owings v. Speed, (1820) 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 420; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Smith, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 131; Green v. Biddle, (1823) 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Ogden v. Saunders, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 213; Mason v. Haile, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 370; Satterlee v. Matthewson, (1829) 2 Pet. (U. S.) 380; Jackson v. Lamphire, (1830) 3 Pet. (U. S.) 280; Providence Bank v. Billings, (1830) 4 Pet. (U. S.) 514; Mumma v. Potomac Co., (1834) 8 Pet. (U. S.) 281; Beers v. Haughton, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.) 329; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420; Armstrong v. Treasurer, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 281; Bronson V. Kinzie, (1843) 1 How. (U. S.) 311; McCracken v. Hayward, (1844) 2 How. (U. S.) 608; Gordon v. Appeal Tax Ct., (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 133; Maryland v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 534; Neil v. Ohio, (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 720; Cook v. Moffat, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 295; Planters' Bank v. Sharp, (1848) 6 How. (U. S.) 301; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, (1848) 6 How. (U. S.) 507; Crawford v. Branch Bank, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 279; Woodruff v. Trapnall, (1850) 10 How. (U. S.) 190; Paup V. Drew, (1850) 10 How. (U. S.) 218; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Nesbit, (1850) 10 How. (U. S.) 395; Butler v. Pennsyl- vania, (1850) 10 How. (U. S.) 402; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Louisa R. Co., (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 71; Vincennes University v. Indiana, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 268; Curran v. Arkansas, (1853) 15 How. (U. S.) 304; Piqua Branch of State Bank v. Knoop, (1853) 16 How. (U. S.) 369; Dodge v. Woolsey, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 331; Beers v. Arkansas, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 527; Aspinwall v. Daviess County, (1859) 22 How. (U. S.) 364; Christ Church V. Philadelphia County, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 300; Howard v. Bugbee, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 461; Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, (1861) 1 Black (U. S.) 436; Franklin Branch Bank v. Ohio, (1861) 1 Black (U. S.) 474; Wabash, etc., Canal Co. v. Beers, CITIZENSHIP 129 (1862) 2 Black (U. S.) 448; Oilman v. Sheboygan, (1862) 2 Black Chapter (U. S.) 510; Passaic River, etc., Bridge v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., IV. (1863) 1 Wall. (U. S.) 116; Hawthorne v. Calef, (1864) 2 Wall. (U. S.) 10; Binghamton Bridge, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 51; Wash- ington, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Maryland, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 210; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rock, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 177; Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 277; Von Hoffman v. Quincy, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 535; Mulligan v. Corbins, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 487; Furman v. Nichol, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 44; Home of Friendless v. Rouse, (1869) 8 Wall. (U.S.) 430; Wash- ington University v. Rouse, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 439; Butz 17. Muscatine, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 575; Drehman v. Stifle, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 595; Hepburn V. Griswold, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 603; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. McClure, (1870) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 511; Legal Tender Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 457; Curtis v. Whit- ney, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 68; Pennsylvania College Cases, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 190; Wilmington, etc., R. Co. V. Reid, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 264; East Saginaw Salt Mfg. Co. v. East Saginaw, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 373; White V. Hart, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 646; Osborn V. Nicholson, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 654; Norwich, etc., R. 'Co. v. Johnson, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 195; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 300; Tomlinson v. Jessup, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 454; Tomlin- son v. Branch, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 460; Miller v. New York, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 478; Holyoke Water-Power Co. v. Lyman, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 500; Gunn v. Barry, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 610; Humphrey v. Pegues, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 244; Walker v. Whitehead, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 314; Sohn v. Water- son, (1878) 17 Wall. (U. S.) 596; Barings v. Dabney, (1873) 19 Wall. (U. S.) 1; Head v. Missouri University, (1873) 19 Wall. (U. S.) 526; Pacific R. Co. v. Maguire, (1873) 20 Wall. (U. S.) 36; Garrison v. New York, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 196; Ochiltree v. Iowa R. Contracting Co., (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 249; Wilming- ton, etc., R. Co. v. King, (1875) 91 U. S. 3; Moultrie County v. Rockingham Ten-Cent Sav.-Bank, (1875) 92 U. S. 631; Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, (1876) 93 U. S. 116; West Wisconsin R. Co. v. Trempealeau County, (1876) 93 U. S. 595; New Jersey v. Yard, (1877) 95 U. S. 104; Cairo, etc., R. Co. v.'Hecht, (1877) 95 U. S. 168; Terry v. Anderson, (1877) 95 U. S. 628; Farrington V. Ten- nessee, (1877) 95 U. S. 679; Blount v. Windley, (1877) 95 U. S. 173; Murray v. Charleston, (1877) 96 U. S. 432; Edwards V. Kear- zey, (1877) 96 U. S. 595; Tennessee v. Sneed, (1877) 96 U. S. 69; Williams v. Bruffy, (1877) 96 U. S. 176; Richmond, etc., R. Co. V. Richmond, (1877) 96 U. S. 521; Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, (1877) 97 U. S. 25; Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, (1878) 97 U. S. 659; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, (1878) 97 9 130 CITIZENSHIP Chapter U. S. 697; U. S. v. Memphis, (1877) 97 U. S. 284; Keith v. Clark, IV. (1878) 97 U. S. 454; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Georgia, (1878) 98 U. S. 359; Northwestern University v. People, (1878) 99 U, S. 309; Newton v. Mahoning County, (1879) 100 U. S. 548; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, (1879) 101 U. S. 337; Wright v. Nagle, (1879) 101 U. S. 791; Stone v. Mississippi, (1879) 101 U. S. 814; South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Alabama, (1879) 101 U. S. 832; Louisiana V. New Orleans, (1880) 102 U. S. 203; Hall v. Wisconsin, (1880) 103 U. S. 5; Penniman's Case, (1880) 103 U. S. 714; Wolff v. New Orleans, (1880) 103 U. S. 358; Koshkonong v. Burton, (1882) 104 U. S. 668; New Haven, etc., R. Co. v. Hamersley, (1881) 104 U. S. 1; Clay County v. Savings Soc., (1882) 104 U. S. 579; New York Guaranty, etc., Co. v. Board of Liquidation, (1881) 105 U. S. 622; Greenwood v. Union Freight R. Co., (1881) 105 U. S. 13; St. Anna's Asylum v. New Orleans, (1881) 105 U. S. 362; Louisiana v. Pils- bury, (1881) 105 U. S. 278; New Orleans v. Morris, (1881) 105 U. S. 600; Close V. Glenwood Cemetery, (1882) 107 U. S. 466; An- toni v. Greenhow, (1882) 107 U. S. 769; Vance v. Vance, (1883) 108 U. S. 514; Memphis Gas Light Co. v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., (1883) 109 U. S. 398; Canada Southern R. Co. v. Gebhard, (1883) 109 U. S. 527; Louisiana v. New Orleans, (1883) 109 U. S. 285; Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co., (1883) 109 U. S. 401; Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, (1884) 110 U. S. 347; Butchers' Union Slaughter-House, etc., Co. v. Crescent City Live- Stock Land- ing, etc., Co., (1884) 111 U. S. 746; Nelson v. Police Jury, (1884) 111 U. S. 716; Marye v. Parsons, (1884) 114 U. S. 325; Poindexter V. Greenhow, (1884) 114 U. S. 270; Amy v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., (1885) 114 U. S. 387; Allen v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1884) 114 U. -S. 311; Effinger v. Kenney, (1885) 115 U. S. 566; New Or- leans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., (1885) 115 U. S. 650; Louis- ville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Co., (1885) 115 U. S. 683; New Orleans Water- Works Co. v. Rivers, (1885) 115 U. S. 674; Fisk v. Jefferson Police Jury, (1885) 166 U. S. 131; Mobile v. Watson, (1886) 116 U. S. 289; New Orleans v. Houston, (1886) 119 U. S. 265; St. Tam- many Water- Works v. New Orleans Water-Works, (1887) 120 U. S. 64; Church v. Kelsey, (1887) 121 U. S. 282; Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, (1887) 121 U. S. 388; Seibert v. Lewis, (1887) 122 U. S. 284; New Orleans Water- Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., (1888) 125 U. S. 18; Maynard v. Hill, (1888) 125 U. S. 190; Denny v. Bennett, (1888) 128 U. S. 489; Williamson v. New Jersey, (1889) 130 U. S. 189; Freeland v. Williams, (1889) 131 U. S. 405; Campbell v. Wade, (1889) 132 U. S. 34; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Miller, (1889) 132 U. S. 75; Pennie v. Reis, (1889) 132 U. S. 464; Hans v. Louisiana, (1890) 134 U. S. 1; Crenshaw v. U. S., (1890) 134 U. S. 99; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1890) 134 U. S. 418; Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1890) 134 CITIZENSHIP U. S. 467; Hill v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., (1890) 134 U. S. 515; Chapter McGahey v. Virginia, (1890) 135 U. S. 662; U. S. v. North Caro- IV. lina, (1890) 136 U. S. 211; Wheeler v. Jackson, (1890) 137 U. S. 245; Sioux City St. R. Co. v. Sioux City, (1891) 138 U. S. 98; Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., (1891) 138 U. S. 287; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, (1891) 140 U. S. 1; Scotland County Ct. v. U. S., (1891) 140 U. S. 41; Essex Public Road Board v. Skinkle, (1891) 140 U. S. 334; Stein v. Bienville Water Supply Co., (1891) 141 U. S. 67; New Orleans v. New Orleans Water- Works Co., (1891) 142 U. S. 79; New Orleans City, etc., R. Co. v. New Orleans, (1892) 143 U. S. 192; Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, (1892) 143 U. S. 1; New York v. Squire, (1892) 145 U. S. 175; Baker v. Kilgore, (1892) 145 U. S. 487; Morley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. (1892) 146 U. S. 162; Hamilton Gas Light, etc., Co. V. Hamilton, (1892) 146 U. S. 258; Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. Als- brook, (1892) 146 U. S. 279; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, (1892) 146 U. S. 387; Bier v. McGehee, (1893) 148 U. S. 137; People v. Cook, (1893) 148 U. S. 397; New York, etc., R. Co. V. Bristol, (1894) 151 U. S. 556; Bryan v. Board of Education, (1894) 151 U. S. 639; Duncan v. Missouri, (1894) 152 U. S. 377; New Orleans v. Benjamin, (1894) 153 U. S. 411; Eagle Ins. Co. V. Ohio, (1894) 153 U. S. 446; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1894) 153 U. S. 628; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, (1894) 153 U. S. 486; U. S. v. Thoman, (1895) 156 U. S. 353; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, (1895) 156 U. S. 649; New Orleans City, etc., R. Co. v. Louisiana, (1895) 157 U. S. 219; Bank of Commerce v. Tennes- see, (1896) 161 U. S. 134; Baltzer v. North Carolina, (1896) 161 U. S. 240; Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co., (1896) 161 U. S. 646; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, (1896) 161 U. S. 677; Woodruff v. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U. S. 291; Gibson v. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U. S. 565; Barnitz V. Beverly, (1896) 163 U. S. 118; Hanford v. Da vies, (1896) 163 U. S. 273; Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. V. Sandford, (1896) 164 U. S. 578; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Mathews, (1897) 165 U. S. 1; Grand Lodge, etc., v. New Orleans, (1897) 166 U. S. 143; Baltimore V. Baltimore Trust, etc., Co., (1897) 166 U. S. 673; City R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co., (1897) 166 U. S. 557; Wabash R. Co. v. Defiance, (1897) 167 U. S. 88; Shapleigh v. San Angelo, (1897) 167 U. S. 646; St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Com'rs, (1897) 168 U. S. 349; Douglas v. Kentucky, (1897) 168 U. S. 488; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, (1898) 170 U. S. 226; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, (1898) 170 U. S. 243; Williams v. Eggleston, <1898) 170 U. S. 304; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Nebraska, (1898) 170 U. S. 57; Mis- souri v. Murphy, (1898) 170 U. S. 78; Louisville Water Co. v. Ken- tucky, (1898) 170 U. S. 127; Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., (1898) 172 U. S. 1; McCullough v. Virginia, (1898) 172 U. S. 132 CITIZENSHIP Chapter 39. An immunity. From the laying of any im- ! post or duties on imports or exports by any State, eS pos by without the consent of Congress. (Art. I, Sec. 10, the 'States. 0^ 2 .)2 102; Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Spratley, (1899) 172 U. S. 602; Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Owensboro, (1899) 173 U. S. 636; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (1899) 173 U. S. 684; Covington v. Kentucky, (1899) 173 U. S. 231; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Hender- son, (1899) 173 U. S. 592; Walsh v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., (1900) 176 U. S. 469; Adirondack R. Co. v. New York, (1900) 176 U. S. 335; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Cravens, (1900) 178 U. S. 389; Looker v. Maynard, (1900) 179 U. S. 46; Stearns v. Minnesota, (1900) 179 U. S. 223; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, (1901) 180 U. S. 28; St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, (1901) 181 U. S. 142; Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. Craig, (1901) 181 U. S. 548; Bedford v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc., (1901) 181 U. S. 227; Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, (1901) 183 U. S. 13; Orr v. Oilman, (1902) 183 U. S. 278; Wilson v. Iseminger, (1902) 185 U. S. 55; Vicksburg Water- Works Co. v. Vicksburg, (1902) 185 U. S. 65; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, (1902) 186 U. S. 181; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Maryland, (1902) 187 U. S. 258; Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. Osh- kosh, (1903) 187 U. S. 437; Diamond Glue Co. v. U. S. Glue Co., (1903) 187 U. S. 611; Weber v. Rogan, (1903) 138 U. S. 10; Black- stone i?. Miller, (1903) 188 U. S. 189; Waggoner v. Flack, (1903) 188 U. S. 595; Owensboro v. Owensboro Waterworks Co., (1903) 191 U. S. 358; Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, (1903) 191 U. S. 379; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, (1903) 191 U. S. 499; Citizens' Bank v. Parker, (1904) 192 U. S. 73; Stanislaus County v. San Joa- quin, etc., Canal, etc., Co., (1904) 192 U. S. 201. 2McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Brown v. Maryland, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 419; Mager v. Grima, (1850) 8 How. (U. S.) 490; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Almy 17. California, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 169; License Tax Cases, (1866) 5 Wall. (U. S.) 462; Crandall v. Nevada, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35; Waring v. Mobile, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 110; Wood- ruff v. Parham, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123; Hinson v. Lott, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 148; State Tonnage Tax Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 204; State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 284; Inman Steamship Co. 17. Tinker, (1876) 94 U. S. 238; Cook v. Pennsylvania, (1878) 97 U. S. 566; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, (1877) 95 U. S. 80; People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, (1882) 107 U. S. 59; Turner v. Mary- land, (1882) 107 U. S. 38; Brown 17. Houston, (1885) 114 U. S. CITIZENSHIP 133 31. Immunities. From any duty of tonnage Chapter laid by any State without the consent of Congress, I or the keeping of troops or ships of war in time of pea,ce by any State, or the entering into an agree- " states, ment or compact with another State or a foreign power, or engaging in war unless actually invaded or in such immediate danger as will not admit of delay. (Art. I, Sec. 10, 01. 3.) 3 622; Coe v. Errol, (1886) 116 U. S. 517; Turpin v. Burgess, (1886) 117 U. S. 504; Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Bates, (1895) 156 U. S. 577; Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Louisiana, (1895) 156 U. S. 590; Scott v. Donald, (1897) 165 U. S. 58; Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of Agriculture, (1898) 171 U. S. 345; May v. New Orleans, (1900) 178 U. S. 496; Dooley v. U. S., (1901) 183 U. S. 151; Cornell v. Coyne, (1904) 192 U. S. 418; American Steel, etc., Co. v. Speed, (1904) 192 U. S. 500. "Prior to the adoption of the Constitution the States attempted to regulate commerce, and they also levied duties on imports and exports and duties of tonnage, and it was the embarrassments grow- ing out of such regulations and conflicting obligations which mainly led to the abandonment of the confederation and to the more per- fect union under the present Constitution." State Tonnage Tax Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 2L4. See also Brown v. Maryland, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 439. s Green v. Biddle, (1823) 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 1; Poole v. Fleeger, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 185; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 299; Peete v. Morgan, (1873) 19 Wall. (U. S.) 581; Cannon v. New Orleans, (1874) 20 Wall. (U. S.) 577; Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, (1876) 94 U. S. 238; Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling, (1878) 99 U. S. 273; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, (1879) 100 U. S. 423; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, (1877) 95 U. S. 80; Vicksburg v. Tobin, (1879) 100 U. S. 430; Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, (1881) 105 U. S. 559; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, (1882) 107 U. S. 365; Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, (1882) 107 U. S. 691; Presser v. Illinois, (1886) 116 U. S. 252; U. S. 455; Huse v. Glover, (1886) 119 U. S. 543; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, (1887) 121 U. S. 444; Indiana v. Kentucky, (1890) 136 U. S. 479; Virginia v. Tennessee, (1893) 148 U. S. 503; Whar- ton v. Wise, (1894) 153 U. S. 155; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. James, (1896) 161 U. S. 545. "Looking at the clause [in the Federal Constitution] in which 134 CITIZENSHIP chapter 32. A privilege. Of being presidential and vice- ! presidential elector in the manner provided by the legislation of the State. (Art. II, Sec. 1, 01. 1 ce-pres d 33. A privilege. Of being President provided Residency. the c ^izen possesses the requisite qualifications of birth, age, and residence. (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 4.) 5 u> H ?h b e iUty 34. A privilege. Of being Vice-President sub- den e c?. resi " ject to the same qualifications as last named. (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 4.) t s he in f g edwai 35. A privilege. Of suing in the federal courts, on the terms and subject to the conditions of juris- diction set forth in the Constitution and laws. (Art. III, Sees. 1 and 2.) right. To trial by jury in the State where "trial. the crime is charged to have been committed in any trial for crime in a federal court, except in case of impeachment, and when the crime is not committed the terms 'compact* or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the pro- hibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." Virginia v. Tennessee, (1893) 148 U. S. 519. 4 Field v. Clark, (1892) 143 U. S. 649; Chisholm v. Georgia, (1793) 2 Dall. (U. S.) 419; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 176; Ex p. Siebold, (1879) 100 U. S. 371; In re Green, (1890) 134 U. S. 377; McPherson v. Blacker, (1892) 146 U. S. 1. "Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same day throughout the United States, but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the State is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that congressional and fed- eral influence might be excluded." McPherson v. Blacker, (1892) 146 U. S. 35. v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, (1830) 3 Pet. (U. S.) 99. CITIZENSHIP 135 within any State the trial to be at such place or chapter IV places as Congress directs. (Art. Ill, Sec. 2.) 6 ' eHayburn's Case, (1792) 2 Dall. (U. S.) 410; Chisholm v. Geor- gia, (1793) 2 Dall. (U. S.) 419; Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, (1794) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 6; U. S. v. La Vengeance, (1796) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 297; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, (1798) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 378; Moss- man v. Higginson, (1800) 4 Dall. (U. S.) 12; Marbury v. Madison, (1803) 1 Cranch (U. S.) 137; Hepburn v. Ellzey, (1804) 2 Cranch (U. S.) 445; U. S. v. More, (1805) 3 Cranch (U. S.) 159; Straw- bridge v. Curtiss, (1806) 3 Cranch (U. S.) 267; Ex p. Bollman, (1807) 4 Cranch (U. S.) 75; Rose V. Himely, (1808) 4 Cranch (U. S.) 241; Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, (1808) 4 Cranch (U. S.) 306; Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 57; U. S. Bank v. Deveaux, (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 61; Hodgson v. Bower- bank, (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 303; Owings v. Norwood, (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 344; Durousseau v. U. S., (1810) 6 Cranch (U. S.) 307; U. S. v. Hudson, (1812) 7 Cranch (U. S.) 32; Martin v Hunter, (1816) 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 304; Colson v. Lewis, (1817) 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 377; U. S. v. Bevans, (1818) 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 336; Cohen v. Virginia, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 264; Ex p. Kear- ney, (1822) 7 W T heat. (U. S.) 38; Matthews v. Zane, (1822) 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 164; Osborn v. U. S. Bank, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 738; U. S. v. Ortega, (1826) 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 467; American Ins. Co. 1?. 356 Bales Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. (U. S.) 511; Jackson v. Twentyman, (1829) 2 Pet. (U. S.) 136; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) 5 Pet. (U. S.) 1; New Jersey v. New York, (1831) 5 Pet. (U. S.) 284; Davis v. Packard, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 41, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 276; U. S. V. Arredondo, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 691; Breedlove v. Nicolet, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 413; Brown v. Keene, (1834) 8 Pet. (U. S.) 112; Davis v. Packard, (1834) 8 Pet. (U. S.) 312; New Orleans V. De Armas, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.) 224; Rhode Island V. Massachusetts, (1838) 12 Pet. (U. S.) 657; Augusta Bank v. Earle, (1839) 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519; Commercial, etc., Bank v. Slocomb, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 60; Suydam v. Broadnax, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 67; Prigg v. Penn- sylvania, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 539; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Let- son, (1844) 2 How. (U. S.) 497; Gary v. Curtis, (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 236; Waring V. Clarke, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 441; Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 1; Sheldon v. Sill, (1850) 8 How. (U. S.) 441; The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 443; Fretz V. Bull, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 466; Neves v. Scott, (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 268; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 518; Marshall v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1853) 16 How. (U. S.) 314; U. S. V. Guthrie, (1854) 17 How. (U. S.) 284; Smith v. Maryland, (1855) 136 CITIZENSHIP Chapter 18 How. (U. S.) 71; Jones v. League, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 76; IV. Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 272; Hyde v. Stone, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 170; Irvine v. Marshall, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 558; Fenn v. Holme, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 481; Morewood v. Enequist, (1859) 23 How. (U. S.) 491; Kentucky v. Dennison, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 66; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Wheeler, (1861) 1 Black (U. S.) 286; The Steamer St. Law- rence, (1861) 1 Black (U. S.) 522; The Propeller Commerce, (1861) 1 Black (U. S.) 574; Ex p. Vallandigham, (1863) 1 Wall. (U. S.) 243; Ex p. Milligan, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 2; The Moses Taylor, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 411; Mississippi v. Johnson, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 475; The Hine V. Trevor, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 555; Philadelphia v. Collector, (1866) 5 Wall. (U. S.) 720; Georgia v. Stanton, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 50; Payne v. Hook, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 425; The Alicia, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 571; Ex p. Yer- ger, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 85; New England Mut. Marine Ins. Co. v. Dunham, (1870) 11 Wall. (U.S.) 1 ; Virginia v. West Virginia, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 39; Susquehanna, etc., Valley R., etc., Co. v. Blatchford, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 172; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Whitton, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 270; Tarble's Case, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397; Blyew v. U. S., (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 581; Davis v. Gray, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 203; Sewing Mach. Co.'s Case, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 553; Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, (1874) 20 Wall. (U. S.) 445; Vannevar v. Bryant, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 41; The Lottawanna, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 558; Gaines V. Fuentes, (1875) 92 U. S. 10; Claflin v. Houseman, (1876) 93 U. S. 130; Muller v. Dows, (1876) 94 U. S. 444; Doyle v. Con- tinental Ins. Co., (1876) 94 U. S. 535; U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., (1878) 98 U. S. 569; Tennessee v. Davis, (1879) 100 U. S. 257; Ex p. Boyd, (1881) 105 U. S. 647; Bush v. Kentucky, (1882) 107 U. S. 110; Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. V. Parkersburg, (1882) 107 U. S. 691; Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., (1883) 108 U. S. 477; Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Wiggins Ferry Co., (1883) 108 U. S. 18; Louisiana v. New Orleans, (1883) 108 U. S. 568; Ellis v. Davis, (1883) 109 U. S. 485; Carroll County v. Smith, (1884) 111 U. S. 556; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. California, (1886) 118 U. S. 109; Barron v. Burnside, (1887) 121 U. S. 186; Lincoln County v. Lun- ing, (1890) 133 U. S. 529; Hans v. Louisiana, (1890) 134 U. S. 1 ; North Carolina v. Temple, (1890) 134 U. S. 22; In re Neagle, (1890) 135 U. S. 1; Nashua, etc., R. Corp. v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., (1890) 136 U. S. 356; Jones v. U. S., (1890) 137 U. S. 202; Cook County V. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc., Co., (1891) 138 U. S. 635; Manchester v. Massachusetts, (1891) 139 U. S. 240; In re Garnett, (1891) 141 U. S. 1; U. S. v. Texas, (1892) 143 U. S. 621; Southern Pac. R. Co. V. Denton, (1892) 146 U. S. 202; Cooke v. Avery, (1893) 147 U. S. 375; Gates V. Allen, (1893) 149 U. S. 451; McNulty v. Cali- CITIZENSHIP 137 fornia, (1893) 149 U. S. 645; In re Tyler, (1893) 149 U. S. 164; Newport Light Co. 17. Newport, (1894) 151 U. S. 527; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol, (1894) 151 U. S. 556; Israel v. Arthur, (1894) 152 U. S. 355; Michigan v. Flint, etc., R. Co., (1894) 152 U. S. 363; New Orleans v. Benjamin, (1894) 153 U. S. 411; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, (1894) 153 U. S. 486; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1894) 154 U. S. 362; Interstate Commerce Commis- sion v. Brimson, (1894) 154 U. S. 447; Plumley v. Massachusetts, (1894) 155 U. S. 461; Andrews v. Swartz, (1895) 156 U. S. 272; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, (1895) 156 U. S. 649; Stevens v. Nichols, (1895) 157 U. S. 370; In re Debs, (1895) 158 U. S. 564; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, (1895) 159 U. S. 103; Folsom v. Town- ship Ninety-Six, (1895) 159 U. S. 611; Laing v. Rigney, (1896) 160 U. S. 531; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t?. James, (1896) 161 U. S. 545; Woodruff v. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U. S. 291; Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. V. Bradley, (1896) 164 U. S. 112; Scott v. Donald, (1897) 165 U. S. 107; Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897) 165 U. S. 275; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, (1897) 166 U. S. 226; Forsyth v. Hammond, (1897) 166 U. S. 506; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, (1897) 166 U. S. 648; In re Lennon, (1897) 166 U. S. 548; City R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co., (1897) 166 U. S. 557; Douglas v. Kentucky, (1897) 168 U. S. 488; Miller v. Cornwall R. Co., (1897) 168 U. S. 131; Baker v. Grice, (1898) 169 U. S. 284; Smyth v. Ames, (1898) 169 U. S. 466; Backus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., (1898) 169 U. S. 557; Tinsley v. Anderson, (1898) 171 U. S. 101; Walla Walla tf. Walla Walla Water Co., (1898) 172 U. S. 1; Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., (1898) 172 U. S. 58; Meyer v. Rich- mond, (1898) 172 U. S. 82; McCullough v. Virginia, (1898) 172 U. S. 102; Fitts v. McGhee, (1899) 172 U. S. 516; Dewey v. Des Moines, (1899) 173 U. S. 193; Nicol v. Ames, (1899) 173 U. S. 509; Covington v. Kentucky, (1899) 173 U. S. 231; La Abra Silver Min. Co. t?. U. S., (1899) 175 U. S. 423; Louisiana v. Texas, (1900) 176 U. S. 1; Whitman v. Oxford Nat. Bank, (1900) 176 U. S. 559; Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, (1900) 176 U. S. 640; Carter v. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 442; Smith v. Reeves, (1900) 178 U. S. 436; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., (1900) 178 U. S. 239; Wiley v. Sinkler, (1900) 179 U. S. 58; Missouri v. Illinois, (1901) 180 U. S. 208; Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Welling, (1901) 181 U. S. 47; Dooley v. U. S., (1901) 182 U. S. 222; Tullock v. Mulvane, (1902) 184 U. S. 497; Patton v. Brady, (1902) 184 U. S. 608; Kansas v. Colorado, (1902) 185 U. S. 125; Swafford v. Tern- pleton, (1902) 185 U. S. 487; Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, (1903) 187 U. S. 479; Andrews v. Andrews, (1903) 188 U. S. 14; Hooker V Los Angeles, (1903) 188 U. S. 314; Cummings v. Chicago, (1903) 188 U. S. 410; Schaefer v. Werling, (1903) 188 U. S. 516; The Roanoke, (1903) 189 U. S. 185; Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Osborn, 138 CITIZENSHIP Chapter 37, & immunity. From the charge of treason against the United States, except for levying war Treason, against them, or for adhering to their enemies, giv- ing them aid and comfort. (Art. Ill, Sec. 3, Cl. 1. See Of Treason, supra, pp. 74 et seq.) ?f vi ?r e e n a c son. 38. A right. To demand, in cases of trial for treason, the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or a confession in open court, as the only basis of conviction. (Art. Ill, Sec. 3, Cl. I.) 7 Attainder. 39. An immunity. Against any attainder of (1903) 189 U. S. 383; Patterson v. Bark Eudora, (1903) 190 U. S. 169; Howard v. Fleming, (1903) 191 U. S. 126; Arbuckle v. Black- burn, (1903) 191 U. S. 405; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, (1903) 191 U. S. 499; Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., (1903) 191 U. S. 526; Wa- bash R. Co. v. Pearce, (1904) 192 U. S. 179; Rogers V. Alabama, (1904) 192 U. S. 226; South Dakota v. North Carolina, (1904) 192 U. S. 286; Bankers Mut. Casualty Co. v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., (1904) 192 U. S. 371; Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. V. McClain, (1904) 192 U. S. 397. 7U. S. v. Insurgents, (1795) 2 Dall. (U. S.) 335; U. S. 17. Mitch- ell, (1795) 2 Dall. (U. S.) 348; Ex p. Bollman, (1807) 4 Cranch (U. S.) 75; Burr's Trial, 4 Cranch (U. S.) 469. " To prevent the possibility of those calamities which result from the extension of treason to offenses of minor importance, that great fundamental law which defines and limits the various departments of our government has given a rule on the subject both to the legis- lature and the courts of America, which neither can be permitted to transcend. ' Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.' " Per Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in Ex p. Bollman, (1807) 4 Cranch (U. S.) 126. See also U. S. v. Hoxie, (1808) 1 Paine (U. S.) 265. "In the earlier periods of English history, the judges were often the pliant tools of the king, and exercised the power of punishing for constructive treasons, under circumstances the most revolting and greatly to the oppression of innocent persons. The wise and sagacious framers of our Constitution have effectually guarded against such abuses of power, by declaring there shall be no convic- tion for this high crime on mere suspicion or on proof of any fact which is not an overt act of treason established by two witnesses." Charge to Grand Jury, (1861) 1 Bond (U. S.) 610. CITIZENSHIP 139 treason working corruption of blood or forfeiture, chapter except during the life of the person attainted. (Art. ' III, Sec. 3, 01. 2.) 8 40. A right. To demand that each State shall give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. (Art. IV, Sec. I.) 9 sBigelow v. Forrest, (1869) 9 Wall. (U. S.) 339; Day v. Micou, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 156; Ex p. Lange, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163; Wallach v. Van Riswick, (1875) 92 U. S. 202; U. S. v. Dun- aington, (1892) 146 U. S. 338. "What was intended by the constitutional provision is free from doubt. In England, attainders of treason worked corruption of blood and perpetual forfeiture of the estate of the person attainted, to the disinherison of his heirs, or of those who would otherwise be his heirs. Thus innocent children were made to suffer because of the offense of their ancestor. When the Federal Constitution was framed, this was felt to be a great hardship, and even rank injus- tice. For this reason, it was ordained that no attainder of treason should work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." Wallach v. Van Riswick, (1875) 92 U. S. 210. Mills 17. Duryee, (1813) 7 Cranch (U. S.) 481; Hampton v. M'Connel, (1818) 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 234; Mayhew v. Thatcher, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 129; Darby v. Mayer, (1825) 10 Wheat. (U. S.) 465; U. S. v. Amedy, (1826) 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 392; Cald- well v. Carrington, (1835) 9 Pet. (U. S.) 86; M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, (1839) 13 Pet. (U. S.) 312; Augusta Bank v. Earle, (1839) 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519; Alabama State Bank v. Dalton, (1850) 9 How. (U. S.) 522; D'Arcy V. Ketchum, (1850) 11 How. (U. S.) 165; Christmas v. Russell, (1866) 5 Wall. (U. S.) 290; Green v. Van Buskirk, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 139; Paul v. Virginia, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168; Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, (1873) 17 Wall. (U. S.) 521; Thompson v. Whitman, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 457; Pennoyer V. Neff, (1877) 95 U. S. 714; Bona- parte t). Appeal Tax Ct., (1882) 104 U. S. 592; Robertson v. Pick- rell, (1883) 109 U. S. 608; Brown V. Houston, (1885) 114 U. S. 622; Hanley V. Donoghue, (1885) 116 U. S. 1; Renaud v. Abbott, (1886) 116 U. S. 277; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., (1887) 119 U. S. 615; Borer v. Chapman, (1887) 119 U. S. 587; Cole v. Cunningham, (1890) 133 U. S. 107; Blount V. Walker, (1890) 134 U. S. 607; Simmons V. Saul, (1891) 138 U. S. 439; Reynolds v. Stockton, (1891) 140 U. S. 254; Carpenter v. Strange, 140 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. 41. A right In the citizens of each State to en- joy all the privileges and immunities of citizens in universal the several States. (Art IV, Sec. 2, 01. I.) 1 privileges. (1891) 141 U. S. 87; Huntington v. Attrill, (1892) 146 U. S. 657; Glenn v. Garth, (1893) 147 U. S. 360; Laing v. Rigney, (1896) 160 U. S. 531; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sturm, (1899) 174 U. S. 710; Thormann v. Frame, (1900) 176 U. S. 350; Hancock Nat. Bank . Farnum, (1900) 176 U. S. 640; Clarke v. Clarke, (1900) 178 U. S. 186; Wilkes County v. Coler, (1901) 180 U. S. 506; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, (1901) 180 U. S. 452; Johnson v. New York L. Ins. Co., (1903) 187 U. S. 491; Andrews v. Andrews, (1903) 188 U. S. 14; Blackstone v. Miller, (1903) 188 U. S. 189; Finney v. Guy, (1903) 189 U. S. 335; Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, (1904) 192 U. S. 29; German Sav., etc., Soc. v. Dormitzer, (1904) 192 U. S. 125; Wedding v. Meyler, (1904) 192 U. S. 573. iU. S. Bank v. Deveaux, (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 61; Gassies V. Ballon, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 761; Rhode Island v. Massachu- setts, (1838) 12 Pet. (U. S.) 657; Augusta Bank V. Earle, (1839) 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519; Moore V. Illinois, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 13; Conner v. Elliott, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 591; Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393; Crandall v. Nevada, (1867) 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35; Woodruff v. Parham, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 123; Paul V. Virginia, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168; Downham V. Alexandria, (1869) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 173; Liverpool Ins. Co. ?. Massachusetts, (1870) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 566; Ward v. Maryland, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 418; Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36; Bradwell v. State, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 130; Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, (1876) 93 U. S. 72; McCready v. Virginia, (1876) 94 U. S. 391; Philadelphia Fire Assoc. v. New York, (1886) 119 U. S. 110; Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. V. Pennsylvania, (1888) 125 U. S. 181; Kimmish v. Ball, (1889) 129 U. S. 217; Cole V. Cunningham, (1890) 133 U. S. 107; Man- chester v. Massachusetts, (1891) 139 U. S. 240; Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Bates, (1895) 156 U. S. 577; Vance V. W. A. Vandercook Co., (1898) 170 U. S. 438; Blake v. McClung, (1898) 172 U. S. 239; Williams v. Fears, (1900) 179 U. S. 270; Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, (1902) 185 U. S. 364; Chadwick v. Kelley, (1903) 187 U. S. 540; Diamond Glue Co. v. U. S. Glue Co., (1903) 187 U. S. 611; Blackstone v. Miller, (1903) 188 U. S. 189; Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., (1903) 191 U. S. 373. "The Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. And although these privileges and immunities, for greater safety, are placed under the guardianship CITIZENSHIP on to 42. A right. To demand from any State the Chapter extradition and removal of any person who shall flee IV ' thereto, who is charged, in another State, with J?** ra $' treason, felony, or other crime. (Art. IV, Sec. 2, criminals - 01. 2). 2 43. A right. To demand the delivery, on claim of the party entitled, of any person held to service heid c or labor, in one State, who has escaped to another State. (Art. IV, Sec. 2, 01. 3.) 3 44. A right. To the performance of the guar- antee of the United States that every State in the Union shall have a republican form of government, and that the United States will protect each of them from invasion and against domestic violence. (Art. IV, Sec. 4.) 4 of the general government, still the States may by their laws and in their tribunals protect and enforce them. They have not only the power, but it is a duty enjoined upon them by this provision in the Constitution." Per Mr. Justice Taney, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 629. 2 Holmes v. Jennison, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 540; Kentucky V. Dennison, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 66; Taylor v. Taintor, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 366; Carroll County v. Smith, (1884) 111 U. S. 556; Ex p. Reggel, (1885) 114 U. S. 642; Mahon v. Justice, (1888) 127 U. S. 700; Lascelles v. Georgia, (1893) 148 U. S. 537; Utter V. Franklin, (1899) 172 U. S. 416. s Prigg v. Pennsylvania, (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 539; Jones v. Van Zandt, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 215; Strader v. Graham, (1850) 10 How. (U. S.) 82; Moore v. Illinois, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 13; Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 393; Ableman V. Booth, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 506. "Every State has an undoubted right to determine the status, or domestic and social condition, of the persons domiciled within its territory; except in so far as the powers of the States in this re- spect are restrained, or duties and obligations imposed upon them, by the Constitution of the United States." Strader v. Graham, (1850) 10 How. (U. S.) 93. * Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 1; Texas v. White, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700; In re Duncan, (1891) 139 U. S. 449; Taylor v. Beckham, (1900) 178 U. S. 548. 142 CITIZENSHIP 45. A right. In each State to equal suffrage in the Senate. (Art. V.) qu the ty These being the only rights, privileges, and im- munities guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution itself, the following additional appear in the first twelve amendments to the Constitution : B ?/ c re d i?Son ^6. An immunity. Against any law of Congress and S p f ee the respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit- ing the free exercise thereof, or abridging the free- dom of speech or of the press. (Art. I.) 6 fnT^et 1 ? 47. A right. Of the people peaceably to assem- ble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Art. I.) 7 5 "It was one of the objections most seriously urged against the new Constitution by those who opposed its ratification by the States, that it contained no formal Bill of Rights. (Federalist, No. Ixxxiv.) And the State of Virginia accompanied her ratification by the recommendation of an amendment embodying such a bill. ( 3 El- liot's Debates, 661.) The feeling on this subject led to the adoption of the first ten amendments to that instrument at one time, shortly after the government was organized. These are all designed to operate as restraints on the general government, and most of them for the protection of private rights of persons and property. Not- withstanding this reproach, however, there are many provisions in the original instrument of this latter character." Kring v. Missouri, (1882) 107 U. S. 226. eTerrett v. Taylor, (1815) 9 Cranch (U. S.) 43; Vidal v. Phila- delphia, (1844) 2 How. (U. S.) 127; Ex p. Garland, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333; U. S. v. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 542; Rey- nolds 17. U. S., (1878) 98 U. S. 145; Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131; Davis V. Beason, (1890) 133 U. S. 333; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U. S. 31; Church of Jesus Christ V. U. S., (1890) 136 U. S. 1; In re Rapier, (1892) 143 U. S. 110; Homer v. U. S., (1892) 143 U. S. 207; Bradfield v. Roberts, (1899) 175 U. S. 291. 7 " The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national govern- ment, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under CITIZENSHIP 143 48. A right. Of the people to keep and bear chapter arms. A right not to be infringed. (Art. II.) 8 49. An immunity. From the quartering of troops in any house in time of peace without the Quarter . consent of the owner, or in time of war, except in a 1] manner to be prescribed by law. (Art. III.) 50. An immunity. Against unreasonable searches or seizures. (Art. IV.) 9 51. A right. To demand that search warrants shall not issue except upon probable cause, sup- ported by oath or affirmation and particularly de- the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances." U. S. V. Cruik- shank, (1875) 92 U. S. 552. spresser v. Illinois, (1886) 116 U. S. 252; Spies V. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U. S. 31. "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police/ 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States." U. S. V. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 553. Smith v. Maryland, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 71; Murray v. Ho- boken Land, etc., Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 272; Ex p. Milligan, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 2; Boyd v. U. S., (1886) 116 U. S. 616; Spies 17. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U. S. 31; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 698; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, (1894) 154 U. S. 447; In re Chapman, (1897) 166 U. S. 661; Adams v. New York, (1904) 192 U. S. 585. 144 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. Grand jury. scribing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. (Art. IV.) 1 52. A right. That no citizen be held to answer to the Federal government for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indict- ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service. (Art. V.) 2 i " The security intended to be guaranteed by the Fourth Amend- ment against wrongful search and seizures is designed to prevent violations of private security in person and property and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home of the citizen by officers of the law, acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. But the English and nearly all of the American cases have declined to extend this doctrine to the extent of excluding testimony which has been ob- tained by such means, if it is otherwise competent." Adams v. New York, (1904) 192 U. S. 598. 2U. S. v. Perez, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 579; Barren V. Balti- more, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 243; Fox v. Ohio, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 410; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, (1848) 6 How. (U. S.) 507; Mitchell v. Harmony, (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 115; Moore v. Illinois, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 13; Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 272; Dynes v. Hoover, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 65; Withers v. Buckley, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 84; Oilman v. Sheboygan, (1862) 2 Black (U. S.) 510; Ex p. Milli- gan, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 2; Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 321; Hepburn v. Griswold, (1869) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 603; Miller v. U. S., (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 268; Legal Tender Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 457; Pumpelly v. Green Bay, etc., Canal Co., (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 166; Osborn v. Nicholson, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 654; Ex p. Lange, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 163; Kohl v. U. S., (1875) 91 U. S. 367; Davidson v. New Orleans, (1877) 96 U. S. 97; Sinking Fund Cases, (1878) 99 U. S. 700; Langford v. U. S., (1879) 101 U. S. 341; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, (1881) 104 U. S. 78; Ex p. Wall, (1882) 107 U. S. 265; U. S. v. Jones, (1883) 109 U. S. 513; U. S. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., (1884) 112 U. S. 645; Ex p. Wilson, (1885) 114 U. S. 417; Boyd v. U. S., (1886) 116 U. S. 616; Mackin v. U. S., (1886) 117 U. S. 348; Ex p. Bain, (1887) 121 U. S. 1; Parkinson v. U. S., (1887) 121 U. S. 281; Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131; Callan v. Wilson, (1888) 127 U. S. 540; U. S. v. De Walt, (1888) 128 U. S. 393; CITIZENSHIP 145 53. An immunity. From being twice put in chapter jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. (Art. ! T7 \3 Former * */ jeopardy. 54. An immunity. From being a witness against himself. (Art. V.) 4 tion - 55. A right. To due process of law before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. (Art. V.) 5 56. A right. To just compensation for any property taken for public use. (Art. V.) 6 SET 7 57. A right. To speedy and public trial in all cases of criminal prosecutions by an impartial jury accused crime. Manning v. French, (1890) 133 U. S. 186; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U. S. 31; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Woodson, (1890) 134 U. S. 614; In re Ross, (1891) 140 U. S. 453; Counsel- man v. Hitchcock, (1892) 142 U. S. 547; Simmons v. U. S., (1891) 142 U. S. 148; Thorington v. Montgomery, (1893) 147 U. S. 490; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U. S., (1893) 148 U. S. 312; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 698; Lees v. U. S., (1893) 150 U. S. 476; Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1894) 153 U. S. 380; Lin- ford v. Ellison, (1894) 155 U. S. 503; Johnson v. Sayre, (1895) 158 U. S. 109; Sweet v. Rechel, (1895) 159 U. S. 380; Brown v. Walker, (1896) 161 U. S. 591; Wong Wing v. U. S., (1896) 163 U. S. 228; Talton v. Mayes, (1896) 163 U. S. 376; Bauman v. Ross, (1897) 167 U. S. 548; Wilson v. Lambert, (1898) 168 U. S. 611; U. S. V. Joint Traffic Assoc., (1898) 171 U. S. 505; Maxwell v. Dow, (1900) 176 U. S. 581; Scranton v. Wheeler, (1900) 179 U. S. 141; Mc- Donald V. Massachusetts, (1901) 180 U. S. 311; Neely v. Henkel, (1901) 180 U. S. 109; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., (1901) 181 U. S. 324; Wight v. Davidson, (1901) 181 U. S. 371; Tona- wanda v. Lyon, (1901) 181 U. S. 389; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, (1902) 183 U. S. 238; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, (1902) 186 U. S. 181; Dreyer v. Illinois, (1902) 187 U. S. 71; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, (1903) 187 U. S. 553; U. S. v. Lynah, (1903) 188 U. S. 445; Japanese Immigrant Case, (1903) 189 U. S. 86; Hawaii V. Mankichi, (1903) 190 U. S. 197; Bedford v. U. S., (1904) 192 U. S. 217; Buttfield v. Stranahan, (1904) 192 U. S. 470; Adams v. New York, (1904) 192 U. S. 585. 3 See cases cited in note 2, supra. * See cases cited in note 2, supra. B See cases cited in note 2, supra. 6 See cases cited in note 2, supra. 10 CITIZENSHIP Chapter o f the district wherein any crime is charged to have TV ' been committed, the district to have been previously ascertained by law ; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor ; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Art. VI.) 7 chS es cases. ^ ^- r ^ n ^ ^ n suits at common law, involving a value exceeding twenty dollars, to a trial by jury. (Art. VII.) 8 7TJ. S. v. Coolidge, (1816) 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 415; Ex p. Kearney, (1822) 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 38; U. S. v. Mills, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 142; Barren v. Baltimore, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 243; Fox v. Ohio, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 410; Withers v. Buckley, (1857) 20 How. (U. S.) 84; Ex p. Milligan, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 2; Twitchell V. Pennsylvania, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 321; Miller V. U. S., (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 268; U. S. v. Cook, (1872) 17 Wall. (U. S.) 168; U. S. V. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 542; Reynolds V. U. S., (1878) 98 U. S. 145; Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131; Brooks v. Missouri, (1888) 124 U. S. 394; Callan v. Wilson, (1888) 127 U. S. 540; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U. S. 31; Jones v. U. S., (1890) 137 U. S. 202; Cook v. U. S., (1891) 138 U. S. 157; In re Shibuya Jugiro, (1891) 140 U. S. 291; In re Ross, (1891) 140 U. S. 453; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 698; Mattox v. U. S., (1895) 156 U. S. 237; Rosen v. U. S., (1896) 161 U. S. 29; U. S. v. Zucker, (1896) 161 U. S. 475; Wong Wing v. U. S., (1896) 163 U. S. 228; Thompson V. Utah, (1898) 170 U. S. 343; Maxwell V. Dow, (1900) 176 U. S. 581; Motes v. U. S., (1900) 178 U. S. 458; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. U. S., (1902) 187 U. S. 315; Hawaii v. Mankichi, (1903) 190 U. S. 197. 8TJ. S. v. La Vengeance, (1796) 3 Ball. (U. S.) 297; Columbia Bank v. Okely, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 235; Parsons v. Bedford, (1830) 3 Pet. (U. S.) 433; Livingston V. Moore, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 469; Webster V. Reid, (1850) 11 How. (U. S.) 437; Penn- sylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 518; Justices V. Murray, (1869) 9 Wall. (U. S.) 274; Edwards v. Elliott, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 532; Pearson v. Yewdall, (1877) 95 U. S. 294; McElrath V. U. S., (1880) 102 U. S. 426; Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131 ;' Arkansas Valley Land, etc., Co. v. Mann, (1889) 130 U. S. 69; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U. S. 31; Whitehead v. Shattuck, (1891), 138 U. S. CITIZENSHIP 147 59. An immunity. From having any fact tried Chapter by a jury reexamined in any court of the United ! States, otherwise than according to the rules of com- j**5 ial of mon law. (Art. VII.) 9 60. An immunity. Against the requirement of and excessive bail, against the imposition of excessive fines, and against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. (Art. VIII.) 1 61. A declaration. That the enumeration in the ?** Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed right?/ to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Art. IX.) 2 62. A guarantee. That the powers not dele- * e * e f gated to the United States by the Constitution, nor powers - 146; Scott v. Neely, (1891) 140 U. S. 106; Gates v. Allen, (1893) 149 U. S. 451; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 698; Coughran v. Bigelow, (1896) 164 U. S. 301; Walker v. New Mexico, etc., R. Co., (1897) 165 U. S. 593; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chi- cago, (1897) 166 U. S. 226; American Pub. Co. v. Fisher, (1897) 166 U. S. 464; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. U. S., (1902) 187 U. S. 315. 9 See cases cited in note 1, supra. iPervear v. Massachusetts, (1866) 5 Wall. (U. S.) 475; Spies 17. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131; Manning v. French, (1890) 133 U. S. 186; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U. S. 31; McElvaine v. Brush, (1891) 142 U. S. 155; O'Neil v. Vermont, (1892) 144 U. S. 323; McDonald v. Massachusetts, (1901) 180 U.S. 311. 2 Livingston v. Moore, (1833) 7 Pet. (U. S.) 469; Spies v. Illi- nois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131. "This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was de- pending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That prin- ciple is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.'* M'Culloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 405. 148 CITIZENSHIP chapter prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States ' respectively, or to the people. (Art. X.) 3 powers af. In Lloyd v. Dollison, decided May 16, 1904, the fected by schisholm v. Georgia, (1793) 2 Ball. (U. S.) 419; Hollings- worth v. Virginia, (1798) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 378; Martin v. Hunter, (1816) 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 304; M'Culloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316; Anderson v. Dunn, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 204; Cohen v. Virginia, (1821) 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 264; Osborn v. U. S. Bank, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 738; Buckner v. Finley, (1829) 2 Pet. (U. S.) 586; Ableman v. Booth, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 506; Collector v. Day, (1870) 11 Wall. (U. S.) 113; Claflin 17. Houseman, (1876) 93 U. S. 130; Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, (1876) 94 U. S. 238; U. S. v. Fox, (1876) 94 U. S. 315; Tennessee V. Davis, (1879) 100 U. S. 257; Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131; Pollock 17. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1895) 157 U. S. 429; For- syth v. Hammond, (1897) 166 U. S. 506; St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. 17. St. Paul Water Com'rs, (1897) 168 U. S. 349; Mis- souri, etc., R. Co., v. Haber, (1898) 169 U. S. 613; Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. 17. Warren, (1901) 181 U. S. 73; Kansas 17. Colorado, (1902) 185 U. S. 125; Andrews v. Andrews, (1903) 188 U. S. 14; Church 17. Kelsey, (1887) 121 U. S. 282; Ouachita Packet Co. 17. Aiken, (1887) 127 U. S. 444; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, (1887) 122 U. S. 347; Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R,. Co., (1888) 125 U. S. 465; Mahon 17. Justice, (1888) 127 U. S. 700; Leisy v. Hardin, (1890) 135 U. S. 100; Manchester 17. Massachusetts, (1891) 139 U. S. 240. " The perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confedera- tion each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. . . . Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the national government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of in- destructible States." Texas 17. White, (1868) 7 Wall. (U.S.) 700. CITIZENSHIP 149 Supreme Court said that the first eight amendments chapter to the Constitution of the United States have refer- . ence to powers exercised by the government of the .United States, and not to those of the States. 4 The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution re- lates simply to a limitation of Federal judicial power, and the Twelfth Amendment to the manner in which presidential and vice-presidential electors shall meet and cast and certify the electoral vote, and to the manner of deciding the result; so that they have no direct significance or bearing on the rights of citizenship. The first ten amendments to the Constitution ^^' d were proposed to the legislatures of the several [f n fi "xh States by the First Congress, September 25, 1789. amend 6 - 11 They were ratified by the States, beginning with New Jersey, November 20, 1789, and ending with Vir- ginia, December 15, 1791. There is no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures of Connecticut, Georgia, or Massachusetts ratified them. The Eleventh Amendment was proposed to the i^ legislatures of the several States by the Third Con- gress, September 5, 1794, and was declared to have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, in a message from the President to Con- gress dated January 8, 1798. The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution was The Twelfth proposed to the legislatures of the several States e n n e t " d " by the Eighth Congress, December 12, 1803, in 4 Ohio V. Dollison, (1904) 194 U. S. 445. " That the first ten articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was de- cided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since." Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 166. 150 CITIZENSHIP Chapter }i eu o f the original third paragraph of the first sec- IV ' tion of the second article, and was declared adopted in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, Septem- ber 25, 1804. From 1804 to 1865 the Constitution and twelve amendments remained unchanged. I7st Th three Jt was not until Fe ^ruary 1, 1865, that the Thir- SS!" teenth Amendment or first of the great "war amend- ments " was proposed. It was declared adopted in a proclamation of the secretary of state, dated De- cember 18, 1865. The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed June 16, 1866, and declared adopted July 21, 1868. The Fifteenth Amendment was proposed February 27, 1869, and proclaimed as adopted March 30, 1870. Let us now inquire into the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens, as citizens of the United States and of their respective States, during the first seventy-six years of the Union, and afterwards ex- amine how far these rights have been modified, or State and Federal control of them changed, by the amendments consequent upon the great Civil War. The following reflections must result to every student of the subject, from the aforegoing recital. thl ght states First. That the correlative relations of govern- union? ment and citizenship were absolute and unqualified as between the States and their citizens after the States gained independence and prior to the forma- tion of the Union. federal * Second. That the Federal government when formed was one of limited scope and powers, and after its formation, notwithstanding the creation and CITIZENSHIP recognition of the sixty-odd Federal rights, privi- Chapter leges, and immunities as citizens of the Union, above - set forth, a vast residuum of power and control over the rights, privileges, and immunities of their citi- zens remained in the States. Third. That the Federal government, while su- preme in its sphere, was not framed to reach, and its creation did not affect, the undelegated powers of the States, in municipal affairs, over their own citizens, and that its power over such was expressly negatived by the instrument which brought it into being. This is so manifest that the Constitution might well have begun with the language of the last of the ten first amendments, for the States existed before their representatives created the Union by the dele- gation of certain enumerated powers, and it goes without saying that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. ' ' The rights of citizens, both as citizens of the ta n tion p s re ' United States and of the States, under nearly every clause of the Constitution and the first twelve amendments, were fully considered and defined be- fore the outbreak of our great Civil War, by the Supreme Court of the United States. To the great glory of that tribunal it may be truly said that its interpretations have been universally recognized as wise, conservative and just ; that if it has erred at all it has been rather towards the reserved powers of the States than towards an enlargement of Federal power by implication; that for the most part its judgments have remained unaffected by the excite- 152 CITIZENSHIP IV. Necessity of study- ing the decisions. Chapter m ents and changes of civil conflict; and that, even concerning such of its decisions as have been re- versed by the logic of events, the wisdom and justice of its action upon the law and the facts then before it are now universally admitted, however bitterly they may have been aspersed at the time those de- cisions were rendered. The footnotes on the foregoing pages have set forth every decision of the Supreme Court upon every clause of the Constitution and amendments, bearing on the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens, and a careful study of those decisions, as they relate to each of the subjects above set forth, must be the only satisfactory road to a mastery of the subjects. What follows is a mere surface index of the substance of the decisions upon the most im- portant of those questions, intended to stimulate to a thorough study of the cases. The citation of authorities in connection with a statement of the minor topics is deemed a sufficient reference to them. Proceeding to consider the more important top- ics in the order of their presentation above, we come first to the subject Taxation of the Citizen (Right 3 above). The power of taxation of the citizen by the States * s unlimited by law save concerning taxes on exports or imports or tonnage duties. It is limited in the United States by only three conditions, the first be- ing that it cannot tax exports, the second that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, and the third Limita- tions on the taxing power. CITIZENSHIP 153 that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform Chapter throughout the United States. 5 The grant of taxing power to the United States by the Constitution has been held to be an absolute grant subject only to the above limitations. More- over, the power of taxation possessed by the United States over citizens of the District of Columbia has been held to be as unlimited as that possessed by the States over their citizens. Many cases have arisen in which the question was S ec to ioi Xx whether the particular tax involved in the contro- atlon ' versy was a direct tax ; but in all such cases the de- cision turned on that, as a question of fact, and was not instructive beyond the understanding of the par- ticular statute involved; for, with the nature of the tax settled, the legal principles applicable to it were those stated above. A most thorough and exhaustive discussion of the nature and extent of Federal taxing power and of what does and does not constitute a direct tax will be found in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co.* Of the Immunity of the Citizen from Arrest, while Attending Congress, and in Going to and Return- ing from the Same, and from Being Questioned in Any Other Place for Any Speech or Debate (Immunity 7 above). This is an old and salutary provision intended ^ to n r jt u re 6 "Apportionment is an operation on States, and involves valua- tive privi- tions and assessments which are arbitrary, and should not be re- ege * sorted to but in case of necessity. Uniformity is an instant opera- tion on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to States, and is at once easy, certain, and efficacious." Per Paterson, J., in Hylton v. U. S., (1796) 3 Dall. (U. S.) 180. 6 (1895) 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601. 154 CITIZENSHIP Chapter to se cure to the representative the utmost degree of , freedom in the discharge of his public duties. A similar provision will be found in the constitutions of most of the States concerning their State legis- lators, and the provision was adopted from the priv- ileges accorded to members of the British Parlia- ment. As to the nature and extent of the privilege, the case of Kilbourn v. Thompson' 1 will be found instructive. Mr. Justice Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution (Sec. 866) refers to it as a " great and vital privilege." Of the Immunity of the Citizen from State Interfer- ence with the Regulation of Commerce with For- eign Nations, and among the Several States and with the Indian Tribes (Immunity 11 above). ?e a r r fence This exclusive power of regulating commerce was con ^ erre( ^ upon Congress for a reason. It was the offspring of many short-sighted, vexatious, and discriminating regulations imposed by the States upon vessels from other States entering their ports, while they retained the power to legislate on the sub- ject under the Articles of Confederation. The trans- fer of the subject to exclusive Federal control was made deliberately after these embarrassing experi- ences. Nearly a hundred years ago the Supreme Court declared that it was doubtful whether any of the evils of weakness under the Articles of Confed- eration contributed more to the adoption of the Con- stitution than the conviction that "commerce ought to be regulated by Congress." No clause of the Federal Constitution has given 7 (1880) 103 U. S. 168. CITIZENSHIP 155 rise to more litigation than this so-called commerce chapter clause. It was first interpreted by Chief Justice ' Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 7 * and its scope and J^jf* tio t n he legal effect have been under consideration in about ciaTe! rce two hundred and fifty cases since then decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Many vol- umes have been written concerning the rights of citizens under this clause, and it would be beyond the scope of this work to set forth even an epitome of the decisions interpreting it rendered by the Su- preme Court. We shall content ourselves with a statement of a few of the leading principles settled by the adjudi- cated cases, and the remark that the litigation has, for the most part, arisen out of acts of State legis- latures, which have been challenged as invading the exclusive province of Congress to regulate inter- state commerce, etc. The first important case arising under this clause was, as above stated, Gibbons v. Ogden, 8 and the last decisions - case of importance decided by the Supreme Court is the celebrated so-called "merger decision, " involv- ing the right of Congress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce, to pass laws forbidding the merger of corporations owning parallel and com- peting lines and engaged in interstate commerce. 9 The master mind of Marshall in the first case an- nounced the following fundamental principles, which remain undisturbed: 1. That the grant of powers to Congress, in the particulars named, was not only absolute and em- of Federal siveness of Fed power. 7* (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1. s (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 1. Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., (1904) 193 U. S. 197. 156 CITIZENSHIP Chapter braced the power to regulate navigation, but was '. exclusive of any rights of States to legislate on the . subject. 2. That it did not affect the right of the States tfectad. to legislate on purely internal commerce or to enact inspection laws and health laws, or purely police regulations. 3. That the laws last named "form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State, not sur- rendered to the general government; all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, etc., are component parts of this mass. No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and consequently they remain subject to State legisla- tion/' 4. But where the States, in the exercise of the powers last mentioned, enact laws which come in conflict with Federal laws regulating commerce, the acts of the State must yield to the laws of Congress. That the nullity of all such acts is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme. 1 O feg- Throughout all the multitudinous litigation which -j ias }} owe( j arising under this clause the soundness iThe power conferred by this provision of the Constitution "is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which com- merce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost ex- tent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution." Per Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons V. Ogden, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 197. CITIZENSHIP 157 of these principles has never been questioned. If the chapter case has arisen upon a State statute the question v ' has been, Does the State statute directly legislate on the forbidden subject? If so, it is void. Does it, although within the general scope of State power, in its effect regulate interstate commerce, etc? If so, it must yield to the exclusive power of Congress to control. 2 If it be a mere regulation of inspection, or health, or exercise of the unquestioned police powers of the State, and its effect on commerce be merely incidental and not determinative, then it is a law within the powers of the State. If the question has arisen upon a Federal statute, the first inquiry has invariably been, Is the law, leglslatlon - fairly construed, a regulation of that class of com- merce committed absolutely and exclusively by the Constitution to the regulation of Congress? If so, it is a valid law, for the power to legislate is as broad as the grant of exclusive control. These questions have arisen in infinite variety and complexity, presenting new aspects in each sue- tion s . t cessive case, and it is impossible to generalize them 2 "The power to regulate commerce covers a wide field, and em- braces a great variety of subjects. Some of these subjects call for uniform rules and national legislation; others can be best regulated by rules and provisions suggested by the varying circumstances of different localities, and limited in their operation to such localities respectively. To this extent the power to regulate commerce may be exercised by the States. Whether the power in any given case is vested exclusively in the general government depends upon the na- ture of the subject to be regulated." Oilman v. Philadelphia, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 726. See also Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. (U. S.) 319; Ex p. McNiel, (1871) 13 Wall. (U.S.) 240; Mobile County v. Kimball, (1881) 102 U. S. 691; Wall- ing v. Michigan, (1886) 116 U. S. 455; Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., (1887) 120 U. S. 492. stru 158 CITIZENSHIP Chapter i n this discussion. The opposing views in each case ' are the result of two theories which have given rise to most of the controversies between Federal and State authority, viz., on the one hand, the theory of broad latitudinarian construction of Federal powers, and, on the other, the theory of strict construction. Pursuing the one or the other of these theories, men of the highest intellect and character have, from the foundation of the government, been arrayed in oppo- sition to each other upon every important question of construction that has arisen, and perhaps no more striking illustration of this irreconcilable con- flict of views may be found in our whole judicial literature than in the earnest, almost angry, dis- cordance of our Supreme Court in the last important decision on this commerce clause. 3 of But the constitutional inhibition does not prevent game laws. fo e States from enacting laws which prevent non- residents from engaging in certain classes of em- ployments within their limits. Such, for example, is the right of a State to limit the right to fish and hunt within her borders to her own citizens. It has been held that the States did not invest the Federal government with any portion of their power and control over fishing and hunting within their bor- ders ; that the fish and shellfish and game in every State belong to, peculiarly and of right, and form part of the food supply of, the people in each State, and that it is within the police powers of the State, without any right of interference by Federal author- ity, to determine who shall and who shall not take the fish and game within her borders, and even to * Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., (1904) 193 U. S. 197. CITIZENSHIP 159 prohibit the shipping of the same beyond the limits chapter of the State. Thus when a Virginia law punished a ' citizen of Maryland for taking oysters from Vir- ginia oyster beds, and he claimed that he was en- gaged in commerce, the Supreme Court sustained the State law, and denied the claim of license to fish in Virginia waters as a matter of commercial right. 4 So, a law of Connecticut regulating the manner of taking game in that State and forbidding its ex- portation was held valid. 5 The duty of preserving the game was declared to be a trust for her own people. And State laws prohibiting exhaustive methods of fishing in waters within State jurisdic- tion, or the use of destructive instruments, are with- in the powers of the State. 6 The Right of the Citizen to the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Right 23 above). Blackstone calls the writ of habeas corpus " the most celebrated writ in the English law," 7 and he c Sr P us. e refers to the famous Habeas Corpus Act of England, 31 Charles II, c. 2, as "frequently considered as an- other Magna Charta." The Supreme Court of the United States thus characterizes it: "The great writ of habeas corpus has been for centuries esteemed the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. In England, after a long struggle, it was firmly guaranteed by the famous Habeas Corpus Act of May 27, 1679. . . It was brought to America by the colonists and ^McCready v. Virginia, (1876) 94 U. S. 391. Geer v. Connecticut, (1896) 161 U. S. 519. eLawton v. Steele, (1894) 152 U. S. 133. 7 3 Bl. Com. 129. CITIZENSHIP Chapter claimed as among the immemorial rights descended IV ' to them from their ancestors. " 8 Of this writ it may be said truly that it has elicited more encomiums from bench and bar than any other in the books, and that discussion of it seems to arouse whatever of elo- quence judges and advocates may possess. the rn ^rif In form it is a writ emanating from the judicial source intrusted with its keeping and issuance, di- rected to the custodian of any person detained on a criminal or a civil charge, directing him to produce the body of the person in custody at a time and place designated in the writ, together with the causes of his detention, and then and there to submit to and receive whatever judgment the judge or court awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. The name of the writ originated in the fact that at the time it came into use all writs in England were writ- ten in Latin, and this particular writ directed the custodian of the prisoner "habeas corpus," "thou shalt have the body" of so and so, at such and such time and place. various it is not within the purpose of this work to purposes corpus" 8 elaborate the different kinds of writs of habeas cor- pus and the different purposes for which they are invoked. That may be seen by reference to the au- thorities quoted. There were writs of habeas cor- pus ad respondendum, or to enable the party apply- ing for the writ to obtain an answer of some sort from the party in custody ; and writs ad satis facien- dum, or to satisfy a judgment or other demand, which writ does not exist with us; or ad prose- quendum, ad testificandum, ad deliberandum, to s Ex p. Yerger, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 95. CITIZENSHIP prosecute something, to testify about something, Chapter to deliberate about something. It is a common thing, ' for example, where a prisoner confined in jail or penitentiary is a necessary witness at a trial, to have him produced in court by a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued by the trial judge or other authority. But the common writ, the one cherished as none e com- other, is the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum et recipiendum, commanding the custodian to pro- duce the body of his prisoner and submit to and receive whatever judgment the judge or court award- ing the writ shall see fit to render. The power of the judge or court issuing the writ is, upon the produc- tion of the accused together with the causes of his detention, and after hearing the matter fully, to discharge him, admit him to bail, or remand him to custody. Nearly all the States have guarantees of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus in their constitutions, and all have statutes providing for the manner of its issuing. But there is this distinction between writs of J habeas corpus issued by Federal courts and judges wnts- and those issued by State courts and judges. A writ may issue from Federal authority to a person hold- ing another in custody under State authority, in certain cases. 9 But a State court or judge cannot issue a writ of habeas corpus against a person hav- ing a prisoner in custody under the authority of the United States. 1 In re Neagle, (1890), 135 U. S. 1; In re Frederic*, (1893) 149 U. S. 70. lAbleman v. Booth, (1858) 21 How. (U. S.) 506; Tarble's Case, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397. 11 162 CITIZENSHIP Chapter IV. Origin, history, etc. sus- pension. The reason for the distinction is obvious from the frame of the government, for the Federal jurisdiction is, in its sphere, supreme, and where Federal and State laws conflict the latter must yield to the former, and the view of their jurisdiction taken by Federal tribunals must prevail. So that while an inquiry by a Federal tribunal into a detention under State authority would be determinative, a like in- quiry by a State tribunal into a detention under Federal authority would not be determinative or obligatory on the Federal authority. 2 The cases cited above in the note attached to the statement of the rights of the citizen to the writ of habeas corpus (note 4, p. 125) will furnish the stu- dent with such further information as he may de- sire concerning the origin, nature and history of, and the manner of applying for, the writ, and the cases to which it does not extend, as well as those to which it does extend. We may leave the subject with the final remark that the suspension of the writ, no mat- ter what may have been the exigency on which such action has been justified, has always been viewed with the utmost jealousy by the American people, 2 " The great and leading intent of the Constitution and the law must be kept constantly in view upon the examination of every question of construction. That intent, in respect to the writ of habeas corpus, is manifest. It is that every citizen may be pro- tected by judicial action from unlawful imprisonment. To this end the Act of 1789 provided that every court of the United States should have power to issue the writ. The jurisdiction thus given in law to the circuit and district courts is original; that given by the Constitution and the law to this court is appellate. Given in general terms, it must necessarily extend to all cases to which the judicial power of the United States extends, other than those ex- pressly excepted from it." Ex p. Yerger, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 101. CITIZENSHIP 163 and the opinion of Chief Justice Taney in the habeas chapter corpus case of Ex p. Milligan* is one of the finest _L_ pieces of judicial eloquence in American jurispru- dence. Of the Immunity of the Citizen Against Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws (Immunity 24 above). This immunity is guaranteed, both as against the Nation and the State (Art. I, Sec. 9, 01. 3, and Art. I, Sec. 10, 01. I.) 4 A bill of attainder is a legislative act which in- ^"^ of flicts punishments without a judicial trial. 5 Such attainder - bills were, in England, sometimes directed against individuals by name and sometimes against a class. They were contrary to the whole spirit of our insti- tutions, and so were forbidden by general consent in the Constitution, both as against the Nation and the State. No question of importance arose from any at- tempt to pass such measures until the period of our 3 (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 2. 4 " So much importance did the convention attach to it [the prohibition against the passage of any ex post facto law], that it is found twice in the Constitution, first as a restraint upon the power of the general government, and afterwards as a limitation upon the legislative power of the States." Kring v. Missouri, (1882) 107 U. S. 227. "All the restrictions contained in the Constitution of the United States on the power of the State legislatures were provided in favor of the authority of the Federal government. The prohibi- tion against their making any ex post facto laws was introduced for greater caution, and very probably arose from the knowledge that the Parliament of Great Britain claimed and exercised a power to pass such laws, under the denomination of bills of attainder, or bills of pains and penalties." Calder v. Bull, (1798) 3 Ball. (U. S.) 386. eCummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 323. 164 CITIZENSHIP Chapter Civil War, when laws enacted by Missouri and West IV Virginia, and even the rules adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States itself, were challenged as in effect bills of attainder. The discussions in the arguments and opinions in the case of Cummings v. Missouri? and Ex p. Garland? are full of historical and legal information on this subject, and should be carefully read by the student. "An ex post facto law is one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not pun- ishable when it was committed. ' ' The State legisla- ture can pass no ex post facto law. 8 This is the language of Chief Justice Marshall in the first case in which such legislation came under the eye of the Supreme Court. And of the reasons leading to the adoption of those clauses of the Constitution forbid- ding such legislation either by the Nation or the State, he said: "Whatever respect might have been felt for the State sovereignties, it is not to be dis- guised that the framers of the Constitution viewed with some apprehension the violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of the moment. . . . The restrictions on the legislative power of the States are obviously founded in this sentiment. ' ' But an act imposing a succession tax on aft estate 6 (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 277. 7 (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333. s Fletcher v. Peck, (1810) 6 Cranch (U. S.) 138. "Laws of this character are oppressive, unjust, and tyrannical; and, as such, are condemned by the universal sentence of civilized man. The injustice and tyranny which characterizes ex post facto laws consists altogether in their retrospective operation, which ap- plies with equal force, although not exclusively, to bills of attain- der." Ogden v. Saunders, (1827) 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 266. CITIZENSHIP 165 after its devolution, during the period of admin- chapter istration, was held not to be an ex post facto law. 9 ' Of the Immunity of the Citizen Against State Laws Impairing the Obligation of Contracts (Immunity 29 above). The same reasons which prompted the Federal guarantee against the passage of bills of attainder or ex post facto laws by the States doubtless pro- duced this guarantee also. 1 It has given rise to an immense amount of litigation. The principle is so plain that a statement of the law is sufficient, but the difficulty and doubt in the many cases that have cussion of the nature and extent of the rights of the arisen have been in determining whether the State Carpenter 0. Pennsylvania, (1854) 17 How. (U. S.) 456. 1 "As the clause was first adopted, the words concerning con- tracts were not in it, because it was supposed that the phrase ' ex post facto law ' included laws concerning contracts as well as others. But it was ascertained before the completion of the instrument that this was a phrase which, in English jurisprudence, had acquired a signification limited to the criminal law, and the words 'or law im- pairing the obligation of contracts' were added to give security to rights resting in contracts. 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitu- tion, 213." Kring v. Missouri, (1882) 107 U. S. 227. "The evil which this inhibition on the States was intended to prevent is found in the history of our Revolution. By repeated acts of legislation in the different States, during that eventful period, the obligation of contracts was impaired. The time and mode of payment were altered by law; and so far was this interference of legislation carried, that confidence between an and man was well- nigh destroyed. Those proceedings grew out of the paper system of that day; and the injuries which they inflicted were deeply felt in the country at the time the Constitution was adopted. The pro- vision was designed to prevent the States from following the prece- dent of legislation so demoralizing in its effects, and so destructive to the commercial prosperity of a country/ Per Mr. Justice McLean^ in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 573. See also Edwards v. Kearzey, (1877) 96 U. S. 604, et seq. CITIZENSHIP chapter } aw assailed in a particular case did impair the IV> vested right claimed. The voi- As may be seen by reference to the long list of litigation, authorities cited in connection with the statement of this immunity, it would be impossible to consider, in this volume, the numerous phases which the dis- cussion of the nature and extent of the rights of the citizen under this clause has assumed. That would make a volume in itself. S e ws a c t ^ ne case w hi cn sets forth with most learning and ability the nature and extent of this particular Fed- eral guarantee, and the one most frequently cited, is Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. 2 It was decided in 1837, and the opinion of the court was de- livered by Chief Justice Taney in one of the strong- est of his many able opinions. But there were three dissents. The dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice McLean and Mr. Justice Story, the latter concurred in by Mr. Justice Thompson, are such striking, pow- erful presentations of opposing views that in them is found the germ of many a subsequent effort made to unsettle the principles fixed by the great decision. This case was confined, however, to a discussion of how far public grants of franchises are revocable by State legislation without violating the clause of the Constitution above referred to. It did not involve consideration of many other classes of State legis- lation upon which the question of the impairment of contracts has arisen. change of One leading distinction, however, running through the decisions, should be briefly referred to, to wit: The prohibition does not restrain the 2 (1837) 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420. CITIZENSHIP 157 States from changing remedies, and a change in a Chapter remedy provided to enforce a right is not neces- ! sarily an impairment of the right itself. 3 To a full comprehension by the practicing law- yer of the meaning of this clause and its bearing upon State legislation, a study of the authorities cited in the footnote is necessary, indeed indispensa- ble. As there is no middle ground between this brief consideration, and one so elaborate that it would occupy unwarranted space in this general treatise, the subject is left to some other author who shall deal with it as a specialty. Of the Right of the Citizens of Each State to All the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Sev- eral States (Right 41 above). This provision was in the Articles of Confedera- ^^f es of tion. Indeed, it was the only direct guarantee from " the United States to the individual citizen contained in that instrument. In the first case decided by the Supreme Court, involving the construction of this clause, Chief Jus- tice Marshall said that a corporation was "cer- tainly not a citizen" in the sense that the word is used in the clause referred to. 4 And in the next case the same illustrious authority held that a citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union, 3 " It is competent for the States to change the form of the remedy, or to modify it otherwise, as they may see fit, provided no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired. No attempt has been made to fix definitely the line between alterations of the remedy which are to be deemed legitimate, and those which, under the form of modifying the remedy, impair substantial rights. Every case must be determined upon its own circumstances." Von Hoffman v. Quincy, (1866) 4 Wall. (U. S.) 553. *U. S. Bank v. Deveaux, (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 61. 163 CITIZENSHIP corpora- Chapter j s a citizen of that State. 5 In later cases it has been IV repeatedly decided that corporations are not citizens of the State of their creation within the meaning of the clause now under consideration; that they are creatures of the local law of the place of their crea- tion, without any absolute right to recognition in other States. 6 A State statute denying jurisdiction to the State courts over a suit by a foreign corporation against a foreign corporation has been held not to violate this clause of the Constitution. 7 But when a State law made it a condition for the admission of a for- eign corporation to do business in the State that the corporation so admitted would abstain from remov- ing any suits brought against it or otherwise resort- ing to the federal courts, the condition was held to be void as in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. This was decided, however, rather as an abridgment of the rights of the corporation eGassies v. Ballon, (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 761. e Augusta Bank v. Earle, (1839) 13 Pet. (U. S.) 519; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 404; Ducat V. Chicago, (1870) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 410; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, (1870) 10 Wall. (U. S.) 566; Paul v. Virginia, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168; Philadelphia Fire Assoc. v. New York, (1886) 119 U. S. 110; Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. V. Pennsylvania, (1888) 125 U. S. 181; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, (1899) 172 U. S. 561. "A grant of corporate existence is a grant of special privileges to the corporators, enabling them to act for certain designated pur- poses as a single individual, and exempting them (unless otherwise specially provided) from individual liability. The corporation, being the mere creation of local law, can have no legal existence beyond the limits of the sovereignty where created. ... It must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sover- eignty." Paul v. Virginia, (1868) 8 Wall. (U. S.) 181. 7 Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., ( 1903 ) 191 U. S. 373. CITIZENSHIP under Amendment XIV than as against its right as Chapter the citizen of another State. 8 ' A State law admitting a foreign corporation to do business in the State on the condition that cred- itors who were residents of the State granting the permit should have priority in the distribution of its assets over nonresident creditors was likewise held to violate the constitutional guarantee against discrimination. 9 It was said, in one of the cases, that the only limit of the State's right to exclude foreign corporations is where they are employed by the Federal government or are strictly engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. 1 A State law which imposes a tax upon resident . - 1 - mating in merchants at one rate, and another tax upon non- s Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, (1874) 20 Wall. (U. S.) 445; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., (1876) 94 U. S. 535; Barren 17. Burnside, (1887) 121 U. S. 186. "The Constitution of the United States declares that the ju- dicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under that Constitution, the laws of the United States, and to the treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, ... to controversies between a State and citizens of another State, and between citizens of different States. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts, under this clause of the Constitution, depends upon and is regulated by the laws of the United States. State legislation cannot confer jurisdiction upon the federal courts, nor can it limit or restrict the authority given by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution." Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, (1874) 20 Wall. (U. S.) 453. Blake v. McClung, (1898) 172 U. S. 239, where the court said: "Although, generally speaking, the State has the power to prescribe the conditions upon which foreign corporations may enter its territory for purposes of business, such a power cannot be exerted with the effect of defeating or impairing rights se- cured to citizens of the several States by the supreme law of the land." iPembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. V. Pennsylvania, (1888-) 125 U. S. 181. 170 CITIZENSHIP Chapter residents, for the privilege of transacting the same ' character of business, at a higher or discriminat- ing rate, is a violation of the provision we are discussing. 2 statutes In some of the cases which have been decided the assailed on State law has been assailed on the double ground that it discriminated against citizens of other States and was regulative of interstate commerce. The decisions rendered have in some instances held the law to be unconstitutional on the latter ground and 2 Ward v. Maryland, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 419; Guy v. Baltimore, (1879) 100 U. S. 434; Walling v. Michigan, (1886) 116 U. S. 446. " No State can, consistently with the Federal Constitution, impose upon the products of other States, brought therein for sale or use, or upon citizens because engaged in the sale therein, or the transportation thereto, of the products of other States, more onerous public burdens or taxes than it imposes upon the like products of its own territory. If this were not so, it is easy to perceive how the power of Congress to regulate com- merce with foreign nations and among the several States could be practically annulled, and the equality of commercial privileges secured by the Federal Constitution to citizens of the several States be materially abridged and impaired." Guy V. Baltimore, (1879) 100 U. S. 439. " Grant that the States may impose discriminating taxes against the citizens of other States, and it will soon be found that the power conferred upon Congress to regulate interstate commerce is of no value, as the unrestricted power of the States to tax will prove to be more efficacious to promote inequality than any regulations which Congress can pass to preserve the equality of right contemplated by the Constitution among the citizens of the several States. Excise taxes, it is everywhere conceded, may be imposed by the States, if not in any sense dis- criminating; but it should not be forgotten that the people of the several States live under one common Constitution, which was ordained to establish justice, and which, with the laws of Congress, and the treaties made by the proper authority, is the supreme law of the land; and that that supreme law requires equality of burden, and forbids discrimination in State taxation when the power is applied to the citizens of the other States. CITIZENSHIP have ignored the former, although it was apparently chapter equally tenable. 3 I ' Under the decision in the famous Dred Scott case a free negro whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves was held not to be a "citizen" in the sense that the word was used in the Constitution. Bitterly as this decision was assailed at the time it was rendered, its logic was un- answerable as the law then stood. This has been changed by the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments, and it has been frequently said in the decisions upon those amendments that they were passed in order to reverse this ruling. There are, however, sundry things concerning which States may legislate discriminating between Jo ati marit3 residents and nonresidents. One of the earliest of nghts these decisions was that marital rights of a spe- cial nature, bestowed by a State upon its own citizens residing within its borders, do not accrue to the nonresident widow of a deceased nonresident husband who owned property in that State. It was held that such rights were attached to the con- tract of marriage in cases in which the State con- trolled it and were not of the class of personal rights of a citizen intended by this clause of the Con- stitution. 4 Inequality of burden, as well as the want of uniformity in com- mercial regulations, was one of the grievances of the citizens under the Confederation; and the new Constitution was adopted, among other things, to remedy those defects in the prior system." Ward v. Maryland, (1870) 12 Wall. (U. S.) 430. sCorson v. Maryland, (1887) 120 U. S. 502. * Conner v. Elliott, (1885) 18 How. (U. S.) 591. "According to the express words and clear meaning of this clause, no privileges are secured by it, except those which belong CITIZENSHIP Chapter A State tax on shares of nonresidents in a cor- 1 poration of Connecticut, on a basis different from Taxing that on which residents were taxed, was, under the corporate peculiar tax laws of Connecticut, held not to be a discrimination. 5 of "actioS ^ n( ^ a State ^ aw savm g the statute of limitations to a resident plaintiff against an absent defendant, but allowing it to run against a nonresident plain- tiff, has been held not to discriminate against the citizen of another State within the meaning of this clause. It was held to be a change of remedy and not the deprivation of a right. 6 laws! 6 ^ n a t ^ a State legislature granting exclusive privileges for twenty-five years to maintain within a designated area a slaughter-house, landings for cattle, and yards for enclosing cattle intended for sale or slaughter, and prohibiting all others, was held to be within the police power of the State, un- affected by the Federal Constitution or its amend- to citizenship. Rights, attached by the law to contracts by rea- son of the place where such contracts are made or executed, wholly irrespective of the citizenship of the parties to those contracts, cannot be deemed 'privileges of a citizen,' within the meaning of the Constitution." Conner v. Elliott, (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 593. s Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, (1902) 185 U. S. 364. See also Eldridge v. Trezevant, (1896) 160 U. S. 452. In passing upon the constitutionality of tax laws, the court " can only consider the legislation that has been had, and deter- mine whether or no its necessary operation results in an unjust discrimination between the parties charged with its burdens. It is enough that the State has secured a reasonably fair distribution of burdens, and that no intentional discrimination has been made against nonresidents. . . . Perfect equality and perfect uni- formity of taxation as regards individuals or corporations, or the different classes of property subject to taxation, is a dream un- realized." Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, (1902) 185 U. S. 364. eChemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, (1876) 93 U. S. 72. CITIZENSHIP ments, and to be a regulation for the health and chapter comfort of the people. 7 A law of the State of Iowa * making persons liable for any damages accruing from their allowing cattle from Texas to run at large and spread a disease known as Texas fever was held to work no discrimination, and to be within the police powers of the State. 8 A similar law against introducing diseased live stock into Colorado was upheld. 9 In the case of Rasmussen v. Idaho / the proclamation of the governor of Idaho forbidding the introduction from other States of sheep with scab was held to be no discrimination against other States and a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the State. State laws forbidding nonresidents from fishing or hunting within the limits of the State, or pre- scribing terms upon which they may do so, have been upheld as constitutional, on the ground that the States never surrendered to the Federal gov- ernment any of their rights touching fishing or hunt- ing; that the fish or game of the State is a part of the food supply of the citizens, in which the citi- zens of other States have no interest or personal rights or privileges; and that a State may control the subject in the exercise of its police power, 2 and as a thing held in trust for its own people. 7 Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36. sKimmish v. Ball, (1889) 129 U. S. 217. 9 Reid v. Colorado, (1902) 187 U. S. 137. i (1901) 181 U. S. 198. aMcCready v. Virginia, (1876) 94 U. S. 391; Geer v. Connecticut, (1896) 161 U. S. 519; Manchester V. Massachusetts, (1891) 139 U. S. 240; Lawton v. Steele, (1894) 152 U. S. 133. An appropriation by the State of "its tide waters and their beds to be used by its people as a common for taking and cultivating fish, CITIZENSHIP chapter The question of the right of the State to inspect ' meat and provision and other food supplies, and her to regulate the liquor traffic, is the subject of of s iiq a uir n & number of the decisions hereinafter considered, but in those cases decided adversely to the State the decision has been placed either upon the interstate commerce clause or upon the rights asserted under the XIV Amendment, and they will be found under the discussion of the latter subject. Of the Federal Guarantee of Extradition of Fugi- tives from Justice (Right 42 above). of nd Pursuant to this obligation the Congress has en- acted statutes providing for the extradition from one State to another of fugitives from justice. These Federal statutes control the demand, and statutes have been passed in all the States providing meas- ures in accordance with the Federal laws. In the first case of extradition presented to the Supreme Court, the prisoner was indicted in Canada and req- uisition was made by the Canadian government on the governor of Vermont, who undertook to deliver him. He applied for a habeas corpus on the ground that such a delivery could only be made to a foreign government on a requisition upon the United States, and that the United States would not, as had been shown by its action in another case, honor so far as it may be done without obstructing navigation, . . . is in fact nothing more than a regulation of the use by the people of their common property. The right which the people of the State thus acquire comes not from their citizenship alone, but from their citizenship and property combined. It is, in fact, a property right, and not a mere privilege or immunity of citizenship." McCready V. Virginia, (1876) 94 U. S. 395. CITIZENSHIP 175 the requisition because there was no treaty. The chapter Vermont court dismissed the writ, and the Supreme '. Court, by a divided court, sustained the action of the State court. 3 In another case it was held to be the duty of the governor of one State, on the demand of the governor of another State, and the production of the indictment, duly certified, to deliver up a fugi- tive from justice; that the function of the former is merely ministerial, and that he has no right to exer- cise any discretionary power; that he is under moral obligation to perform the compact of the Con- stitution, Congress having regulated the manner of performance; but that no law of Congress could coerce a State officer to perform his duty, and a motion for a mandamus against the governor was denied. 4 And again it was held that the Fed- eral statute demanding surrender of a fugitive from justice found in one of the States or Territories, to the State in which he stands accused, applies to Ter- ritories as well as States and embraces every offense known to the law, including misdemeanors. 5 s Holmes V. Jennison, (1840) 14 Pet. (U. S.) 540. 4 Kentucky v. Dennison, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 66. 5 Ex p. Reggel, (1885) 114 U. S. 642. "Looking ... to the words of the Constitution to the obvious policy and necessity of this provision to preserve harmony ' between States, and order and law within their respective borders, and to its early adoption by the colonies, and then by the confed- erated 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 offense made punishable by the law of the State in which it was committed, and that it gives the right to the executive authority of the State to demand the fugitive from the ex- ecutive authority of the State in which he is found; that the right given to 'demand' implies that it is an absolute right; and it follows that there must be a correlative obligation to deliver, without any 176 CITIZENSHIP chapter i n one case a man charged with crime in Ken- IV tucky fled to West Virginia. A requisition issued for him. While the governor of West Virginia was considering his extradition the man was seized in West Virginia, forcibly abducted to Kentucky, and there held for trial. He instituted proceedings seeking to have himself returned to West Virginia. The Supreme Court held that there was no mode provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, by which Federal authority could restore him to West Virginia. 6 And a fugitive returned to a demanding State charge, has no immunity from other indictments against another, him by the State from which he fled, after he is returned. 7 But the Supreme Court has said that to extradite a man on one charge and try him on another is dishonorable. 8 The governor of a State, upon whom demand is made for the surrender to an- other State of a citizen who is charged with being a fugitive from justice, may refuse the requisition if it be satisfactorily shown to him that the accused was not in the State at the time the alleged offense reference to the character of the crime charged, or to the policy or laws of the State to which the fugitive has fled." Kentucky v. Den- nison, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 103. eMahon v. Justice, (1888) 127 U. S. 700. TLascelles v. Georgia, (1893) 148 U. S. 537; Roberts V. Reilly, (1885) 116 U. S. 80; 12 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 606. " It is settled by the decisions of this court that, except in the case of a fugitive surrendered by a foreign government, there is nothing in the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States which exempts an offender, brought before the courts of a State for an offence against its laws, from trial and punishment, even though brought from another State by unlawful violence, or by abuse of legal process." Lascelles v. Georgia, (1893) 148 U. S. 543. U. S. V. Rauscher, (1886) 119 U. S. 407. CITIZENSHIP 177 was committed, or since, for in that case the fact that Chapter he fled from justice is negatived. 9 _J From the foundation of the government and Determina- tion of notwithstanding the absolute power of Congress to regulate the terms of surrender of fugitives, the gov- r ernors of States have been disposed to show inde- pendence on this subject of honoring requisitions. In the days of slavery it was difficult to secure the surrender of fugitive slaves, and impossible to se- cure the surrender of persons charged in a slave State with having aided slaves to escape and having then themselves fled. The case of Kentucky v. Den- nison 9 * is an illustration in point. In some States the executive, before honoring the requisition of the governor of the demanding State, claims the right to examine the indictment upon which the demand is based, and to determine whether it is in due form, or to decide whether it charges an offense punishable under the laws of the demanding State, which is equivalent to deciding a demurrer to the indictment ; and even to hear testimony to deter- mine the question of probable guilt or innocence. A notable instance of this is the case of a recent governor, indicted for complicity in the murder of his political rival, who, having fled first to one and then to another State, was demanded by the authori- ties of the State from which he fled, of the authori- ties of both States in which he sought asylum, but has been protected from delivery. Perhaps, in the instance cited, it was best so, but the better opinion is that if a crime is charged and demand is People v. Hyatt, (1902) 72 N. Y. 176, and cases cited. * (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 103. 12 178 CITIZENSHIP Chapter made, in due form, accompanied by an exemplified IV> copy of the indictment, the duty of the executive upon whom the demand is made is to surrender the accused to the demanding State, whether he may think him properly or improperly indicted, innocent or guilty, leaving the questions of the sufficiency of the indictment and his guilt or innocence to be deter- mined by the lawfully constituted authorities of the demanding State upon his trial there. 1 The Guarantee to the Citizen that Persons Held to Service or Labor in One State and Escaping to Another Shall Not be Discharged Thereby from Such Service or Labor but Shall be Delivered Up (Right 43 above). tion tr to" This once exc iting clause has, since the abolition slavery. o g} aver y ? ceased to possess much practical impor- tance. It may be left, with the authorities cited in connection with it, to the study of those interested in the controversies to which slavery gave rise. Of the Federal Guarantee to the Citizen that His State Shall Have a Republican Form of Govern- ment (Right 44 above). Rebellion ^ ^ e ^ rst case ^ n wn ^ c ^ the Supreme Court was called upon to enforce this guarantee it decided that the question which of two rival governments exist- ing in a State was the lawful government of the State was not a judicial but a political question; that is, that it was to be decided by the legislative and executive departments and not by the judiciary. The case arose out of conditions bordering upon iPearce v. Texas, (1894) 155 U. S. 311. CITIZENSHIP 179 civil war in the State of Ehode Island in 1842, re- chapter suiting from an attempt of certain citizens of that ' State to change the organic law of Ehode Island from government under a charter granted by Charles II, which it had continued as its form of government after the Bevolution, to government under a new constitution framed by the people. The trouble originated in the fact that while it was alleged that a majority of the people desired a new constitution, there was no provision in the existing law for the calling of any convention. The charter government continued, notwithstanding certain people assembled and framed and attempted to put into operation a new government. One Dorr was chosen governor by the adherents of the new government, and at once came in conflict with the old regime. The dispute was popularly known as "Dorr's Rebellion," and the situation soon led to military conflict, the arrest, trial, and conviction of Dorr, and his sentence to imprisonment for life (although he was subsequently pardoned). In the excitement the Federal judi- ciary was appealed to, and to the appeal it gave the above reply. The Federal executive and other departments had held intercourse with the old government and so con- tinued to recognize it, and, although neither of the State governments could, as they were administered then, be said to be a republican government, under the decision that it was a political question, to be disposed of by Congress, the factions in Ehode Is- land were allowed to flounder on, and finally un- tangle their troubles for themselves without Federal interference. So in that instance this Federal guar- 180 CITIZENSHIP chapter antee of a republican government proved to be not ' a very practical thing. 2 The seces- The next occasion upon which the Supreme Court sion of considered this Federal guarantee was after the great Civil War. The State of Texas attempted, in 1861, to secede. Her government and her people waged war on the United States for four years. In 1865 she was overcome by force of arms, and her territory was occupied by the military forces of the United States, and her government was temporarily administered by provisional appointees of the Presi- dent of the United States and afterwards by govern- ors appointed under an act of Congress, by a mili- tary commander, Texas being a part of Military District No. 5, composed of Texas and Louisiana, pursuant to an Act of Congress of March, 1867. A State convention, assembled under the authority of the United States in 1866, passed an ordinance look- ing to the recovery of certain bonds alleged to belong to the State, and one J. W. Throckmorton, a gov- 2 Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 1. "Under this article of the Constitution it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State. For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its deci- sion is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal. . . . So, too, as relates to the clause in the above-mentioned article of the Constitu- tion, providing for cases of domestic violence. It rested with Con- gress, too, to determine upon the means proper to be adopted to fulfil this guarantee. They might, if they had deemed it most ad- visable to do so, have placed it in the power of a court to decide CITIZENSHIP ernor whom that convention had elected, authorized Chapter the bringing of the suit. Two subsequent military ' governors, Hamilton and Pease, further ratified this action. The bill was an original bill filed by Texas as a State in the Supreme Court, and while this con- dition of her statehood continued it prayed an in- junction concerning certain bonds and their delivery to the State. The defense, among other things, questioned : 1. The authority of the parties named to prose- cute a suit in the name of Texas. 2. The right of Texas, after her course in the Civil War, to sue as a State of the Union. It fell to the lot of Chief Justice Chase to decide status of seceding the status of the States which had attempted to f^S 3 secede, after they were conquered by the United * States and before they were fully restored to their relations as States of the Union. In a great opinion the following points were decided : 1. That the term State, as used in the Constitu- tion, most frequently expresses the combined idea of people, territory, and government; a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined bound- aries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written consti- tution, and established by the consent of tlie governed. when the contingency had happened which required the Federal government to interfere. But Congress thought otherwise, and no doubt wisely; and by the Act of February 28, 1795, ... the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere, is given to the President." Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 How. (U. S.) 1. 182 CITIZENSHIP chapter 2. That the Union of these States under a com- IV mon Constitution, forming a distinct and greater political unit, is that which was des- ignated by the Constitution as the United States, and made, of the people and States composing it, one people and one country. 3. That the guarantee to every State of a re- publican form of government was a guaran- tee to the people of that State. 4. That the Union was indissoluble. 5. That the States nevertheless possessed a right of self-government, sovereignty, free- dom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly or by fair implication delegated to the Union; that without the States in union there could be no such political body as the United States. 6. That the preservation and the maintenance of their governments was as much within the care of the Federal authority as was the preservation of the national government itself. 7. That the United States was an indestructible government of indestructible States. 8. That the guarantee of republican govern- ment in the Union, to the State, was as bind- ing on the United States as the guarantee of perpetual union, and that Texas was en- titled to the performance of that guarantee by the final act whereby she became a new member of the Union. CITIZENSHIP 183 9. That her attempt at secession and all acts chapter intended to give it effect were null. 10. That the State continued to exist as a mem- ber of the Union, notwithstanding its tem- porary government had been destroyed to preserve the Union. 11. That the United States, having preserved its own existence, was engaged in perform- ing its equally sacred obligation to provide a republican form of government to the State. 12. That this was a political guarantee to be performed by the Congress. 13. That Congress was empowered to judge of the ways and means of accomplishing that result, and the provisional and temporary military governments then existing were lawful means to that end in a case in which the hostile State government had been de- stroyed, and until new and loyal republican State governments could be organized. 14. That it behooved the judiciary to recognize the continual existence of the seceding States as members of the Union, notwithstanding the temporary suspension of their relations to the Union by the force of the events above referred to. No epitome of this great decision can do it justice. It is among the most luminous expositions extant of the vital questions of which it treats, and was fol- lowed thenceforth in every department of the gov- ernment. 3 3 Texas v. White, (1868) 7 Wall. (U. S.) 700. 184 CITIZENSHIP Chapter j n a later case the point was made that the form IV ' of government of a State was not republican in the sense guaranteed by the Constitution; that is to say, that certain State statutes in the frame and exe- cution were not. The Supreme Court reiterated that the question was a political question, and that if the "form of government" existing in a State was recognized by the legislative and executive de- partments, the judiciary ought not to question it, and must follow the interpretations of the State laws placed on them by the highest State court. 4 B^kham I n a very recent case the Supreme Court, called upon to decide upon the case of rival contestants for the office of governor of a State, declined to do so, declaring that it was preeminently a case for de- cision by the court of last resort in the State. When the Federal guarantee of a republican form of gov- ernment, and the XIV Amendment were invoked, it dismissed the contention by declaring that the en- forcement of that guarantee was intrusted to the political department of the government, and that the powers of the judiciary concerning it were not so enlarged by anything in the XIV Amendment as to give the court power to review the judgment of a State court of last resort on a question of State elections. 5 men?Te e ft From the foregoing, which embrace all the utter- ances of the Supreme Court concerning its powers under the guarantee clause, it will be seen that the citizen has little or nothing to hope for, in the way of its enforcement, from the Federal judiciary. In- 4/n re Duncan, (1891) 139 U. S. 449. 5 Taylor v. Beckham, (1900) 178 U. S. 548. CITIZENSHIP 185 deed, judging by the recent utterances of that court, chapter not only in this regard, but on the subject of extra- '- dition, 6 and in numerous cases where attempts have been made to secure its aid against gross frauds on the suffrage, 7 it would seem to be willing to sur- render its existence and power as a coordinate de- partment of the Federal government, and gladly abandon to Congress and the executive all efforts to enforce the law, except in matters not political. We come now to consider those rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizen guaranteed by the early amendments to the Constitution. The Immunity of the Citizen Against Any Law of Congress Respecting an Establishment of Re- ligion or Prohibiting the Free Exercise Thereof. (Amendment I.) Either by the bill of rights, the constitution, or the law, of every State of the Union, a similar guarantee is given to its citizens, concerning State laws. This does not mean that the people either of the Nation or of the State hold religion in contempt or desire to belittle it. On the contrary, the oldest of the bills of rights contains reverential references to religion or the duty which we owe to our Maker. The Christian religion was judicially declared to be a part of the common law of Pennsyl- vania. 8 But the English Established Church had be- come exceedingly obnoxious to the colonists, and e Kentucky v. Dennison, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 103. 7 Williams v. Mississippi, (1898) 170 U. S. 213; Green v. Mills, (C. C. A. 1895) 69 Fed. Rep. 852, 159 U. S. 651; Giles V. Harris, (1903) 189 U. S. 486. sVidal v. Philadelphia, (1844) 2 How. (U. S.) 193, Provision not inim- CITIZENSHIP Chapter their ideas of religious liberty had been imbibed IV> from Dutch and Lutheran examples, and stimulated by what they regarded as oppressions of the regu- larly established Church. Hence the prohibition above set forth. 9 The first case arising under this clause involved property. ^ e f ec t o f the constitutions, national and State, and laws enacted thereunder, upon property of the Epis- copal Church in Virginia. The case arose touching certain church property in Alexandria, which city was at that time in the District of Columbia. The court held that the religious establishment of Eng- land was adopted, so far as applicable, in the colony of Virginia, and that the freehold of church lands was in the parson ; that legislative grants were ir- revocable; that the Act of Virginia of 1776, con- firming to the Episcopal Church, as successor of the Established Church, its rights to lands, was not con- trary to the State constitution and did not infringe any rights, civil, political, or religious, under the State constitution; that later acts seeking to divest the Episcopal Church of Virginia of property ac- o For an interesting account of the reasons leading to the adop- tion of this provision and the manner of its adoption, see Reynolds V. U. S., (1878) 98 U. S. 162-164. "The oppressive measures adopted, and the cruelties and punish- ments inflicted by the governments of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform, in their religious beliefs and modes of worship, to the views of the most numerous sect, and the folly of at- tempting in that way to control the mental operations of persons, and enforce an outward conformity to a prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in question. It was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society." Davis V. Season, (1890) 133 U. fe. 342. CITIZENSHIP quired previous to the Revolution were null, etc. 1 Chapter By this decision, and others similar in other States, . IV ' the Episcopal Church retained much property in the older colonies. The Supreme Court has held that the prohibition ahove does not make good the plea of a person ac- n d ality cused of an offense against morality and decency, that he has acted pursuant to the tenets of his re- ligious belief, which were those of a Mormon. 2 It was said, "Religious freedom is guaranteed every- where throughout the United States so far as con- gressional interference is concerned." Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were violative of social duties or subversive of good order. "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." The law punishing polygamy was upheld as intended to prevent a pernicious practice, no matter what was the belief of the party engaging in it. The opinion delivered by Chief Justice Waite is both interesting and instructive and equally appli- cable to other religious immoralities than polygamy. In a later case the Supreme Court declared that bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of the iTerrett v. Taylor, (1815) 9 Cranch (U. S.) 43. 2 Reynolds v. U. S., (1878) 98 U. S. 145. By the provision against any law of Congress respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the very exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties, or subversive of good order." Reynolds v. U. S., (1878) 98 U. S. 164. CITIZENSHIP chapter United States, by the laws of Idaho, and by the laws ' of all civilized and Christian countries; and to call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind ; that a crime is none the less such, nor less odious, because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion ; and that the first amendment to the Constitution was never intended as a protection from punishment for acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. 3 sectarian In a case recently decided, it was held that plac- control of govern- j n g an isolated hospital building built by the gov- hospitai. ernment in charge of another hospital, which was under the control of Sisters of the Roman Catholic Church, was not obnoxious to the constitutional pro- hibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion. 4 Of the Right of the Citizen to Free Speech. (Amend- ment I.) Limitations This right is also guaranteed to their citizens by of the ri * ht - all the States. Of it, it is sufficient to say that it is a right to be confined within the bounds of decency and morality, and gives no immunity from arrest and punishment for treasonable, seditious, and in- flammatory appeals. In time of war numerous ar- rests have been made by the authority of military commissions, and citizens have been actually de- ported by presidential orders without trial by jury, and after vainly seeking redress under habeas corpus 3 Davis v. Season, (1890) 133 U. S. 333; Church of Jesus Christ V. U. S., (1890) 136 U. S. 1. ^Bradfield v. Roberts, (1899) 175 U. S. 291. CITIZENSHIP proceedings. 5 And in time of peace, under Federal chapter statutes authorizing the deportation of anarchists, L persons have, from time to time, been indicted, ar- rested, and punished or deported, for seditious, an- archistic, and nihilistic utterances and publications. The justification for such action is that while the constitutions, Federal and State, guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, the persons so speaking or publishing are answerable to the public authori- ties for their acts in the interests of good citizenship, morality, and decency. 6 Of the Freedom of the Press. (Amendment I.) The freedom of the press has been described as ^Set- one of the great bulwarks of liberty. Unquestion- z ably the suppression of fair discussion of public measures in the press was, under the system against which the colonists rebelled, one of the most odious forms of tyranny. On the other hand, those who, in that day, were so ardent for the absolute liberty B Ex p. Vallandigham, (1863) 1 Wall. (U. S.) 243. 6U. S. v. Williams, (1904) 194 U. S. 279, where the court said: "We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The naming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance; and as long as human governments endure they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation." "In incorporating these principles (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus the freedom of speech and of the press (Article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications in- jurious to public morals or private reputation." Robertson v. Bald- win, (1897) 165 U. S. 381. 190 CITIZENSHIP IV. Injunction or action for damages. chapter o f the press could not have foreseen the immense increase in public and private printed matter which was to occur; the almost unlimited power for good or evil which the press was to possess ; the irrepa- rable nature of the injuries which it is often able to inflict; or the irresponsible hands into which so large a portion of the press of our day was, in time, to pass. 7 The State constitutions and statutes which guar- antee tKe freedom of the press, for the most part, couple with that guarantee the condition that the persons so printing shall be answerable in damages for any abuse of the privilege. But the privilege itself is regarded as of such dignity and sanctity that the courts of sundry States have held that an injunction will not lie to restrain the publication of an alleged libel, and the only redress of a party libeled is to bring an action for damages after the fact or prosecute the offender criminally. 8 Rights Guaranteed by Amendments II-VIII, XI, and XII. Of the other rights guaranteed by the amend- ments from II to VIII we shall not speak in detail, 7 "It is well understood, and received as a commentary on this provision for the liberty of the press, that it was intended to pre- vent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practised by other governments, and in early times here, to stifle the efforts of patriots towards enlightening their fellow subjects upon their rights and the duties of rulers. The liberty of the press was to be unrestrained, but he who used it was to be responsible in case of its abuse; like the right to keep fire arms, which does not protect him who uses them for annoyance or destruction." Per Parker, C. J., in Com. v. Blanding, (1825) 3 Pick. (Mass.) 314. sMarlin Fire Arms Co. v. Shields, (1902) 171 N. Y. 384, and cases cited. CITIZENSHIP 191 because their nature, extent, and full interpretation chapter will be found sufficiently considered in the authori- ' ties cited in connection with their statement. 9 Nor do the amendments numbered XI and XII bear directly on our subject. Having now come to the war amendments, let us proceed to consider them in their order. Ohio v. Dollison, (1904) 194 U. S. 445. CHAPTEE V. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE WAR AMEND- MENTS. THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. chapter 'THHIS amendment simply abolished slavery. Be- '. yond the declaration that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, etc., should exist with- n general. j n ^ e United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction, it enacted nothing. 1 It did not even affect the validity of a note given for a slave when slavery was lawful. 2 The main purpose of the amendment was to abolish African slavery, but it equally forbids Mexican peonage or Chinese cooly trade, amounting to slavery, and the use of the word i"This amendment, as well as the Fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery and established uni- versal freedom. Still, legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it, and to prescribe proper modes of redress for its violation in letter or spirit. And such legislation may be primary and direct in its character; for the amendment is not a mere prohibition of State laws establishing or upholding slavery, but an absolute declaration that slavery or involuntary servitude shall not exist in any part of the United States." Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 20. See also Peonage Cases, (1903) 123 Fed. Rep. 671; U. S. v. McClellan, (1904) 127 Fed. Rep. 971. 2 White v. Hart, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 646; Osborn V. Nich- olson, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 654. There is nothing in the language of the amendment which in the slightest degree warrants the inference that those who framed or those who adopted it intended that it should effect the destruction 192 CITIZENSHIP 193 4 i servitude ' ' prohibits all forms of involuntary chapter slavery of whatever class. 3 _ _ The XIII Amendment was, however, held not to authorize the passage by Congress of laws re- ?acel r quiring equal accommodation in inns, public convey- contracts. ances, and places of amusement, for it was said that the denial of such equal accommodations imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon either race. 4 Nor does it place any restraint upon the States from passing laws requiring railway com- panies carrying passengers in their coaches, within the State, to provide equal but separate accommoda- tions for the white and for the colored race, and that the races be kept separate on railroads and steam- of rights legally and completely vested at the time of its adoption. Osborn v. Nicholson, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 662; White V. Hart, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 646. 3 " Undoubtedly, while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese cooly labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so, if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the pro- tection of these articles, that protection will apply though the party interested may not be of African descent." Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 71. See also Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) 163 U. S. 542; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) 169 U. S. 677. 4 Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 3. "A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or reestablish a state of involuntary servitude. . . . Legisla- tion is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinc- tions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior 13 194 CITIZENSHIP Slavery alone af- fected. Chapter boats; or from separating the races in schools. 5 Nor does it authorize federal courts to annul sailors ' contracts on the plea that they are contracts for in- voluntary servitude; for a sailor's contract neces- sarily involves, to a certain extent, surrender of his personal liberty, during the life of the contract, and was not in the contemplation of this amendment. 6 And this is all that was enacted by the XIII Amendment, and all that has ever been decided con- cerning it by the court of last resort intrusted with its interpretation. It affected no right theretofore possessed by any State in the Union, except the right to establish or recognize slavery or involun- tary servitude. It effected no change in the rela- tions of the Union and the States composing it to each other, or in the organic structure of the Nation or the States. OF THE BIGHTS OF CITIZENS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. When the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments first came up for interpretation before the Su- preme Court of the United States in the famous to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane." Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) 163 U. S. 543, 551. 5 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mississippi, (1890) 133 U. S. 587; Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) 163 U. S. 537; Cumming v. Board of Education, (1899) 175 U. S. 528; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Ken- tucky, (1900) 179 U. S. 387. e Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897) 165 U. S. 275. " The amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doc- trine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have al- ways been treated as exceptional, such as military and naval enlist- ments, or to disturb the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards. The amendment, how- Early view as to scope. CITIZENSHIP 195 Slaughter-House Cases, Mr. Justice Swayne said Chapter of them, "Fairly construed, they may be said to ' rise to the dignity of a new Magna Charta." In the light of subsequent decisions their enactments must be regarded as of much narrower scope. The XIV Amendment is broader in language than the XIII, yet no broader than the XIII in conferring any power upon the Federal govern- ment to legislate upon its own initiative. It de- clared a new law of citizenship, but the only power of legislation conferred by it upon Congress was power to enact restrictive legislation against any State action which might be taken contrary to the amendment itself. The language of the amendment is in part : Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce [(a) Any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. [(b) Nor shall any State deprive any per- son of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. ever, makes no distinction between a public and a private service. To say that persons engaged in a public service are not within the amendment is to admit that there are exceptions to its general lan- guage, and the further question is at once presented, where shall the line be drawn? We know of no better answer to make than* to say that services which have from time immemorial been treated as exceptional shall not be regarded as within its purview." Rob- ertson v. Baldwin, (1897) 165 U. S. 282. 196 CITIZENSHIP deny to any person within its '. jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Sec. 5. The Congress shall have power to en- force, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Congress has attempted to pass many acts en- forcing the provisions of that article. Its enact- ments have given rise to an amount of litigation un- precedented in the history of our Constitution. Not even the commerce clause of the Constitution, or the contract clause, has proved as fertile of contro- versies as the interpretation of this amendment, and laws enacted by Congress, under the supposed authority of this amendment, have more frequently been challenged successfully, and rights asserted under it have been less frequently recognized, than under any other provision of the Constitution. oid and rph e declaration contained in the amendment that of n c c ii?zen- citizens of the United States shall be deemed citi- ;zens of the State wherein they reside is merely a reiteration of the law as it existed before the amend- ment and as it had been announced by Chief Justice Marshall in Gassies v. Ballon? where it is said : " A citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State." The dec- laration that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States was the announcement of a new law of Federal citizenship, carrying with it a new law of State citizenship and altering, as it was in- tended to alter, the rule of citizenship established 7 (1832) 6 Pet. (U. S.) 761. CITIZENSHIP 197 by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of chaptei Dred Scott v. Sandford 8 To that extent the amend- L_ ment worked a radical change. 8 * The next clause requires a restatement of its provisions, because nearly all the litigation which clause - has arisen upon the XIV Amendment has grown out of the prohibitions of this clause. The language is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citi- zens of the United States; nor shall any State de- prive any person of life, liberty, or property with- out due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This language is plain enough. It cannot be tortured into anything but a prohibition against the enactment by any State of any law abridging the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United States, or depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protec- tion of the laws. It relates to the States altogether. It does not require them to enact any law. It sim- ply forbids them from enacting the laws described as obnoxious. It certainly does not confer upon s (1856) 19 How. (U. S.) 398. s* Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36; Strauder V. West Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 306; Elk v. Wilkins, (1884) 112 U. S. 101; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) 169 U. S. 676; Maxwell v. Dow, (1900) 176 U. S. 593. "Enough appears in the language employed in those provisions [the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Fed- eral Constitution] to show that their principal object was to confer citizenship, and the rights which belong to citizens as such, upon the colored people, and in that manner to abrogate the rule previously \ 198 CITIZENSHIP Chapter the Federal government any power to enact any ! kind of laws except laws enforcing this prohibition against the States. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the right of one citizen against another, whether he be a citizen of the United States or a citizen of the State. It forbids States from encroaching upon existing rights, but, however it may have intended, it is equally clear that it does not forbid individuals from encroaching upon those rights. The power conferred upon Congress is to enforce, by ' ' appropriate legislation, ' ' the provisions of the article. The provisions of the article were directed solely against the States. The power of Congress derived from the amendments must there- fore be confined to the power to legislate against the States to enforce those provisions. 9 The Supreme Court significantly pointed out this limited power of Congress under the amendment when, in the Slaughter-House Cases, it declared that the protection given by the amendment was "from adopted by this court in the Dred Scott case." Per Mr. Justice Clifford in Hall v. De Cuir, (1877) 95 U. S. 509. "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." Slaughter-House Cases, ( 1872 ) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 73. 9 " Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; but they are secured by way of pro- hibition against State laws and State proceedings affecting those The En- forcement Act. CITIZENSHIP 199 the hostile legislation of the States/' This was in chapter 1872. But Congress had already passed an act, II called the Enforcement Act, in which it had under- taken to legislate against individuals for conspiring or acting singly against citizens for the purpose of abridging their privileges or immunities and de- priving them of life, liberty, or property, or prevent- ing their enjoyment of the equal protection of the laws, under these constitutional amendments. Cer- tain acts violative of the rights of citizens, as de- fined by the XIV and XV Amendments, committed by individuals either singly or in conspiracy with others, were declared to be in violation of Federal law, and penalties were denounced aganist the per- petrators, and under these acts arrests were made and prosecutions had. Congress also passed an act known as the Civil RJ Eights Bill, by which it undertook to require inn- keepers, carriers, and keepers of places of public amusement not to discriminate against any classes of citizens in the accommodations which they sup- plied, and to give to citizens who were denied these equal accommodations right of action and damages for such denial. The defendants in all these cases, criminal and civil, challenged the power of Con- gress to pass the laws under which they were in- dicted or sued. rights and privileges, and by power given to Congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect: and such legislation must necessarily be predicated upon such supposed State laws or State proceedings, and be directed to the correction of their operation and effect." Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 11. See also U. S. v. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 542; Virginia V. Rives, (1879) 100 U. S. 313; Ex p. Virginia, (1879) 104 U. S. 339; Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) 163 U. S. 537. 200 CITIZENSHIP Chapter Two criminal cases, involving this defense, were ' decided by the Supreme Court in 1875. One was the case of United States v. Reese, arising under E n n d fo r rce he the clause of the Enforcement Act which under- lt Act * took to punish an individual for seeking to de- prive a citizen of his rights under the XV Amend- ment. 1 The other was the case of United States v. Cruikshank 2 arising under the clause of the En- forcement Act which undertook to punish an indi- vidual for depriving a citizen of his rights under the XIV Amendment. dec r 5ions of * n tne case ^ Reese it was declared that the XV Amendment conferred no right to vote; that it in- vested United States citizens with fhe right of ex- emption from discrimination in the exercise of suf- frage on account of race, color, or previous condi- tion; that the power of Congress to legislate at all concerning voting at State elections rested on the XV Amendment and could be exercised only by pro- viding punishment when the wrongful refusal was because of race, color, or previous condition. In the Cruikshank case the court said: "The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this prin- ciple, if it is within its power." But the court fur- ther proceeded to say that this duty was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right, This the amendment guarantees, but no more. The power iU. S. v. Reese, (1875) 92 U. S. 215. 2U. S. V. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 542. CITIZENSHIP 201 of the national government is limited to the en- chapter forcement of that guarantee. The court, however, ! found technical difficulties in the indictment which enabled it to set aside the conviction without going further. It was plain to see that the Supreme Court doubted the power of Congress to enact laws directed against individuals for violating the rights of citi- zens guaranteed against State legislation by the XIV and XV Amendments. In the case of U. S. v. Harris? the Supreme ^ a a s t e e s r _ Court declared the Enforcement Act void in the fol- lowing language: "When an Act of Congress is directed exclusively against the action of private persons, without reference to the laws of the State, or their administration by her officers, it is not war- ranted by any clause in this amendment," and this language has been reiterated by the court on many occasions. 4 In the case In re Kemmler, 4 * the Supreme Court said: "The XIV Amendment did not radically change the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal government to each other and of both governments to the people. . . . Protection of life, liberty, and property rests primarily with the States;" and the opinion goes on to declare that s (1882) 106 U. S. 640. * Baldwin v. Frank, (1887) 120 U. S. 684; Powell v. Pennsyl- vania, (1888) 127 U. S. 685; In re Kemmler, (1890) 136 U. S. 448; In re Rahrer, (1891) 140 U. S. 554; McPherson v. Blacker, (1892) 146 U. S. 39; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, (1894) 153 U. S. 506; Scott v. McNeal, (1894) 154 U. S. 34, 45; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, (1897) 166 U. S. 226, 233; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, (1902) 183 U. S. 511; Chadwick v. Kelley, (1903) 187 U. S. 540; Missouri v. Dockery, (1903) 191 U. S. 170. 4* (1890) 136 U. S. 448. 202 CITIZENSHIP Chapter the amendment guarantees only that the State shall ! not encroach upon the fundamental rights of her citizens or discriminate between them. And when in 1883 the measure of Congress known as the Civil Eights Bill came up for adjudication it was declared unconstitutional. 5 In that case it was held that the XIV Amendment does not justify establish- ing a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society, or make Congress take the place of State legislatures, and that the legislation which Congress was author- ized to adopt was not general legislation upon the rights of citizens, but corrective legislation neces- sary to counteract State legislation prohibited by the amendment. i ' Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment, " was the language used. 6 The last and one of the most emphatic expres- sions of the Supreme Court against the power of Congress to enact a statute punishing purely indi- vidual action, as an appropriate exercise of power conferred by either the XIV or XV Amendments B Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 11. 6 " The prohibitions of the amendment are against State laws and acts done under State authority. Of course, legislation may, and should be, provided in advance to meet the exigency when it arises; but it should be adopted to the mischief and wrong which the amendment was intended to provide against; and that is, State laws, or State action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot prop- erly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society. It would be to make Congress take the place of the State legislatures and to supersede them." Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 13. James v. Bow- man. CITIZENSHIP 203 will be found in a case decided in 1903. 7 In that chapter case Bowman was indicted under Section 5507 of - the Bevised Statutes, which was a part of the same Act under which Eeese and Cruikshank were in- dicted. The Act attempted to punish by fine and imprisonment every person who should prevent, hinder, control, or intimidate in the exercise of the right of suffrage, by certain means described, any one to whom that right is guaranteed by the XV Amendment. The court held that the Act was be- yond the power of Congress, and discharged the prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus. It reviewed the authorities above referred to, and declared that a Federal statute which purported to punish purely individual action in the particulars named was un- constitutional. So that, at the present time, it may be truly said that the statutes, both of criminal and of civil nature, t 1on te a?o c ne which the Congress has attempted to enact, directed against individuals, and purporting to punish them or subject them to damages for violating the rights of citizens under the XIV and XV Amendments, have been nullified by the decisions of the Supreme Court. But while the power granted to the courts by the amendments has been thus restricted by in- terpretation, the power to legislate against Stale action has been sustained, and, in sundry instances, State action has been nullified. In the first group of cases, decided by the Su- preme Court in 1879, the following decisions illus- trate what the amendment did effect. The law of West Virginia which singled out and denied to col- 7 James v. Bowman, (1903) 190 U. S. 127. 204 CITIZENSHIP V. Ex p. Virginia. Chapter ored citizens the right and privilege of participating in the administration of the laws by serving on juries, because of their color, was held to be void for the discrimination. 7 * In another case it appeared that the jury law of Virginia did not forbid the summoning of negroes to act on the panel, and that if there were none on the jury which tried the ac- cused, it was either by chance or by the negligence or wilful misconduct of a subordinate officer. In that case it was held that this did not constitute a denial by the State. 8 In the third case which came up from Virginia, 8 * where the jury law was as stated above, the court refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus in favor of a judge who had been indicted for refusing to summon negroes on the jury. His release had been demanded by the State. It is difficult to see how the ruling in this case can be justified, for the Su- preme Court had, at the same term, said that the XIV Amendment was directed at State action, and had declared in the Eeese and Cruikshank cases, in effect, that Federal legislation against individuals was not contemplated or authorized by the XIV or XV Amendments ; and in an opinion delivered on the same day it declared that if an executive or a judicial officer in Virginia exercised unwarranted power or did unauthorized acts, prejudicial to the rights of a citizen of the United States, the remedy was by appeal. It had allowed an appeal and had granted relief in a similar case in West Virginia; and sub- 7*Strauder v. West Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 303. s Virginia v. Rives, (1879) 100 U. S. 313. s* (1879) Ex p. Virginia, 100 U. S. 339. CITIZENSHIP 205 sequently, in the case of U. S. v. Harris, 9 in the Chapter Civil Rights Cases, 9 * in Baldwin v. Frank, 1 and in James v. Bowman? * it nullified the Enforcement Act and the Civil Rights Bill on the ground that indi- vidual invasion of individual rights was not the sub- ject matter of the amendment. It is impossible to reconcile the decision in Ex p. Virginia with the others. Perhaps the court did not at that time understand as fully as it came to under- stand later the real scope of the amendments. As they stand, the two cases of Virginia v. Rives v j r $ s and Ex p. Virginia present an amusing line of J"V^f judicial demarcation. In Virginia v. Rives, the mis- pa w r?d. con conduct of a sheriff in the method of summoning a jury was declared not to be the action of the State and to be remediable on appeal. In the case of Ex p. Virginia, decided the same day, the misconduct of a judge in not summoning a proper jury was held to be the action of the State, remediable by the indictment of the judge, although the State had done no wrong. 2 The only legal principle to be deduced 9 (1882) 106 U. S. 640. 1 (1887) 120 U. S. 684. * (1883) 109 U. S. 3. i* (1903) 190 U. S. 127. 2 In the Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 3, the case of Ex p. Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 339, is distinguished by the Supreme Court in the following language : " In the Virginia case, the State, through its officer, enforced a rule of disqualification which the law was intended to abrogate and counteract. Whether the statute book of the State actually laid down any such rule of disqualification or not, the State, through its officer, enforced such a rule; and it is against such State action, through its officers and agents, that the last clause of the section is directed. This aspect of the law was deemed sufficient to divest it of any unconstitutional character, and makes it differ widely from the first and second sections of the same act which we are now considering." " The prohibitions of the amendment refer to all the instrumen- 206 CITIZENSHIP Volume of the XIV Amend- ment. Chapter from the two decisions is that the boundary line be- ' tween an officer who is the State and an officer who is not the State lies somewhere between a sheriff and a judge. State action discriminating between citizens has been frequently nullified by Federal decisions since. In most cases the discrimination was in regard to the constitution of juries. 2 * These cases will be con- sidered in discussing the decisions under the clauses of the amendments to which they refer. Having now discussed the general features of the firgt and fifth sect i olis of the X IV Amendment, we come to a consideration of the decisions rendered upon it by the Supreme Court of the United States during the forty years since its passage. Three hundred cases, involving its construction, have been decided by that court, scrutinizing it from nearly every point of view in which it may possibly be con- sidered, and we need cite no other authority on the questions, because the decisions of the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land, anything in talities of the State, to its legislative, executive, and judicial authori- ties; and therefore whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of any right protected by that amendment against deprivation by the State * violates the consti- tutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name of and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State.' This must be so, or, as we have often said, the constitutional pro- hibition has no meaning, and ' the State has clothed one of its agents with power to annul or evade it.' " Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, (1897) 166 U. S. 233. 2* Missouri v. Lewis, (1879) 101 U. S. 22; Neal v. Delaware, (1880) 103 U. S. 370; Carter V. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 442; Rogers v. Alabama, (1904) 192 U. S. 226; Tarrance v. Florida, (1903) 188 U. S. 519. CITIZENSHIP 207 conflict with them in inferior courts, Federal or Chapter State, to the contrary notwithstanding. 3 After laborious effort, it has been found impossi- ble to separate the decisions under the three head- ings cases in which it was claimed that the rights and privileges of the complainant were abridged; cases in which it was claimed that the complainant had been deprived of life, liberty, or property with- out due process of law; and cases in which it was claimed that the citizen had been denied the equal protection of the law for in almost every instance the right to the relief asked was placed on all three grounds. Where the decision was adverse relief was of course denied upon all three of the grounds specified, but where relief was granted it was sometimes upon one ground, sometimes upon two, sometimes upon all three, and in some cases the court failed to specify upon which of the grounds the decision rested. The student interested in the further pursuit of this inquiry may easily satisfy himself, for, sur- prising as it may be, out of the three hundred cases decided, only about thirty decisions have sustained the right or claim asserted under the XIV Amend- ment. These favorable decisions relate to discrim- inations against negroes in State laws or proceedings relating to the constitution of juries; to discrim- inations against Chinamen; to discriminating State laws concerning taxation, assessment, rates, or regu- lation of corporations; to discriminations in State s The decisions of the United States Supreme Court under the XIV Amendment are listed in the order of their rendition in the Appendix A at the close of this volume. 208 CITIZENSHIP Instruct- iveness of cases rejecting claims. Particu- lar rights estab- lished. procedure ; and to a few particular rights. 4 This is the pitiful array of results from forty years of liti- gation upon amendments which, at the time of their enactment, were claimed to revolutionize the rela- tions of the Nation and the States. In the great mass of rejected claims will be found the full interpretation placed by the court upon these amendments. A list of authorities is hereto ap- pended showing what has been claimed under the clause which provides: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Out of all the cases decided by the Supreme Court in which the abridgment of rights has been asserted, the claim has been sustained in but a few cases, and of the cases favorably decided seven relate to the * The following are the only cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States sustaining claims set up under the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments: Discrimination on juries against negroes: Strauder v. West Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 303; Ex p. Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 339; Missouri v. Lewis, (1879) 101 U. S. 22; Neal v. Delaware, (1880) 103 U. S. 370; Carter V. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 442; Rogers v. Alabama, (1904) 192 U. S. 226; Tarrance v. Florida, (1903) 188 U. S. 519. Discriminating against Chinamen: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) 118 U. S. 356. Discriminating State laws of taxation, assessment, rates, or regulations: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., (1886) 118 U. S. 394; California v. Central Pac. R. Co., (1888) 127 U. S. 40; Chicago, etc., R. Co., v. Minnesota, (1890) 134 U. S. 418; Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1890) 134 U. S. 467; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1894) 154 U. S. 362; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, (1896) 164 U. S. 403; Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, (1896) 164 U. S. 578; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, (1897) 165 U. S. 150; Smyth v. Ames, (1898) 169 TJ. S. 466; Norwood v. Baker, (1898) 172 U. S. 269; Dewey v. CITIZENSHIP 209 rights of negroes in the constitution of juries. The rights established in other cases were : The right of a lawyer to practice law ; the right of a Chinaman to conduct a laundry without discrimination; the right of railroads and other corporations to equal protec- tion against discriminating State taxes or other re- quirements, and the right of a litigant to have due notice of a suit. Yet the whole range of the rights of citizens has been traversed to attain this result. We have already had occasion to point out that, in the earliest construction placed upon these amend- SS?. g< ments, it was declared that their main purpose was to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and of the States and to protect the newly enfran- chised race against discriminating legislation by the States. At the risk of endless reiteration, we must again recur to the language of the court in the Slaughter-House Cases, declaring that the amend- ments did not bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights theretofore belong- ing exclusively to the States, or transfer the security and protection of all civil rights from the States to Des Homes, (1899) 173 U. S. 193; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, (1899) 173 U. S. 684 (selling 1,000-mile tickets); Getting V. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., (1901) 183 U. S. 79; Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, (1903) 188 U. S. 385. Discrimination in State procedure: Prout v. Starr, (1903) 188 U. S. 537; Roller v. Holly, (1900) 176 U. S. 398; Smyth v. Ames, (1898) 169 U. S. 466. No due process: Scott v. McNeal, (1894) 154 U. S. 34 (man supposed to be dead; was alive). Particular rights: Royall v. Virginia, (1886) 116 U. S. 572 (abridging right to practice profession) ; Barren v. Burnside, (1887) 121 U. S. 186; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, (1897) 165 U. S. 579 (abridg- ing right of contract) ; Blake v. McClung, (1898) 172 U. S. 239 (discrimination between citizens of States). 14 210 CITIZENSHIP chapter th e Federal government. Their whole function was ' to bestow on Congress power to protect United States citizens from hostile legislation by the States. dpies o" n ' With this as the keynote we come to a considera- tion of the decisions above referred to. The States have been held to possess very large powers of legis- lation, subject only to the condition that they shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citi- zens of the United States or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The basic principle on which all these decisions rest is that prior to the amendments, the control of all these subjects resided in the States ; that the amend- ments do not justify establishing a Federal code of municipal law regulative of all private rights be- tween man and man in society, or make Congress take the place of State legislatures; that the legis- lation which Congress is authorized to enact is not general legislation upon the rights of citizens, but corrective legislation on the States, such legisla- tion as may be necessary to counteract State legis- lation prohibited by the amendments ; and that, sub- ject to this restriction, the power of the States to legislate on all these subjects is as unqualified as it was before the amendments. 5 B " The Fourteenth Amendment did not radically change the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other, and of both governments to the people. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State. Protection to life, liberty, and property rests primarily with the States, and the amendment furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon those fundamental rights which belong to citizenship, and which the State governments were created to secure. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from CITIZENSHIP 211 All the opinions rendered deal with this general idea, and we shall proceed to consider in detail the decisions under the following heads : 1. Of the Regulation of Ordinary Business Pursuits by the States. a. To establish slaughter-houses. 6 The opinion delivered in the Slaughter-House Cases is perhaps the most thorough and exhaustive discussion to he found of the reserved police powers of the State in the Union. Further citations from it are unnecessary in view of what has preceded. &. To control the regulation of laundries. 7 In the cases of Barbier v. Connolley and Soon Limitation 9 of police Hing v. Crowley, cited below, it was declared that er the XIV Amendment did not impair the police pow- laundries - ers of the States and that they might prohibit laun- dries within certain limits between certain hours; but, in the later case of YicJc Wo v. Hopkins, this police power was limited by the requirements that such laws, and indeed any laws regulating the con- duct of business, should not by their terms or in their administration discriminate between classes of peo- ple engaged in the business. Yick Wo was a China- the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States, are indeed protected by it; but those are privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the national govern- ment, and granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States." In re Kemmler, (1890) 136 U. S. 448; Maxwell v. Dow, (1900) 176 U. S. 593. See also U. S. v. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 554; Mobile, etc., R. Co. V. Tennessee, (1894) 153 U. S. 506; Giozza v. Tiernan, (1893) 148 U. S. 662. e Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall, (U. S.) 36. TBarbier v. Connolly, (1885) 113 U. S. 27; Soon Hing v. Crow- ley, (1885) 113 U. S. 703; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) 118 U. S. 356. 212 CITIZENSHIP Oapter man ^ g an Francisco, and an ordinance of the city, v ' either by its terms or in its administration, discrimi- nated against Chinese. That was held to deny to a class the equal protection of the law in violation of the amendment. c. Eegulation of liquor traffic. 8 The cases relating to the control of liquor traffic traffic 1 aor by the States are numerous. They are unanimous that the right to traffic in intoxicating drinks is not a privilege or immunity which the XIV Amendment forbids a State from abridging unless the law so operates as to amount to a deprivation of property without compensation or violates the provisions against interstate commerce. In the License Cases Mr. Justice Greer said: "Police power which is exclusively in the States is alone competent to the correction of these great evils," and in the case of Foster v. Kansas it was said that the constitutional power of the States to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors is no longer an open question. The States have the power to regulate and even to prohibit the sale of liquors ; but a num- ber of cases will be found, arising under the inter- s License Cases, (1847) 5 How. (U. S.) 504; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 133; Boston Beer Co. v. Massachu- setts, (1877) 97 U. S. 25, 33; Foster v. Kansas, (1884) 112 U. S. 205; Schmidt v. Cobb, (1886) 119 U. S. 286; Mugler V. Kansas, (1887) 123 U. S. 623; Bowman V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (1888) 125 U. S. 465; Kidd v. Pearson, (1888) 128 U. S. 1; Eilenbecker V. District Ct., (1890) 134 U. S. 31; Leisy v. Hardin, (1890) 135 U. S. 100; Lyng v. Michigan, (1890) 135 U. S. 161; Crowley v. hristensen, (1890) 137 U. S. 91; Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister, (1900) 179 U. S. 445; In re Rahrer, (1891) 140 U. S. 545; Giozza v. Tiernan, (1893) 148 U. S. 657; Gray v. Connecticut, (1895) 159 U. S. 74; Cronin v. Adams, (1904) 192 U. S. 108. CITIZENSHIP 213 state com- merce. state commerce law, which forbid the States from Chapter interfering with liquor passing through or brought ' into a State while it is in the condition of commer- cial transit. d. To inspect food supplies. 9 Inspection laws passed by the State to secure ? pure food for its citizens are valid, but inspection laws which go beyond this purpose and either dis- criminate between classes or interfere with inter- state commerce must yield to the supremacy of the Federal law. The decisions on this question are numerous, and each case which shall arise hereafter must depend upon the phraseology and effect of the law under consideration. e. Authority to guard against the introduction of infected cattle from other States. 1 This has been sustained in a number of cases, as cattle- has also a law which imposes damages upon owners for damage done by cattle or other stock in the highways. /. To prohibit business on Sunday. 2 The right of the State to prohibit business on Sunday has been upheld on the same ground of police powers. g. For the same reason, to require licenses from venders. 3 Powell v. Pennsylvania, (1888) 127 U. S. 678; Minnesota v. Barber, (1890) 136 U. S. 318; Brimmer v. Rebman, (1891) 138 U. S. 78. iKimmish v. Ball, (1889) 129 U. S. 222; Jones v. Brim, (1897) 165 U. S. 180; Rasmussen v. Idaho, (1901) 181 U. S. 198; Morris v. Hitchcock, (1904) 194 U. S. 384; Reid v. Colorado, (1902) 187 U. S. 137. zHennington v. Georgia, (1896) 163 U. S. 299; Petit v. Minne- sota, (1900) 177 U. S. 164. sfirennan v. Titusville, (1894) 153 U. S. 289; Gundling v. 214 CITIZENSHIP Chapter h f The right to regulate the flow of oil wells ! and the like. 4 i. Also the right to forbid the unlawful com- bination of citizens to injure others in their repu- tation, trade, or business, or combinations known as trusts deemed destructive of competition. 5 k. To prescribe regulations concerning many other things. 6 2. The Right to Regulate Woman's Rights. practice of One of the first claims decided was that of a suffrage. woman, in Bradwell v. State. 1 She sought to compel the State of Illinois to admit her to the practice of law, but the court promptly held that while she was a citizen it was within the power of the State to de- Chicago, (1900) 177 U. S. 183; Emert V. Missouri, (1895) 156 U. S. 296; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, (1901) 180 U. S. 452. * Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min., etc., Co., (1894) 152 U. S. 160; Holden v. Hardy, (1898) 169 U. S. 366; Backus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., (1898) 169 U. S. 557; Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, (1900) 177 U. S. 190; St. Louis Consol. Coal Co. v. Illinois, (1902) 185 U. S. 203; Atkin v. Kansas, (1903) 191 U. S. 207. 5Aikens v. Wisconsin, (1904) 195 U. S. 194; Smiley V. Kansas, (1905) 196 U. S. 447. Markets: Natal v. Louisiana, (1891) 139 U. S. 621. Dairies: Petit v. Minnesota, (1900)- 177 U. S. 164. Railroads in streets: Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, (1877) 96 U. S. 521; New York v. Squire, (1892) 145 U. S. 175. Grade crossings: New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol, (1894) 151 U. S. 556. Fishing: Lawton v. Steele, (1894) 152 U. S. 133. Inspecting mines: Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min., etc., Co., (1894) 152 U. S. 160. Restraining contracts: Allgeyer V. Louisiana, (1897) 165 U. S. 579. Marriage: Andrews v. Andrews, (1903) 188 U. S. 14. Various objects: Wilson v. Eureka City, (1899) 173 U. S. 33; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (1899) 173 U. S. 684. 7 Bradwell v. State, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 130. CITIZENSHIP 215 tennine whether she should be entitled to practice. Chapter In the case of Miner v. Happersett 7 * in the same V ' volume, a woman claimed the right of suffrage, but the courts held that the right of suffrage was under the control of the State. 3. The Right to Regulate the Practice of Profes- sions. 8 Laws requiring professional men to submit to Exami- nation, examination to procure licenses have been held not Jjj"* to invade any rights granted to them by the Consti- taxation - tution; but in one case the conviction of a lawyer refusing to pay a tax was held to be illegal and was set aside, and he was discharged on habeas corpus, because the tax demanded violated the contract clause of the Constitution by the manner of its imposition. 4. Of Suffrage. 9 In the first case which arose under the XIV dsfoL- Amendment involving the right of suffrage, the Su- vSe* at rived from 7* Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162. sBradwell v. State, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 130; Dent v. West Virginia, (1889) 129 U. S. 114; Royall v. Virginia, (1886) 116 U. S. 572; Gray v. Connecticut, (1895) 159 U. S. 74; Reetz V. Michigan, (1903) 188 U. S. 505. "The power of the State to provide for the general welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as, in its judgment, will secure or tend to secure them against the conse- quences of ignorance and incapacity as well as of deception and fraud. ... If they are appropriate to the calling or profession, and attainable by reasonable study or application, no objection to their validity can be raised because of their stringency or diffi- culty. It is only when they have no relation to such calling or profession, or are unattainable by such reasonable study and appli- cation, that they can operate to deprive one of his right to pursue u lawful vocation." Dent V. West Virginia, (1889) 129 U. S. 122. Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162; U. S. v. 216 CITIZENSHIP Chapter preme Court was very positive in its statement that v> the right of suffrage was derived exclusively from the States ; that it was not an incidental privilege or immunity of Federal citizenship before the adoption of the XIV Amendment; that the XIV Amend- ment did not add to the privileges or immunities which it undertook to protect; that suffrage was not even coextensive with State citizenship ; that neither the Constitution of the United States nor the XIV Amendment; made all citizens voters ; and that a pro- vision in the State constitution limiting suffrage to male citizens did not violate the Federal Constitu- tion. In the next case in which suffrage was con- sidered it was declared that the XV Amendment conferred no right to vote, and that it merely in- vested citizens of the United States with the right Reese, (1875) 92 U. S. 214-217; U. S. V. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 542-554; Ex p. Yarbrough, (1884) 110 U. S. 651; Neal v. Delaware, (1880) 103 U. S. 370; U. S. v. Waddell, (1884) 112 U. S. 76; McPhersori v. Blacker, (1892) 146 U. S. 1; Taylor v. Beckham, (1900) 178 U. S. 548; Mason v. Missouri, (1900) 179 U. S. 328; Wiley v. Sinkler, (1900) 179 U. S. 58; Swafford v. Templeton, (1902) 185 U. S. 487; Gibson v. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U. S. 565; Williams V. Mississippi, (1898) 170 U. S. 213; Giles v. Harris, (1903) 189 U. S. 486; Green v. Mills, (1895) 69 Fed. Rep. 852, 159 U. S. 651; James v. Bowman, (1903) 190 U. S. 127; Pope v. Williams, (1904) 193 U. S. 621; Report of Commit- tee on Elections, 58th Congress, Cong. Record, March 18, 1904, pp. 35, 92, 93. "The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were neces- sarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen." Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 171. CITIZENSHIP 217 of exemption from discrimination against them (in Chapter the exercise of suffrage) by reason of race, color, ' or previous condition; but that the power of Con- gress to legislate at all concerning voting at State elections rests on the XV Amendment, and can be exercised only by providing punishment when the wrongful refusal is because of the race or color of the voter. In the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank 1 it was said, referring to the two cases above: "The Consti- tution of the United States has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and the United States have no voters of their own creation in the States." In the later case of Ex p. Yarbrough, it was said that there were cases in which the XV Amendment substantially conferred the right to vote on the negro, as where it was held, in the case of Neal v. Delaware? to annul the word "white" in the State constitution. In the case of Ex p. Yarbrough 3 it was con- tended that "the right to vote for a member of Con- me n n gress " gress is not dependent upon the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is governed by the laws of each State respectively." The Supreme Court denied that, and answered it as follows: "It is not correct to say that the right to vote for a member of Congress does not depend on the Con- stitution of the United States. The office, if it be properly called an office, is created by that Constitu- tion and by that alone. It also declares how it 1 (1875) 92 U. S. 542. 2 (1880) 103 U. S. 370. 8 (1884) 110 U. S. 651. 218 CITIZENSHIP Chapter shall be filled, namely, by election. Its language is : I: 'The House of Eepresentatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.' (Art I, Sec. 2.) The States, in prescribing the qualifications of voters for the most numerous branch of their own legislatures, do not do this with reference to the election for members of Congress, nor can they prescribe the qualification for voters for those eo nomine." jTresidfntiai In the case of McPherson v. Blacker?* it was said that the right of a citizen of the United States, from the time of his majority, to vote for presi- dential electors, is a right secured to him by Article II of the Constitution and is unaffected by the XIV and XV Amendments. So that, whatever may be said concerning the sources from which the right of suffrage is derived, it is certain that the right to vote for members of the House of Eepre- sentatives and for presidential electors is derived from the Constitution of the United States itself and not from the States. The framers of the Constitution saw fit to ascer- tain the Federal electorate by reference to a State rule of selection, but that does not make the right originate with the State any more than the measur- ing of cloth with a yardstick makes the cloth the product of a machine shop instead of a woolen factory. a* (1892) 146 U. S. 1. CITIZENSHIP 219 In two recent cases (Wiley v. Sinkler 4 and Swaf- chapter ford v. Templeton 5 ), instituted in federal courts ! for alleged interference with the rights of the plain- tiffs to vote at an election for members of the House courts. 1 of Representatives, the jurisdiction of the federal courts has been sustained, and the right of the citi- zens to vote for a member of the House of Repre- sentatives has been declared to have its origin in federal law ; but the Supreme Court has steadily re- fused to entertain jurisdiction of questions of suf- frage relating to State elections, where it was not pointed out that the law discriminated against a citizen on account of his race, color, or previous condition. In the case of Gibson v. Mississippi,* it was de- clared that States are empowered to qualify the right of suffrage by conditions confining it to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to those having educational qualifications; the only limitation upon the power of the States being that the laws shall not in form or in adminis- tration discriminate between voters on account of race, color, or condition. In Williams v. Mississippi 7 the court declared ^ os wr b on g y that provisions of a State constitution prescribing Power of to suffrage which were in themselves unobjectionable, and concerning the administration of which no spe- cific wrong was alleged, would not be declared null merely because there was a possibility that in their < (1900) 179 U. S. 58. B (1902) 185 U. S. 487. (1896) 162 U. S. 565. 7 (1898) 170 U. S. 213. 220 CITIZENSHIP chapter administration wrong might be committed under v ' them. i n the case of Pope v. Williams, 8 very recently decided, a State law requiring voters to give twelve months' notice of an intention to claim citizenship was held not to be violative of the amendment ; and even in the case of Wiley v. Sirikler, where the right asserted was held to be a Federal right, the court decided that in order to make a case of prima facie invasion of his right, the plaintiff must show not only that he was entitled to vote, but that he had complied with the State registration laws which prescribe the conditions precedent to the exercise of that right. ^ n sun dry other cases recently decided, the effort has been made to induce the Supreme Court to consider the claims and to redress the wrongs of persons who alleged that they had been unlawfully deprived of suffrage; but the court has refused to entertain jurisdiction, declaring that the questions raised are political and call for redress which can be given only by the legislative and executive depart- ments of the government. lack I n the recent case of Giles v. Harris? it was said : <> ?3ieve. ' ' The traditional limits of proceedings in equity have not embraced a remedy for political wrongs." And again: "In determining whether a court of equity can take jurisdiction, one of the first questions is what it can do to enforce any order that it may make. This is alleged to be the conspiracy .of a State, although the State is not and could not be 8 (1904) 193 U. S. 621. (1903) 189 U. S. 486. CITIZENSHIP 221 made a party to the bill. The Circuit Court has no Chapter constitutional power to control its action by any di- - rect means ; and if we leave the State out of consider- ation, the court has as little practical power to deal with the people of the State in a body. The bill im- ports that the great mass of the white population intends to keep the blacks from voting. To meet such an intent something more than ordering the plaintiff's name to be inscribed upon the lists of 1902 will be needed. . . . Unless we are prepared to supervise the voting in that State by officers of the court, it seems to us that all that the plaintiff could get from equity would be an empty form. Apart from damages to the individual, relief from a great political wrong, if done, as alleged, ~by the people of a State and the State itself, must be given ~by them or Toy the legislative and political department of the government of the United States/' While this has been the attitude of the Supreme Attitude of the Court upon suffrage questions, sundry States have g e p u r s e e of been legislating upon the subject in such a way, that, on one pretext or another, large bodies of citi- zens who had exercised the right of suffrage unin- terruptedly for many years under pledges given to Congress by the States, when they were restored to their relations in the Union, that their suffrage never would be curtailed, have been deprived of their right to vote. Despairing of obtaining any re- lief from the Federal judiciary, the attempt has been made to transfer the controversy to the House of Eepresentatives. In the 58th Congress (1903-1905) contests were made up from the State of South Carolina in the House of Eepresentatives, which, by 222 CITIZENSHIP chapter the terms of the Constitution, is made the sole judge 1 of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members. (Article I, Section 5, Clause 1.) The issue thus presented challenged the right of any of the sitting representatives of South Carolina to hold their seats because of alleged violations of the Con- stitution of the United States in the State consti- tution and the laws regulating suffrage under which they were elected. The issues were squarely pre- sented and called for a decision by the House; but the committee on elections made a report in which it stated that the cases involved grave constitutional questions, which, if decided in favor of the claim- ants, would go to the very foundation of the State government of South Carolina and would perhaps affect not only her representation, but that of the other States ; that the House should hesitate about taking a step which might be so far-reaching in its consequences, until the legal questions involved were decided by the courts intrusted with the duty of con- stitutional interpretation, and that the courts might more safely be relied upon for correct decision than a transitory and ever-changing unprofessional body like the House of Eepresentatives. And so the mat- ter of suffrage rests; the courts declining to pass upon it as a political question, and Congress insist- ing that it is a judicial question. Meanwhile a great body of citizens whose very political being depends upon a decision are left without any tribunal to decide their rights. ?o e r as ?ndif- The historian of our times may be at a loss to fo re negro as understand how a nation so powerful for self-preser- vation, and so insistent upon the establishment of CITIZENSHIP 223 negro suffrage, afterwards became so weak and in- different to providing means for its enforcement. It will be plain to him, if he recalls the facts that the bestowal of suffrage upon a great mass of igno- rant people was, when it was done, the product of war passions rather than of reason, and that after- wards those war passions which gave rise to it sub- sided, but race prejudices survived and have brought the whites in the lately antagonistic sections of our country together against an alien race. Under the influence of those racial affinities, the whites of the triumphant section have resolved not to oppose their former antagonists, but brethren in race, in the ef- fort to preserve white supremacy in all parts of the Union ; and have even come to look upon the bestowal of suffrage upon the negro as a great mistake. Negro suffrage has been pronounced a failure JJSSge by men high in the trust and confidence of the politi- i cal party which bestowed it; so pronounced, be- cause it is evident to any student of our conditions that the negro is incapable of maintaining his right and has no considerable body of disinterested white friends to champion his cause. This brings us, as related to the question of suffrage, to consideration of the second section of the XIV Amendment, which deals with the reduction of representation of the States in Congress, under certain circumstances. Reduction of the Representation of the States in Congress. Under the Constitution of the United States, as it was adopted and remained in force for seventy- 224 CITIZENSHIP Chapter n j ne years (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), repre- ' sentation in Congress was apportioned among the several States according to their numbers, deter- i er of A t r he mined by adding to the whole number of free per- tiollf ' sons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The words "all other per- sons" meant slaves. The framers of the Constitu- tion had an aversion to using the term slave or slavery in the instrument. The representation which the States should have, respectively, in Con- gress, led to long and trying discussions in the con- vention which framed the Constitution. The basis finally adopted was a compromise which gave the slave States representation for three-fifths of their slave population. But the people of the free States never acquiesced in the justice of this basis, and it was a constant source of jealousy and friction be- tween the sections. Sted by While the XIII Amendment abolished slavery, it conferred no citizenship on anybody and effected no change in the basis of representation. The XIV Amendment was the work of the triumphant free States and was arranged to suit themselves. The slave States were virtually excluded from any voice in the discussion of the new basis of representation. Many ideas were advanced for the new basis. One proposition was to determine representation by the number of votes actually cast at general elections; another, that representation should be based on the number of males of voting age in each State. Fi- nally the new basis adopted the words of the old Con- stitution, omitting all references to taxes, or persons CITIZENSHIP 225 bound in service, and excluding from the computa- tion of numbers only Indians not taxed. This was followed by a proviso authorizing Congress to re- duce the representation from any State if it should deny to any of its male inhabitants, twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States, the right to vote at certain elections, or in any way abridge the same, except for participation in rebel- lion or other crime. The elections referred to were (1) elections of electors of President and Vice- President of the United States or representatives in Congress; (2) elections of the executive and judi- cial officers of a State or members of the legislature. The reduction was to be effected by ascertaining the number of such male citizens so deprived or abridged of suffrage in the elections named, and re- ducing the congressional representation of the State in the proportion which the number of males de- prived of suffrage might bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The fifth section of the amendment empow- ered Congress to enforce these provisions by appro- priate legislation. Let us examine critically the circumstances under which this power to reduce the representation of a State arises. First, What denial or abridgment of suffrage by the State calls the power into play? Second, Whether the denial or abridgment of the suffrage of a class must be for any particular cause. Concerning the first : The denial or abridgment which justifies congressional action is not confined Son r of uc " to Federal elections. Congress may act for the de- [f p n. esenta * 15 226 CITIZENSHIP Chapter V. Right to abridge suffrage restricted Amend- ment. nial or abridgment of the right of a citizen to vote in a State election for the executive and judicial officers of the State or for members of the legisla- ture. But its power arises only when the right of suffrage of a male citizen is denied or abridged. The power of a State to deny suffrage to the female sex is untouched by the Constitution of the United States. So also is the power of the State to pre- scribe the electorate in all State elections except for the executive or judicial officers of a State or mem- bers of the legislature. Concerning the second inquiry, it will be ob- served that whereas representation of the States is primarily determined by the whole number of per- sons in each State, the reduction of the representa- tion of the State can only be made for her denial or abridgment of the right of suffrage to male citizens of the United States twenty-one years of age, and then in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. It will also be observed that the XIV Amendment left the States at liberty to deny or abridge this right for any cause. That right to deny or abridge the right of suffrage is still unrestrained except by the XV Amendment. It forbids the United States or any State to deny or abridge it on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not go further. 1 i " A few years' experience satisfied the thoughtful men who had been the authors of the other two amendments that, notwithstanding the restraints of those articles on the States, and the laws passed under the additional powers granted to Congress, these were inade- quate for the protection of life, liberty, and property, without which CITIZENSHIP 227 It is therefore manifest that but for the XV Amendment, the States would have the absolute power to fix the qualifications of voters and to limit and restrict the right to vote, as their several interests might seem to demand, and that the States still have that power except that they cannot deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote, on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Neither the XIV Amendment nor the XV Amend- ment forbids reasonable educational and property J, ction or other restrictions upon suffrage. 2 If a State con- stitution should provide that no one in the State shall enjoy the privilege of the ballot unless he is able to read and translate Hebrew and Sanskrit or to calculate eclipses of the heavenly bodies, what is there in the Federal Constitution or amend- ments to declare such legislation invalid? It was with the full knowledge of these facts that Congress freedom to the slave was no boon. They were in all those States denied the right of suffrage. The laws were administered by the white man alone. It was urged that a race of men distinctively marked as was the negro, living in the midst of another and dominant race, could never be fully secured in their person and their property without the right of suffrage. Hence the Fifteenth Amendment." Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U.S.) 71. 2 " The privilege to vote in any State is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. It may not be refused on account of race, color or previous condition of servi- tude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in violation of the Federal Constitution." Pope v. Williams, (1904) 193 U. & 632. 228 CITIZENSHIP Chapter demanded of the States then lately in rebellion that ! before resuming their relations to the Union they should adopt constitutions with clauses in them pro- viding for universal manhood suffrage, and should agree that these features be irrepealable. The States did accept such constitutions and did give such pledges. It remains to be tested how far they were obligatory upon them. Many wise and learned lawyers are of opinion that those acts of Congress and the acceptances of the States based upon them were unconstitutional because, under our federal plan of government, it is contemplated that the States shall be equal in authority and sovereignty. 3 Arguments. j t - g argued that there can be and g^o^ be nO distinction between the States in their power to regu- late their own affairs ; that no State can voluntarily surrender any portion of the power reserved to it by the Constitution; and that Congress in demand- ing from the States these "fundamental conditions" of reconstruction, as they were called, created an unconstitutional discrimination in favor of the do- mestic sovereignty of the States which gave the pledge, making it different from that of the States 3 In answer to an objection that the Georgia constitution "was adopted under the dictation and coercion of Congress, and is the act of Congress rather than of the State," the Supreme Court has said : " The result was submitted to Congress as a voluntary and valid offering, and was so received and so recognized in the sub- sequent action of that body. The State is estopped to assail it upon such an assumption. Upon the same grounds she might deny the validity of her ratification of the constitutional amendments. The action of Congress upon the subject cannot be inquired into. The case is clearly one in which the judicial is bound to follow the action of the political department of the government, and is con- cluded by it." White v. Hart, (1871) 13 Wall. (U. S.) 649. CITIZENSHIP 229 which gave no such pledge, thus tending to destroy Chapter that equilibrium of State sovereignty and independ- ' ence which is demanded by considerations affecting the common welfare and is necessary to the per- manency of the Union as well as to the integrity of the States composing it.. It is contended also that the right to vote is neither a natural right, nor one secured by the Fed- eral Constitution except as provided in the XV Amendment; that it is purely a political privilege conferred upon certain members of the body politic for the benefit and welfare of all. That is true. But the entire frame of this government is predi- cated upon the idea that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people ; and that the people have a right to choose their own repre- sentatives and to make and administer the laws. By the word " people" is always meant the intelligent mass of the community. The theory of those who framed and induced the 2J~ e ai f adoption of the XIV and XV Amendments was that suffrage * it behooved the Federal government, not arbi- trarily to establish, but to encourage, universal man- hood suffrage; that it is its duty to prevent the denial of suffrage on account of the race, color, or previous condition of the citizen, but that beyond this it could not control State action on the subject ; that it is the unmistakably correct policy of repub- lican institutions to confer the ballot, as far as it may be safely done, upon all who are relied upon to bear the burdens and fight the battles of the government. Civil and political privileges are practically one. The rights of citizenship and of property are of 230 CITIZENSHIP chapter little value and of small consequence in the absence ' of the right of the ballot to shield and protect them. No people or race of people can be said in any proper sense to enjoy the boon of freedom, if they are denied the power of participating in the making and administering of the laws. The right of suf- frage under proper conditions is a stimulus to patri- otism, an encouragement to civic pride, and an in- spiration to improvement, and makes the citizen a better citizen by the sense of being part of his gov- ernment and by imposing on him responsibility for the wisdom of that government and the success of its administration. 4 Congress doubtless reserved to itself the power to e reduc e e r to reduce representation under the conviction that tion r . ese ' while it might not have power to prevent States from denying or abridging suffrage in all respects, it should have power to reduce their representation in Congress if for any cause States should abridge their own electorates so as to make the voting class cease to be representative of popular sover- eignty. It has been said that this is the only agency at the command of Congress by which to make good to the States the constitutional guaranty of repub- lican government in spirit as well as in form. If for instance, the millionaires of a State should suc- ceed in confining suffrage to a few very wealthy men, it would be, in effect, the substitution of a * For the above order of presentation and much of the language, the author is indebted to the Hon. Edgar D. Cruinpacker, of In- diana, having found them in a remarkably able speech on representa- tion and suffrage made by him in the House of Representatives. Feb. 24, 1905. CITIZENSHIP 231 moneyed aristocracy for free democracy in that chapter State. Under the XIV Amendment Congress would v ' have power in such case to reduce the representation of that State in proportion to the disfranchisement. The denial or abridgment in that instance would have nothing to do with race, color, or previous con- dition, yet the power to deal with it, conferred by the XIV Amendment, is apparent, and may become of vital importance as the only available way of practically enforcing the Federal guarantee of a re- publican form of government for the States. The argument has been made that the power granted to Congress by the XIV Amendment to re- duce representation for disfranchisement was re- pealed by the adoption of the XV Amendment. The fallacy of this contention is apparent at a glance. The XV Amendment prohibits the States from denying or abridging the right of suffrage for a single cause, viz., race, color, or previous condition. The XIV Amendment authorizes the reduction of representation if the right of suffrage is denied or abridged for any cause. If a State should abridge the right to an arbitrary or unreason- able extent, by imposing educational, or property, or so-called "intelligence" qualifications, or by any more unreasonable methods, Congress would have the power to examine into its action and to judge whether such practical denial or abridgment of suffrage subjected that State to liability to have its representation reduced. The denial or abridg- ment on account of race, color, or previous condi- tion would be a nullity because it is made uncon- stitutional by the XV Amendment. That would 232 CITIZENSHIP chapter perhaps prevent Congress from reducing represen- ! tation by reason of such a law, because, being in- operative, it could neither deny nor abridge the right of any class. Doubtless it was a solicitude for the protection of the colored citizen that inspired the XIV Amendment, but it is written in general terms and applies to all classes of people, and notwith- standing the XV Amendment it stands unrepealed. Minnesota can no more disfranchise a considerable portion of her white citizens without reference to race or color, and escape the risk of having her representation reduced therefor, than can Missis- sippi disfranchise her black citizens. The XIV Amendment is as operative to-day as it was the day of its enactment. An educational or a property qualification imposed by any State of this Union to the extent of reducing popular representation, and to the destruction of real popular representative gov- ernment, is as plain an abridgment of the right of suffrage, contrary to the spirit of the XIV Amend- ment, as an abridgment on account of race, color, or condition. One of these restrictions is as capable of abuse with sinister motives as the other, and it is within the plain power of Congress to consider and deal with both. So much for the letter and the spirit of the law of federal representation in Congress. As a practical question it is not probable that Congress will ever enact a law to enforce the provisions of the second section of the XIV Amendment by "appropriate legislation," or that it will ever attempt to reduce the representation of any State because it has de- nied or abridged the right of citizens of the United CITIZENSHIP 233 States to vote at any of the elections named in the chapter amendment. The reasons for this opinion are brief. ' In the first place, the overwhelming majority of rep- resentatives in Congress are white men. The racial sympathy existing between white representatives of States where the blacks are few, and the white repre- sentatives of the States which disfranchise them, is stronger than any political theories. The statutes of the States where the blacks are disfranchised do not openly aver the real purposes of the acts. They are ostensibly based upon sundry other disquali- fications, educational, ownership of property, regis- tration, residence, etc. If the legislation is as- sailed, those who frame it admit its real purpose, in private, and justify it by specious appeals to racial sympathies and exaggerated pictures of the dan- gers to white supremacy in their section unless the course adopted be followed. So industriously is this system of persuasion and appeal to racial sym- pathy pursued, that even political antagonists are soon converted to this idea of ' ' doing evil that good may come of it," and join in the effort to demon- strate that the discriminations are not racial. Once off that dangerous ground, new elements of sym- pathy are enlisted, for, throughout the North and West, educational and property qualifications are deemed justifiable limitations upon suffrage, and it would be impossible to secure, by the votes of repre- sentatives from those sections, any Act of Congress reducing the representation of any State for other than race discrimination. Congress is a changing body, and while its mem- J r gj n s f bers from some sections, as a rule, remain but a short 234 CITIZENSHIP time, a representative from the South, under the system prevailing, once elected is apt to stay for a long time; and as he becomes familiar with con- gressional methods he becomes more and more mas- ter of the Machiavelian logic of his peculiar school, and past master of the trading politics which have always characterized the dealings with each other of representatives from the different sections in Congress. He knows that he will be called upon to make many concessions to the representatives of other sections upon commercial legislation, and on questions affecting their local interests. In return he has, as a rule, but one concession to demand from them, and that is both in accord with their own prej- udices and in the line of interests against congres- sional interference with their own States. It is the privilege of being left alone in the management of his State affairs. The power granted by the amendment against k n o d nacti?n. the States is too broad to be comfortable to those called on to enforce it. It can never be exercised save by the vote of a majority of representatives from the States to be affected. It is not likely that any party will ever possess a majority sufficient to enforce these provisions against any State, for there will ever be a margin of timid representatives who will fear the effect on their own fortunes at home if they should recognize a principle which may be dangerously turned against their own constituents. The bargain is easy; the result, nonaction by Con- gress. And so far as any practical results are to be expected from the exercise of this power of Con- gress to reduce representation, it is as unlikely that CITIZENSHIP 235 Congress will act as that it will some day declare Chapter this government to be an absolute monarchy. ' 5. The Right of States to Regulate State Procedure, Especially Concerning the Summoning and Con- stitution of Juries. 6 Many cases have arisen in which the trial of citizens by the State according to State procedure cedu e re p ^n general. has been questioned as an infringement of a right secured by the XIV Amendment. The only cases in which these claims have been sustained are those in which there was a discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition. The right of a citizen of the United States to &* trial by jury in a federal court is absolute in all courts! trials for crimes except in cases of impeachment (Constitution, Article III, Section 1, Clause 3, and Amendment VII), and in suits at common law where the value in controversy does not exceed twenty dol- lars (Amendment VII). But even concerning this right it has been held that in contempt proceedings the party in contempt is not entitled to a trial by jury within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution. 6 While, as a rule, the several States guarantee to ?jg^ g State 8 " The limit of the full control which the State has in the pro- courts. ceedings of its courts, both in civil and criminal cases, is subject only to the qualification that such procedure must not work a denial of fundamental rights or conflict with specific and applicable provi- sions of the Federal Constitution." West v. Louisiana, (1904) 194 U. S. 263. The decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the righta of the State to regulate procedure are listed at the close of this volume in Appendix B. Eilenbecker v. District Ct., (1890) 134 U. S. 31. 236 CITIZENSHIP their citizens trials by jury, it has been held that trial by jury in the State courts for offenses against the State is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship which the XIV Amendment forbids the States to abridge. 7 I n *^ e case ^ Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Ken- proced S u?e e tucky* the Supreme Court said: "For the Federal courts to interfere with the legislative department of the State government, when acting within the scope of its admitted powers, is always the exercise of a delicate power, one that should not be resorted to unless the reason for doing so is clear and unmis- takable." The same language is equally applicable to an interference with the judiciary department of a State government. In the case of McPherson v. Blacker? the Su- preme Court again said that the XIV Amendment did not "radically change the whole theory of the re- lations of the State and Federal governments to each other, and of both governments to the people. ' ' 7 Edwards v. Elliott, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, (1875) 92 U. S. 90; Pearson v. Yewdall, (1877) 95 U. S. 294. "The States, so far as this amendment is concerned, are left to regulate trials in their own courts in their own way. A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in the State courts is not, therefore, a privilege or immunity of national citizenship, which the States are forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to abridge. A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings." Walker v. Sauvinet, (1875) 92 U. S. 92. 8 (1902) 183 U. S. 511. (1892) 146 U. S. 39. CITIZENSHIP 237 In the case of Williams v. Mississippi, 1 the Su- Chapter preme Court said: "The conduct of a criminal trial in a State court cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States, unless the trial is had trials ' under some statute repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, or was so conducted as to de- prive the accused of some right or immunity secured to him by that instrument. ' ' In the case of In re Converse, 2 it is said: "The XIV Amendment . . . was not designed to in- testates. terfere with the power of the State to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nor with the exercise of that power in the adjudications of the courts of a State in administering the process pro- vided by the law of the State." And while the court has repeatedly declared that Si to represen- in determining the qualifications of State jurors the tation on States must take care that no discrimination in re- spect to such service be made against any class of citizens solely because of their race, it also held in the case of In re Shibuya Jugiro 3 that no person charged with a crime involving life and liberty is entitled, by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, to have his race represented upon the grand jury that may indict him, or upon the petit jury that may try him, and that it rests with each Slate to prescribe such qualifications as it deems proper for jurymen, subject only to the limitation against race discrimination above referred to. 1 (1898) 170 U. S. 213. 2 (1891) 137 U. S. 631. 3 (1891) 140 U. S. 297. 238 CITIZENSHIP Chapter i n the case of Ex p. Reg gel 4 it was declared that ' the State may regulate State procedure. case ^ Gibson v. Mississippi 5 it was de- cided that the States may impose for jury service conditions confining jurors to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to per- sons having educational qualifications, and that the claim to a mixed jury is not a matter of right ; that it is a denial, because of color, of rights accorded to whites, that constitutes the forbidden discrimina- tion. ?f u ?urors. In the case of Maxwell v. Dow, Q the complainant averred that he was deprived of his privileges and immunities by a trial in the State court by a jury of eight persons. The decision was adverse to his claim on the ground that the right of trial by a jury of twelve was a guarantee of the Federal Constitu- tion concerning federal trials, and the State had a right to prescribe a trial by eight jurors if that was the ordinary course of legal procedure. ment sh of Some amusing claims have been made under the SrimhiSs supposed protection of this guarantee, as for exam- catrfST pie, in the case of McDonald v. Massachusetts, 7 where the power of the State to impose additional punishment upon habitual criminals was questioned ; but the contention was rejected and the States were * A State " has the right to establish the forms of pleadings and process to be observed in her own courts, in both civil and criminal cases, subject only to those provisions of the Constitution of the United States, involving the protection of life, liberty, and property in all the States of the Union." Ex p. Reggel, (1885) 114 U. S. 651. 5 (1896) 162 U. S. 565. e (1900) 176 U. S. 581. 7 (1901) 180 U. S. 311. CITIZENSHIP 239 held to have the power to impose such additional punishment. In the case of In re Kemmler, 8 one who had been condemned to death in a State pro- ceeding in New York, and sentenced to electrocution, questioned the power of the State to impose such a sentence. The privilege which he appears to have asserted was the privilege of being hanged instead of being electrocuted ; but the decision was adverse, for the State was declared to possess complete con- trol of the subject, and his right, if such a fanciful claim may be so called, was held not to be within Federal protection. It has been repeatedly held that where the pro- ceedings in a State court are according to the courts. 1 regular forms of State procedure and not based on laws which create the forbidden discrimination, the federal court has no jurisdiction to inquire or de- cide whether erroneous rulings were made in the trial or to review the trial as upon an appeal on the merits, and that the function of the federal tribunal is confined to the inquiry whether the law involved, in terms, or in its administration, makes a discrim- ination against the accused on account of race, color, or condition. As was said in the case of Kennard v. Louis- iana, 9 the real inquiry concerning the legality of the procedure in a State court is whether the trial was pro had in the State court "in due course of legal pro- ceedings, according to those rules and forms which have been established for the protection of private rights " and it was added, "irregularities and mere 8 (1890) 136 U. S. 436. 9 (1875) 92 U. S. 480. 240 CITIZENSHIP Power of State to deal with crime. Right to particular form of action. Marriage and di- Excluding negroes from juries proof. errors in the proceedings can only be corrected in the State courts.'' And in the later case of Presser v. Illinois * it was said that the State may pass any laws in regulating the privileges and im- munities of its citizens if they do not abridge their privileges and immunities as citizens of the [United States. Varying the number of challenges of veniremen in proceedings in the State court in dif- ferent parts of a State is not a denial of the equal protection of the law. 2 The power of the State to deal with crime within its borders is not limited by the XIV Amendment save that no State can deprive parts or classes of its people of equal and impartial justice. 3 In the case of Iowa Cent. R. Co. v. Iowa 4 it is said that it is not "a right, privilege, or immunity of a citizen of the United States to have a contro- versy in the State court prosecuted or determined by one form of action instead of by another. ' ' The case of Andrews v. Andrews 5 contains an important and instructive discussion of the power of the States to prescribe and control State procedure on questions of marriage and divorce. Actual discriminations by officers charged with the administration of State statutes unobjectionable in themselves, against the rights of a negro on trial, by purposely excluding negroes from the jury will not be presumed but must be proved, and in order 1 (1886) 116 U. S. 252. 2 Hayes v. Missouri, (1887) 120 U. S. 68. sLeeper v. Texas, (1891) 139 U. S. 462. * (1896) 160 U. S. 393. 5 (1903) 188 U. S. 14. CITIZENSHIP 241 to sustain a motion to quash an indictment because chapter negroes were excluded from the grand jury a de- f endant must prove the fact or offer to prove it. 6 Supplementing the above outlines of the deci- sions upon the question what State procedure is within the power of the States to regulate, the reader will find a full collection of the authorities in Ap- pendix B at the end of this book. An interesting discussion of the reserved powers of the States will be found in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White, in the famous "merger de- cision. ' ' 7 6. Of tine Power of the State to Control and Regu^ late the Business of Corporations in the State. 8 Numerous decisions are to the effect that cor- porations are within the meaning of the XIV ?o n the us Amendment. 9 But the fact that they are within the 6Brownfield v. South Carolina, (1903) 189 U. S. 426; Smith V. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U. S. 592. i Northern Securities Co. v. Minnesota, 194 U. S. 48. s The decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the power of the States to regulate and control the business of corpora- tions are listed in the order of their rendition at the close of this volume. See Appendix C. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., (1886) 118 U. S. 394; Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1888) 125 U. S. 189; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mackey, (1888) 127 U. S. 209; Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Beckwith, (1889) 129 U. S. 28; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, (1890) 134 U. S. 606; Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. Gibbes, (1892) 142 U. S. 391; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, (1897) 165 U. S. 154; Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sand- ford, (1896) 164 U. S. 592; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (1899) 173 U. S. 690; Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sand- ford, (1896) 164 U. S. 578; Smyth v. Ames, (1898) 169 U. S. 466. " It is now settled that corporations are persons within the meaning of the constitutional Drovisions forbidding the deprivation 16 242 CITIZENSHIP chapter meaning of the amendment does not give foreign V ' insurance companies any more rights as against the State than they had before its enactment. The State may still regulate the terms upon which they may be admitted to do business in the State. 1 It may enact penalties for their negligence. 2 The State may regulate grade crossings of railroads. 3 It may also pass laws establishing a rule of damages in the case of injuries to employes under what is known as the "fellow-servant law." 4 It has also been held that the States may classify the subjects of property without due process of law, as well as a denial of the equal protection of the laws." Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. V. Sandford, (1896) 164 U. S. 592. " The rights and securities guaranteed to persons by that instru- ment [the Constitution] cannot be disregarded in respect to these artificial entities called corporations any more than they can be in respect to the individuals who are the equitable owners of the prop- erty belonging to such corporations. A State has no more power to deny to corporations the equal protection of the law than it has to individual citizens." Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, (1897) 165 U. S. 154. 1 Philadelphia F. Assoc. v. New York, (1886) 119 U. S. 110; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 28; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, (1899) 172 U. S. 557. 2 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, (1885) 115 U. S. 513. " The inhibition of the amendment that no State shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws was designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hos- tile legislation. Under the designation of person there is no doubt that a private corporation is included; . . . [but] the State is not prohibited from discriminating in the privileges it may grant to foreign corporations as a condition of their doing business or hiring offices within its limits, provided always such discrimination does not interfere with any transaction by such corporations of interstate or foreign commerce." Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1888) 125 U. S. 188. 3 New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol, (1894) 151 U. S. 556. *Tullis v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., (1899) 175 U. S. 348. CITIZENSHIP 243 of legislation and make different regulations as to chapter the property of different individuals differently sit- uated. The provisions of the Federal Constitution are satisfied if all persons similarly situated are treated alike in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. 5 7. The Right to Control the Conduct of Individuals and Bodies of Citizens in Public Places. The XIV Amendment did not destroy the power pwef s as of the States to enact police regulations concerning pac p es. ' the subjects within their control. 6 In Presser v. Illi- B Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., (1904) 194 U. S. 621, where the court said : " It is not the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, as has been frequently held, to prevent the States from classifying the subjects of legislation and making different regula- tions as to the property of different individuals differently situated. The provision of the Federal Constitution is satisfied if all persons similarly situated are treated alike in privileges conferred or liabili- ties imposed." " Legislation does not infringe upon the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requiring legal protection of the laws, because it is special in its character ; if in conflict at all with that clause, it must be on other grounds. And when legislation applies to particular bodies or associations, imposing upon them additional liabilities, it is not open to the objection that it denies to them the equal pro- tection of the laws, if all persons brought under its influence are treated alike under the same conditions." Missouri Pac. R. Co. V. Mackey, (1888) 127 U. S. 209. 6 " Neither the amendment broad and comprehensive as it is nor any other amendment, was designed to interfere with the power of the State, sometimes termed its police power, to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the in- dustries of the State, develop its resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity." Barbier v. Connolly, (1885) 113 U. S. 31. " The police power cannot be put forward as an excuse for oppressive and unjust legislation, [but] it may be lawfully resorted to for the purpose of preserving the public health, safety, or morals, or the abatement of public nuisances, and a large discretion ' is 244 CITIZENSHIP Chapter no { s i it wa s declared that the State may pass laws ! regulating the privileges and immunities of its own citizens if they do not abridge their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States. And in Davis v. Massachusetts* a municipal ordi- nance making it necessary to procure a permit from the mayor to entitle a person to make a public ad- dress upon any public grounds of the city was held to be valid, as a mere exercise of the administrative authority within the police power of the State. Numerous cases cited in note 6, p. 214, supra, sufficiently sustain this power, especially the case of Wilson v. Eureka City. 9 8. To Require Citizens to Observe Morality and Decency. Conten- tions against enforce- ment of moral relations. The claims to immunity asserted against this power are in many instances ludicrous. For exam- ple, a negro citizen of Alabama who was prosecuted for living openly in improper relations with a white woman pleaded the immunity of the XIV Amend- ment. The reply was that nothing in the amend- ment warranted any such violation of decency. 1 So also the right to live in a state of polygamy was asserted as a religious tenet of the accused. The right was denied on the ground that crime could not necessarily vested in the legislature to determine not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests.'" Holden v. Hardy, (1898) 169 U. S. 392. 7 (1886) 116 U. S. 252. * (1897) 167 U. S. 44. (1899) 173 U. S. 32. i Pace v. Alabama, (1882) 106 U. S. 583. CITIZENSHIP 245 commerce. be covered up by pleading that it was committed as Chapter a part of the religious faith of the defendant. 2 And * the law of Illinois forbidding gambling in options was likewise held to be within the power of the State. 3 9. Of the Power of the State to Separate the Races in Public Places. This question has given rise to a series of most interesting decisions. The first case in the Supreme intestate Court was that of the Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mis- sissippi. 4 The State law of Mississippi provided for the separation of blacks and whites in public conveyances. The Supreme Court of Mississippi decided that the law did not apply to interstate com- merce, and the Supreme Court of the United States, adopting that construction of the law, held that it was competent to the State in the exercise of its police powers to separate the races, and declared that it was no discrimination on account of race, or 2 Davis V. Beason, (1890) 133 U. S. 333. s Booth v. Illinois, ( 1902 ) 184 U. S. 425. See also McDonald V. Massachusetts, (1901) 180 U. S. 311; Otis u. Parker, (1903) 187 U. S. 606; U. S. v. Williams, (1904) 194 U. S. 279; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, (1904) 194 U. S. 497. " If, looking at all the circumstances which attend or may ordinarily attend the pursuit of a particular calling, a State thinks that certain admitted evils cannot be successfully reached unless that calling be actually prohibited, the courts cannot inter- fere unless, looking through mere forms and at the substance of the matter, they can say that the statute, enacted professedly to protect the public morals, has no real or substantial relation to- that object, but is a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights secured by the fundamental law." Booth i?. Illinois, (1902) 184; U. S. 425. * (1890) 133 U. S. 587. 246 CITIZENSHIP Chapter badge of servitude put upon either race, to require - that they should be separated. In the later case of Plessy v. Ferguson 5 this idea was expressed as follows: "The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color." Schools. rpj^ q ues tion likewise came up in regard to the separation of the races in public schools, in the case of Gumming v. Board of Education? where it was said : * t Interference on the part of Federal au- thority with the management of such schools cannot be justified except in the case of a clear and unmis- takable disregard of rights secured. . . . The education of the people in schools maintained by State taxation is a matter belonging to the re- spective States." 10. Of the Power of the State to Regulate State Taxation. 7 Grounds Many questions have arisen upon this power of statutes. State taxation, and in nearly every case the particu- lar State law involved was assailed on the triple ground that it abridged privileges and immunities, that it deprived of due process of law, and that it deprived of the equal protection of the laws. A study of the cases will be necessary to an under- e (1896) 163 U. S. 544; Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., v. Kentucky, (1900) 179 U. S. 388. e (1899) 175 U. S. 528. 7 The decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the power of the States to regulate State taxation are listed in the order of their rendition at the close of this volume. See Appendix D. CITIZENSHIP 247 standing of all the points decided. The following chapter are some of the general principles settled : ' A State law of taxation which discriminates be- tween the complainant and others of the same class 3ass. n ' is invalid. A State law of taxation which taxes an individual at a rate different from those in his class, in effect denies him the equal protection of the laws. It was not the purpose or function of the amendment to change the system or policy of the State in regard to the devolution of estates or to limit the extent of the taxing power of the State in cases of the devolution of estates. States have a right to classify the subjects of taxation when the property of different individuals is differently sit- uated, and if all persons similarly situated are treated alike in the liabilities imposed the State does not violate the amendment. The State may pass special legislation of a spe- cial character applicable to and imposing taxes on certain districts only, for particular improvements there, such as draining marshes and irrigating arid plains, supplying water for preventing fires, light- ing particular districts, cleaning particular streets, opening parks, and for many other objects ; and reg- ulations for these purposes may press with more or less weight upon one than upon another citizen ; but in their design they are not to impose unequal and unnecessary restrictions upon any one, and though necessarily special in their character, they furnish no ground of complaint if they operate alike upon all persons and property under the same circum- stances and conditions. 8 s " The amendment does not prevent the classification of property 248 CITIZENSHIP Chapter V. Class leg- islation local assess- ments. Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited by the amend- ment, but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment. 9 So, too, in the case of a nonresident whose lands were subjected to a local assessment for the com- mon benefit of the locality, the same assessment be- for taxation, subjecting one kind of property to one rate of taxation, and another kind of property to a different rate; distinguishing be- tween franchises, licenses and privileges, and visible and tangible property, and between real and personal property. Nor does -the amendment prohibit special legislation. Indeed, the greater part of all legislation is special, either in the extent to which it operates, or the objects sought to be obtained by it. And when such legislation applies to artificial bodies, it is not open to objection if all such bodies are treated alike under similar circumstances and conditions, in respect to the privileges conferred upon them and the liabilities to which they are subjected." Home Ins. Co. v. New York, (1890) 134 U. S. 606. " Clear and hostile discriminations against particular persons and classes, especially such as are of an unusual character, unknown to the practice of our governments, might be obnoxious to the con- stitutional prohibition. It would, however, be impracticable and unwise to attempt to lay down any general rule or definition on the subject, that would include all cases. They must be decided as they arise. We think that we are safe in saying that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to compel the State to adopt an iron rule of equal taxation. If that were its proper construction, it would not only supersede all those constitutional provisions and laws of some of the States, whose object is to secure equality of taxation, and which are usually accompanied with qualifications deemed material; but it would render nugatory those discrimina- tions which the best interests of society require, which are neces- sary for the encouragement of needed and useful industries, and the discouragement of intemperance and vice, and which every State, in one form or another, deems it expedient to adopt." Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1890) 134 U. S. 237. " Perfect equality and perfect uniformity of taxation as regards individuals or corporations, or the different classes of property CITIZENSHIP 249 ing levied against resident property-holders in the Chapter same vicinity, it was held that the law levying the ! assessment was not a discriminating tax. And a paving ordinance making an assessment on people in a particular neighborhood for the benefit of their common property was held not to violate any priv- ilege or immunity of the citizen because it applied to all similarly situated. 11. Of the Right of the State to Control State Elections. This subject was fully discussed in the celebrated eSct rf fJr case of Taylor v. Beckham, 1 and has already been crfmina dis " referred to, and it is sufficient to say concerning it that federal courts have repudiated any jurisdic- tion to consider the conduct of the results of State elections unless in some controversy wherein the law under which they were held, or the manner in which they were conducted, discriminated against the complainant by reason of his race. Due Process of Law. Amendment V to the Constitution provides that ^f P 7 . of the Federal government shall not deprive any citi- difficulty zen of life, liberty, or property without due process ?ng the subject to taxation, is a dream unrealized. It may be admitted that the system which most nearly attains this is the best. But the most complete system which can be devised must, when we consider the immense variety of subjects which it necessarily embraces, be imperfect." State Railroad Tax Cases, (1875) 92 U. S. 612. i (1900) 178 U. S. 548, where the court said in part: "It is obviously essential to the independence of the States, and to their peace and tranquillity, that their power to prescribe the qualifica- tions of their own officers, the tenure of their offices, the manner of their election, and the grounds on which, the tribunals before 250 CITIZENSHIP Chapter O f j aw . Although that proviso remained in the Constitution until the adoption of the XIV Amend- ment, the only case in which the meaning of these words was construed in the eighty years that it stood alone is the case of Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co. 2 The XIV Amendment merely made that same rule obligatory upon the States. Within the forty years since the adoption of the amendment, there has never been a time when the Supreme Court docket was not crowded with cases in which it was claimed that State legislation had deprived the com- plainant of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A glance at the formidable array of cases in which the Supreme Court has passed upon this question gives but a faint idea of the amount of litigation to which it has given rise. In one of the earliest cases, Davidson v. New Orleans? Mr. Justice Miller, perhaps the ablest judge on the Supreme Court bench since the adoption of the XIV Amendment, rendered an opinion in which he gave which, and the mode in which, such elections may be contested, should be exclusive, and free from external interference, except so far as plainly provided by the Constitution of the United States." 2 (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 272. 3 (1877) 96 U. S. 97. While the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment which ordains that no State shall " deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its juris- diction the equal protection of the laws, ... is new in the Constitution of the United States, as a limitation upon the powers of the States, it is old as a principle of civilized government. It is found in Magna Charta, and, in substance if not in form, in nearly or quite all the constitutions that have been from time to time adopted by the several States of the Union. By the Fifth Amend- ment, it was introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a limitation upon the powers of the national government, and CITIZENSHIP 251 the origin and history of this provision of the Con- chapter stitution as found in Magna Charta and in the V L_ and XIV Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. In that opinion he also said : * ' But, apart from the imminent risk of a failure to give any definition which would be at once perspicuous, comprehensive, and satisfactory, there is wisdom, we think, in the ascertaining of the intent and appli- cation of such an important phrase in the Federal Constitution, by the gradual process of judicial inclu- sion and exclusion, as the cases presented for deci- sion shall require." And in a very recent case, 3 * Mr. Justice McKenna, delivering the opinion of the court, reverted to this expression of Mr. Justice Mil- ler and said that the court was still pursuing the process of inclusion and exclusion as the cases were presented for decision, but was still unprepared to formulate a definition. In delivering the opinion in Davidson v. New *j*ff* e Orleans, 4 Mr. Justice Miller also used the following xiv and emphatic language: "It is not a little remarkable, that while this provision has been in the Constitu- tion of the United States, as a restraint upon the authority of the Federal government, for nearly a century, and while, during all that time, the man- ner in which the powers of that government have been exercised has been watched with jealousy, and subjected to the most rigid criticism in all its by the Fourteenth, as a guaranty against any encroachment upon an acknowledged right of citizenship by the legislatures of the States." Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 U. S. 123. 3* Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, (1899) 172 U. S. 557. * (1877) 96 U. S. 97. 252 CITIZENSHIP chapter branches, this special limitation upon its powers has rarely been invoked in the judicial forum or the more enlarged theatre of public discussion; but while it has been a part of the Constitution, as a restraint upon the power of the States, only a very few years, the docket of this court is crowded with cases in which we are asked to hold that State courts and State legislatures have deprived their own citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There is here abundant evidence that there exists some strange misconception of the scope of this pro- vision as found in the XIV Amendment. In fact, it would seem, from the character of many of the cases before us, and the arguments made in them, that the clause under consideration is looked upon as a means of bringing to the test of the decision of this court the abstract opinions of every unsuccess- ful litigant in a State court of the justice of the de- cision against him, and of the merits of the legisla- tion on which such a decision may be founded. ' ' The honored judge who uttered these words has rejected! 7 been in his grave for many years, but the cases in- volving the abstract opinions of unsuccessful liti- gants in State courts have continued to multiply. The decisions rendered by this court are so nearly unanimous in rejecting the claims made, that they might well be described as decisions upon what the XIV Amendment does not mean, rather than adju- dications of rights arising under it. The earliest interpretation of the meaning of this clause was in the case of Kennard v. Louisiana, 5 c (1875) 92 U. S. 480. CITIZENSHIP 253 where it was said that due process of law meant the chapter trial of a case in due course of legal proceedings, in ! a State court, according to those rules and forms f j. which have been established for the protection of SEiLhS. private rights. In Caldwell v. Texas 6 it was said that due process of law is secured when the laws operate on all alike, and no one is subjected to a partial or arbitrary exercise of the powers of gov- ernment. In the hundreds of cases since decided the opinions delivered merely ring the changes in the particular case upon this general principle. A volume, interesting and instructive, might un- questionably be written upon the cases decided, but it is doubtful if any new principles would be found in them. Moreover, as each new case arises, those intrusted with its conduct will be forced to an exam- ination of the decisions in detail in order to discover in what respects their case is similar to the others that have gone before, and how far the decisions al- ready rendered or passed upon by the State affect the case submitted to them. For these reasons, and for the further reason that this subject of due pro- cess of law is to be treated in a separate volume, we shall not discuss it further. 7 To ascertain whether a particular process is due process "we must examine the Constitution itself, to see whether this process be in conflict with any of its provisions. If not found to be so, we must look to those settled usages and modes of proceeding ex- isting in the common and statute law of England, before the emi- gration of our ancestors, and which are shown not to have been unsuited to their ^ivil and political condition by having been acted on by them after the settlement of this country." Murray V. Ho- boken Land, etc., Co., (1855) 18 How. (U. S.) 277. e (1891) 137 U. S. 692. T See "Due Process of Law" by Lucius P. McGehee. 254 CITIZENSHIP Chapter v. Of the Equal Protection of the Law. * el due n Nearly all the cases above cited with reference to ofi c a e w! the abridgment of privileges and immunities by due process of law deal with the question of what is and what is not equal protection of the law, and a full dis- cussion in this place of the decisions in all those cases would not only involve infinite repetition, but would occupy a space that cannot be spared to it. ?f xcl neg?Ses ^ nas ^ een decided that the exclusion of colored citizens by law from juries summoned to try persons of their race is a denial of the equal protection of the law. The authorities on this point are the same as those cited in connection with the abridgment of privileges and immunities. A State law establishing one system of law in one portion of its territory and another system in another, prescribing the jurisdiction of the several courts with reference to territory, subject-matter, and the finality of the judgments rendered, was, how- ever, held not to be obnoxious to the XVI Amend- ment. That amendment was declared to contem- plate the protection of persons and classes, and not to relate to territorial or municipal arrangements made for the different portions of the States. 8 ?egu? a e - ss ^0, too, in another case a distinction was pointed tlons * out between discriminations concerning different kinds of business in certain hours and discrimina- tions between different classes engaged in the same s Missouri v. Lewis, (1879) 101 U. S. 22. CITIZENSHIP 255 kind of business. The former were declared to be chapter admissible, the latter inadmissible. 9 v ' In the case of Yick t Wo v. Hopkins, 1 which arose %$ m . under certain laws of San Francisco plainly dis- inations - criminating against Chinamen, and upon proof that these laws were partially administered, it was held that arbitrary and unjust discriminations founded on differences of race between persons otherwise in sim- ilar circumstances were violative of the XIV Amend- ment. The court said that if the law was so framed as to admit of a partial administration, it was void. But in a later case in which the constitution and laws of a State were assailed as framed and fraudulently intended to exclude the negro population from suf- frage, the court said that where the provisions of a State constitution or law do not, on their face, show a discrimination, and it has not been shown that their actual administration is evil, but only that evil is possible under them, they are not obnoxious to the XIV Amendment. 2 Soon King v. Crowley, (1885) 113 U. S. 703, where the court said : " The specific regulations for one kind of business, which may be necessary for the protection of the public, can never be the just ground of complaint because like restrictions are not imposed upon other business of a different kind. The discriminations which are open to objection are those where persons engaged in the same business are subjected to different restrictions, or are held entitled to different privileges under the same conditions. It is only then that the discrimination can be said to impair that equal right which all can claim in the enforcement of the laws." 1 (1886) 118 U. S. 356. 2 Williams v. Mississippi, (1898) 170 U. S. 213. On the other hand, "though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between per- sons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial 256 CITIZENSHIP Regula- tion of railroads. Statutes requiring licenses for dogs. Rights settled by the XIV Amend- ment. The creation of certain State railroad commis- sions with power to regulate domestic operation of railroads was held not to violate this principle. The case which is perhaps more signally illustra- tive of the extent to which these extravagant claims have been carried than any other is that in which a man owning a Newfoundland dog sued a railroad for killing the dog. The railroad defended by pleading a State statute which denied to the owner of a dog the right to sue for the same as property un- less he had first registered the animal and paid a license fee. The court below sustained the plea, and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the State law denying the right to sue for the value of his dog unless he registered it and paid a license abridged his privilege, deprived him of his property without due process of law, and denied him the equal protec- tion of the laws. It is hardly necessary to add that the Supreme Court rejected the claims asserted. 3 Having now fully considered every aspect of the amendment and the decisions rendered under it, we may leave the subject with the single remark that while it has not proved to be "a new Magna Charta," the great discussions of the true relations between the Nation and the States composing it, and of citizens to Nation and State, to which this amend- ment has given rise, have resulted in a most bene- ficial and thorough understanding of what rights of of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) 118 U. S. 356. s Sentell v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., (1897) 166 U. S. 698. CITIZENSHIP 257 the citizen are derived from and protected by the chapter Nation, and what are derived from and protected v ' by the States. It is doubtful whether without the XIV Amendment these questions would have been so fully digested and settled in a century of litiga- tion. THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. The language of the XV Amendment is as fol- Jr f a T e age lows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The amendment relates exclusively to the subject of voting. It simply forbids either the Federal or to voting - the State government to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote ' * on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It relates to no other cause of denial than race, dlS 5 of color, or previous condition of servitude. It does tended. not forbid the denial or abridgment of the right to vote, by the Nation or the State, for any other cause. It makes no attempt to forbid or to punish the f n c di vi duais effort by an individual to deny or abridge the right of a citizen to vote, and it gives to Congress no power to legislate against an individual who attempts ifc'o deny or abridge the right of a citizen to vote. The prohibition of the amendment is against the United States and the States alone. The power given to Congress to enforce the article is power to enforce 17 258 CITIZENSHIP chapter it against the United States or the States ; which is ' not power to legislate against individuals for like offenses. 4 Such legislation by Congress against in- dividuals has been held to be beyond the power of Congress, and not "appropriate legislation" within the meaning of the amendment. The first case in which the power of Congress to legislate, under this amendment, against individuals, for offenses committed against suffrage, is the case of U. S. v. Reese, 5 and the last case is the case of James v. Bowman. 6 Between these two come the cases of U. S. v. Harris 7 and Baldwin v. Franks* All are to the same effect. In the cases of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 9 McPherson v. Blacker, 1 Wiley v. Sink- Decisions origin of right of suf- frage. * " The principles of interpretation applicable to the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are equally applicable to the con- struction of the Fifteenth Amendment. The amendment simply limits State power in respect to suffrage at State elections by pro- hibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or condition. The right to vote in its own election can be conferred only by the State. No one, therefore, but the State can ' deny or abridge ' the right to vote. The amend- ment is therefore properly addressed to the State. Individuals may by unlawful force or fraud prevent an otherwise lawful voter from voting. But it would simply be an act of lawless violence. The right of suffrage would not be denied or abridged. Individuals cannot deny or abridge the right of suffrage, for they cannot confer it. It is a right which is secured by, and dependent upon, law. . . . Both the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendments are addressed to State action through some channel exercising the power of the State." Karem v. U. S., (1903) 121 Fed. Rep. 258. s (1875) 92 U. S. 214. e (1903) 190 U. S. 127. 7 (1882) 106 U. S. 640. s (1887) 120 U. S. 678. (1875) 92 U. S. 542, 554. i (1892) 146 U. S. 1. CITIZENSHIP 259 ler, 2 and Swafford v. Templeton? the origin of suf- frage was fully discussed. The language used in the early case of Minor v. Happersett? which de- clared that suffrage originated solely in the States, was modified to the extent of declaring that the right to vote for members of Congress and for presi- dential electors had its origin not in any State legis- lation, but in the Constitution of the United States. In the case of Neal v. Delaware? it was declared state* C oS- that the XV Amendment annulled the word " white" in the State constitution of Delaware as a qualifica- tion of suffrage. The Supreme Court, in referring to this, said, in the case of Ex p. Yarbrough that there are cases in which the XV Amendment sub- stantially confers the right to vote on the negro, al- though it gives him no affirmative right ; as where it annuls the word " white" in the State constitution of Delaware. But it by no means follows from this prohibition J of a discrimination on the sole ground of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, that any citizen of the United States is entitled to vote by reason of his color. The decisions cited in connection with the XIV Amendment, the rulings of which are equally applicable to the XV Amendment, all hold that the States may impose reasonable qualifications upon suffrage, and that if those qualifications are not based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but are applicable to all citizens alike, 2 (1900) 179 U. S. 58. s (1902) 185 U. S. 487. * (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 12. o (1880) 103 U. S. 370. 6 (1884) 110 U. S. 651. 260 CITIZENSHIP Chapter they are within the power of the States and beyond v ' the reach of congressional legislation. tation as may well conclude the discussion of this chap- of adop- ter with the language of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Mattox v. U. S., 7 as fol- lows: "We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted, not as reaching out for new guaranties of the rights of the citizen, but as securing to every in- dividual such as he already possessed, . . . such as his ancestors had inherited and defended since the days of Magna Charta." i (1895) 156 U. S. 237. T CHAPTEE VL OF THE PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD. HE Federal statutes 8 provide that all natural- chapter ized citizens of the United States, while in ! foreign countries, are entitled to and shall re- ** statutes ceive from this government the same protection of p r person and property which is accorded to native- born citizens. Whenever it is made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reason of such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen ; and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, the President shall use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate his release; and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall, as soon as possible, be communicated by the Presi- dent to Congress. The means contemplated by the two sections above quoted would be in the nature of diplomatic negotiations between the government of the United States and the foreign government in- volved, and would be conducted through the secre- s Rev. Stat. U. S., Sees. 2000, 2001 ; 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 789. 261 262 CITIZENSHIP chapter tary of state subject to rules and methods of pro- cedure which need not be set forth in a volume of this character. It goes without saying that the same measure of protection will be extended by the government to native-born citizens abroad as is pro- vided for naturalized citizens. 1 i"In regard to the protection of our citizens in their rights at home and abroad we have no law which divides them into classes, or makes any difference whatever between them. A native and a naturalized American may, therefore, go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born." Right of Expatriation, (1859) 9 Op. Atty.-Gen. 360. See also In re Look Tin Sing, (1884) 21 Fed. Rep. 907. Citizens by birth and naturalized citizens who reside abroad have the same right to protection of the government, and stand upon the same footing in all other respects. Expatriation For- eign Domicile Citizenship, (1873) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 295. CHAPTER VII. OF EXPATRIATION, ALIENS, AND WHO MAY NOT BECOME CITIZENS. EXPATRIATION. T^HE doctrine of expatriation, or the right of a Chapter citizen formally to renounce allegiance to his country, and assume citizenship in a country entaf da of his adoption, is one that has been steadily advo- doctrine? cated by the American people from the foundation of their government. 2 It was one of the principal causes of the War of 1812 with Great Britain. Perhaps no better exposition of the American view can be found than in that section of the Eevised Statutes of the United States which declares the right as follows (Section 1999) : "Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural 2 " In this country, expatriation is conceived to be a fundamental right. As far as the principles maintained and the practice adopted by the government of the United States is evidence of its existence, it is fully recognized. It is constantly exercised, and has never in any way been restrained." Stoughton v. Taylor, 2 Paine (U. S.) 661. The statement has been made by the United States Supreme Court that " the doctrine of allegiance . . . rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or sub- ject, which, it is said, cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other." Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, (1830) 3 Pet. (U. S.) 124. See also Talbot v. Janson, (1795) 3 Ball. (U. S.) 162, et seq., where Mr. Justice Iredell sets forth at length reasons why concurrence on the part of the government is essential. Under Rev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 1999, quoted below, however, it has been held that assent on the part of the government re- 263 264 CITIZENSHIP Chapter VII. The doc- trine sus- tained. and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pur- suit of happiness; and whereas in recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is neces- sary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed : therefore any declaration, restric- tion, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared in- consistent with the fundamental principles of the Bepublic." This right to renounce citizenship declared by Congress has been affirmed and sustained in many decisions. 3 A native-born citizen of the United nounced does not obtain in the United States. Jennes v. Landes, (1897) 84 Fed. Rep. 74; In re Look Tin Sing, (1884) 21 Fed. Rep. 907; Pequignot v. Detroit, (1883) 16 Fed. Rep. 214. 3 Right of Expatriation, (1859) 9 Op. Atty.-Gen. 356; Pequignot v. Detroit, (1883) 16 Fed. Rep. 214; In re Look Tin Sing, (1884) 21 Fed. Rep. 908; Elk v. Wilkins, (1884) 112 U. S. 107; Green v. Salas, (1887) 31 Fed. Rep. 113; Boyd v. Nebraska, (1892) 143 U. S. 161; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 715; Jennes V. Landes, (1897) 84 Fed. Rep. 74; In re Rodriguez, (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 354; U. S. V. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) 169 U. S. 704; Ruckgaber v. Moore, (1900) 104 Fed. Rep. 948. "The Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, declaring the right of ex- patriation to be a natural and inherent right of all people, and reciting that 'in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship,' while it affirms the right of every man to expatriate himself from one country, contains nothing to CITIZENSHIP 265 States who has chosen to expatriate himself and Chapter VII has been naturalized in a foreign country is regarded ! as an alien, and he cannot again acquire naturaliza- tion except by conforming to the laws of the United States providing for the admission of aliens to citizenship. 4 The section comprehends citizens of our own w j u y country as well as of other countries. Where, there- citizenshi p- fore, a citizen of the United States emigrates to a foreign country, and there formally renounces his American citizenship, our government accepts the act as one of expatriation. It also recognizes the right of even a naturalized citizen to resume his original citizenship under such conditions as his gov- ernment requires. 5 Proof of expatriation is to be made like that of ^ x r t ri . f any other fact for which there is no prescribed form t of proof ; that is, by any evidence that will convince the judges. 6 A woman born in the United States, of American parents, married a Spanish subject resid- ing here but never naturalized, removed to Spain, and lived there until her husband's death; it was held that such removal and residence in Spain were not evidence on her part of an intention to enable him to become a citizen of another, without being naturalized under its authority. 15 Stat. 223; Rev. Stat., Sec. 1999." Elk V. Wilkins, (1884) 112 U. S. 107. See also Right of Expatriation, (1859) 9 Op. Atty.-Gen. 360. Compare Expatriation Foreign Domicile Citizenship, (1873) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 295. * Expatriation Foreign Domicile Citizenship, (1873) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 295. s Green v. Salas, (1887) 31 Fed. Rep. 112. e Belcher v. Farren, (1891) 89 Cal. 73; Green v. Salas, (1887) 31 Fed. Rep. 112. " The general evidence of expatriation is actual emigration, with 266 CITIZENSHIP Chapter VII. Confused citizenship Cont- zen's case. expatriate herself, and that she still remained a citizen of the United States. 7 It has been held that the section of the Eevised Statutes above quoted is, like any other act of Con- gress, subject to alteration by Congress whenever the public welfare requires it. The right of pro- tection which it confers is limited to citizens of the United States. Chinese persons, not born in this country, have never been recognized as citizens of the United States or authorized to become such. 8 A singular case of confused citizenship arose in the case of Contzen v. U. S. 9 Texas was an inde- pendent State when admitted into the Union. The effect of her admission was to make all the citizens of Texas citizens of the United States. Such per- sons as then resided in Texas and were not then naturalized as citizens of Texas were relegated to the United States naturalization laws. Contzen was a minor alien separated from his parents, who had not been made citizens of the United States. He was living in Texas at the time of the admission of the State, and continued to reside there, not deeming any further naturalization necessary ; but, the point being raised against him, it was held that, never having been a citizen of Texas and consequently never having become a citizen of the United States, he had no status in the Court of Claims of the United States. other concurrent acts showing a determination and intention to transfer his allegiance." Stoughton v. Taylor, 2 Paine (U. S.) 661. TPreto's Case, (1862) 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 321. sFong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 716. See also In re Rodriguez, (1897) 81 Fed. Rep. 354. (1900) 179 U. S. 191. CITIZENSHIP 267 Chapter VII. Aliens. The right to exclude or expel aliens or any class of undesirable strangers has been upheld by the Su- aliens - preme Court as an inherent right of sovereignty. 1 So also the Act of Congress prohibiting the bringing in of aliens to perform labor has been held to be constitutional. 2 And in the case of U. S. v. Wil- liams, deporting an alien who had illegally entered the United States was declared to be not against the XIV Amendment, and the Alien Immigration Act of iFong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 698; Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., (1892) 142 U. S. 651; Chinese Exclusion Case, (1889) 130 U. S. 581. " It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every sov- ereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essen- tial to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. In the United States this power is vested in the national government, to which the Constitution has committed the entire control of international rela- tions, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political depart- ment of the government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through statutes en- acted by Congress." Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., (1892) 142 U. S. 659. 2 Lees v. U. S., (1893) 150 U. S. 476, where the court said: " Given in Congress the absolute power to exclude aliens, it may exclude some and admit others, and the reasons for its discrimina- tion are not open to challenge in the courts. Given the power to exclude, it has a right to make that exclusion effective by punishing those who assist in introducing, or attempting to introduce, aliens in violation of its prohibition. The importation of alien laborers, who are under previous contract to perform labor in the United States, is the act denounced, and the penalty is visited not upon the alien laborer although by the amendment of February 23, 1887, 24 Stat. 414, c. 220, he is to be returned to the country from which he came but upon the party assisting in the importation. If Congress has power to exclude such laborers, as by the cases cited it unquestionably has, it has the power to punish any who assist in their introduction." 268 CITIZENSHIP Chapter VII. Aliens defined. Alien friends privileges and disa- bilities in general. Congress of 1903, which provides for the depor- tation of anarchists, was sustained as constitu- tional. 3 An alien is a foreigner, a person resident in one country but owing allegiance to another. In Eng- land he is one born out of the dominions and alle- giance of the King. In the United States he is one who is born out of the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, and who has not been naturalized under the Constitution and laws of the United States or of any one of them. 4 An alien friend is one whose country is at peace with the country where he resides. While he is domiciled in this country he is entitled to the pro- tection of its laws, and owes to it, in return for that protection, temporary and local obedience, which con- tinues during the period of his residence. He is even entitled to the benefits of the protection granted by the XIV Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. But he is not a citizen. He is sub- ject to the laws of the land, may be tried for crime, and may even be guilty of treason in giving aid and comfort to the enemies of this country. 5 He has a 3 " Repeated decisions oZ this court have determined that Congress has the power to exclude aliens from the Unite! States; to pre- scribe the terms and conditions on which they may come in; to establish regulations for sending out of the country such aliens as have entered in violation of law, and to commit the enforcement of such conditions and regulations to executive officers; that the de- portation of an alien who is found to be here in violation of law is not a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and that the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury have no application." U. S. v. Williams, (1904) 194 U. S. 289, 42 Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 64. 5 Carlisle V. U. S., (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 147. CITIZENSHIP 269 right to labor and engage in trade, that right being Chapter implied in the right to reside in the country. He may sue and be sued in the proper courts. He may by statute have the benefit of the insolvent laws and the poor laws of his temporary domicile, if they so provide. He may obtain a patent, may file a caveat, may register a trade mark and protect it by suit, and to a certain extent he may enjoy the benefit of the copyright laws. He may serve as executor or ad- ministrator, unless prohibited by statute, and may be a corporator or a trustee of a corporation. While not liable to enlistment for military service, he may voluntarily waive that exemption and enlist; in that case he is subject to all the liabilities incurred by a citizen soldier, and cannot escape them on the ground that he is an alien. But an alien may not vote or hold any political office, State or Federal, or be an officer of a county, a city, or a court, or serve as juror. Alienage constitutes a disqualification for practicing as an attorney at law. An alien " is none the less an alien because of his having a commercial domicile in this country. While he lawfully remains here he is entitled to the benefit of the guaranties of life, liberty, and property, secured by the Constitution to all persons, of what- ever race, within the jurisdiction of the United States. His per- sonal rights when he is in this country, and such of his property as is here during his absence, are as fully protected by the supreme law of the land as if he were a native or naturalized citizen of the United States. But when he has voluntarily gone from the country, and is beyond its jurisdiction, being an alien, he cannot reenter the United States in violation of the will of the government as ex- pressed in enactments of the law-making power." Lem Moon Sing v. U. S., (1895) 158 U. S. 547. "This national character which a man acquires by residence may be thrown off at pleasure, by a return to his native country, or even by turning his back on the country in which he has resided, on his way to another. To use the language of Sir W. Scott, it is 270 CITIZENSHIP Chapter VII. The rights of an alien pertaining to his property may be briefly stated as follows : At common la,w he may take real estate by act of the parties or by deed or grant, or devise, or by other act of purchase, but cannot hold it except upon such terms as may be pre~ scribed by the State. An alien therefore takes a de- feasible estate good against all excepting the State, and good against it until it institutes proceedings and obtains a judgment by inquest of office or office found, or some legislative act equivalent thereto. But an alien does not acquire an estate by operation of law, as by descent; for since the law will be deemed to do nothing in vain, it will not cast descent upon one who cannot by law hold the estate. When an alien seized of real estate dies intestate, as he has no inheritable blood he cannot have any legal heirs, and so cannot transmit the estate by descent, and as the law will not deem it to be in abeyance except in case of absolute necessity, it vests imme- diately in the State without office found. Alienage in a mediate ancestor would interrupt the descent between the persons who are capable of taking and transmitting real estate by descent. An alien is not entitled to curtesy. Alienage in the husband or wife an adventitious character gained by residence, and which ceases by nonresidence. It no longer adheres to the party from the moment he puts himself in motion, bona fide, to quit the country sine animo revertendi. (The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. Adm. 17.) The reasonableness of this rule can hardly be disputed. Having once acquired a national character by residence in a foreign country, he ought to be bound by all the consequences of it, until he has thrown it off, either by an actual return to his native country or to that where he was naturalized, or by commencing his removal, bona fide, and without an intention of returning." The Venus,, (1814) 8 Cranch (U. S.) 280. CITIZENSHIP 271 bars the wife from claiming dower. Such are, in Chapter VII general terms, the common-law rulings concerning ' aliens. In the United States the common-law doctrine concerning the rights of aliens has been greatly modified by statutes. In nearly all of the States statutes have been enacted by which the rights of aliens are defined, and in many instances resident aliens are placed on the same footing as natural born citizens, touching the acquisition, holding, and trans- mission of property, both real and personal. In some of the States the same liberal policy has been pursued toward nonresident aliens, while in others these privileges are accorded with restrictions, and in some cases denied altogether. It will be neces- sary for the student interested in this question of the rights of an alien in real or personal property, in any particular State, to examine the statutes and decisions of that State relating to the subject. Under statutes of the United States all mining lands and territories belonging to the United States are open for the purpose of exploration and pur- chase to citizens of the United States, and to those who have declared their intention to become citizens ; and all such persons who have discovered mineral lands and made location according to law have the exclusive right of possession thereof. At common law, the disability of aliens in respect to the ownership of real estate did not extend to the s case of personal property, and they were capable of acquiring, holding, and transmitting movable prop- erty in like manner as citizens, and might bring suit for the protection and recovery of such property. 272 CITIZENSHIP Chapter The statutes regulating the rights of aliens concern- VIL ing personal property have generally been merely declaratory of the common-law principle. Taxation. An alien is as liable to taxation as is a citizen, since the right to tax results from the general pro- tection afforded to himself and his property. Treaties. The status of citizens of one country residing in or traveling through foreign countries is frequently the subject of treaties between their respective na- tions ; such treaties, when made, are the supreme law of the land, and any State law denying to an alien the right secured by such a treaty would be uncon- stitutional, null, and void. mie? ene " An alien enemy is one who owes allegiance to an and n d1st adverse belligerent. He has no political rights. bilities in -,--,- . , . . _ , . general. He may remain in the country at war with his own, and, when not chargeable with actual hostility or crime, has an implied license to remain until ordered out of the country, and on leaving it he is allowed to remove his goods and effects, and is protected in his other rights. During the pendency of war his rights are in abeyance. An alien enemy is not per- mitted to prosecute suits in court, and any such suit pending abates, and the right of action is suspended, until the cessation of hostilities. But while he may not sue, he may be sued, and his property is subject to legal process, and in such case he may make de- fense in person or by counsel. All intercourse between citizens of two hostile nations, except such as may be permitted by the au- thorities conducting the war, is prohibited while war is flagrant between their respective countries. This includes any act or contract which tends to increase CITIZENSHIP 273 or the resources of the enemy, or any kind of trading chapter or commercial dealing or intercourse. But the ' tendency of the law of nations of modern times is to exempt individuals and private contracts from in- jury or restraint in consequence of war between the governments of the contracting parties. The effect of an outbreak of hostilities is to revoke agencies in the country of the enemy, for general purposes, dur- ing the pendency of the war; but an agency to pre- serve or collect property may be created, and war does not necessarily revoke a special agency estab- lished before it began. 6 The Federal statutes on the subject of aliens 7 provide that, whenever war is declared between the Sen United States and a foreign government, and in certain other contingencies, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, re- strained, and removed. Power is given to the Presi- dent, by proclamation or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States toward aliens who become so liable, or to provide for their removal, and generally to establish regulations concerning them for the public safety. Provision is also made, in case the individual is not chargeable with actual hostility or crime against the public safety, for allowing him to recover and dis- 6 The authorities in support of the above general statements will be found very fully set forth in the Am. and Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.), title "Aliens," Vol. 2, pp. 64-90. 7 See 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 435. 18 274 CITIZENSHIP Chapter VII. Jurisdic- tion and powers of courts. Right to hold real estate in Terri- tories. Forfeiture of citizen* ship by desertion. pose of and remove his goods and effects, and to depart within reasonable tii to be ascertained as prescribed. 8 After the presidential proclamation, jurisdiction is given to the federal courts to cause any alien who lingers in the jurisdiction to be apprehended and conveyed before the court. The courts are empow- ered to cause such alien to be removed or to give security for good behavior, or otherwise to restrain him, conformably to the proclamation or regulations established, and to imprison or otherwise secure him until these orders are performed. Power is given to the marshal of the district in which such alien is apprehended to carry out the orders of the court. To an Act of Congress passed March 2, 1897, 9 fixing the rights of aliens to hold and own real es- tate in the Territories of the United States as de- fined under that Act, the student is referred for the particular conditions upon which the alien may hold the same. It is also provided by a Federal statute that all persons who deserted the military and naval service of the United States and did not return thereto or report themselves to a provost marshal within sixty days after the issuance of a proclamation by the President dated the llth day of March, 1865, are deemed to have voluntarily relinquished and for- feited their rights of citizenship as well as their right to become citizens ; and that such deserters are for- ever incapable of holding any office of trust or profit 8 Rev. Stat. U. S., Sees. 4067, 4068; 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 436. 29 Stat. at L., c. 363, p. 618; 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 437. CITIZENSHIP 275 in the United States or of exercising any rights of chapter citizens thereof. 1 But the provisions of this sec- tion can take effect only upon conviction by a court martial. 2 Another section of the Revised Statutes 3 provides that every person who hereafter deserts the military or naval service of the United States, or who, being duly enrolled, departs the jurisdiction of the district in which he is enrolled or goes beyond the limits of the United States with intent to avoid a draft in the United States service lawfully ordered, shall be liable to all the penalties and forfeitures of the section last above quoted. This law was enacted March 3, 1865, and is believed to be still in force. The penalties named by it can be enforced only after conviction by court martial. 4 Immigration of Chinese. Besides the disqualifications above enacted, a se- ries of laws beginning with an Act dated May 6, Acts ' 1882, and ending with the Act of April 2, 1902, 5 has been passed by Congress suspending the immi- gration of Chinese. By the terms of these sundry acts, Chinese immigration has been forbidden indefi- nitely. The laws prescribing the terms upon which Chinese may come to this country have been made very stringent, and under the authorities cited in iRev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 1996; 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 788. 2 Kurtz v. Moffitt, (1885) 115 U. S. 501. 3 Rev. Stat. U. S., Sec. 1998; 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 788. 4 Kurtz v. Moffitt, (1885) 115 U. S. 501. 22 Stat. at Large, ch. 126, 58; 23 Stat. L. 115, ch. 220; 25 Stat. L. ch. 1015, p. 476; 25 Stat. L. 504, ch. 1064; 27 Stat. L. 25, ch. 60; 28 Stat. L. 7, ch. 14; 28 Stat. L. 581, Resolution 19; 31 Stat. L. 1093, ch. 845; 32 Stat. L. 176, ch. 641. See 1 Fed. Stat. Annot. 754, title " Chinese Exclusion." 276 CITIZENSHIP chapter connection with the subject of aliens their exclusion ! and deportation by these laws have been sustained. 6 Under their operation it is impossible for the Chi- nese to come to this country or to be naturalized, and this may be said to be the only limitation placed upon immigration to the United States from any great nation of the globe. for The wisdom of these laws has been gravely ques- tioned. Sundry influences have produced this legis- lation, chiefly that of certain classes in the extreme West who have feared the result of competition with the Chinese. On the other hand, powerful influences are at work to induce the repeal of these exclusive measures. No one will question the propriety of limiting the political rights of alien and antagonistic people who are permitted to enter this country ; but the conditions of American labor are such that the need of additional labor is sorely felt, especially in agricultural sections, whence of late years immense numbers of laborers have flocked to the cities. Throughout large sections of the South and West a great and crying need of labor is felt to-day. The industry, thrift, and humble contentment of the Chi- nese would doubtless furnish a most desirable labor element to many sections in which laborers are scarce. A critic of American institutions has cyn- ically said that * ' the idea that every citizen is a sov- ereign has been cultivated in the United States until no citizen is content to be a servant. ' ' Whether that statement is exaggerated or not, it is certain that a great and crying need of the nation at present is 6 A convenient collection of these laws and the decisions under them may be found in 1 Fed. Stat. Annot., pp. 754-783. CITIZENSHIP 277 some class of laboring men which shall not deem chapter itself the natural antagonist of its employer. We ! sorely need a laboring class not composed of indi- viduals who aspire to higher education, political prominence, social importance, and even the presi- dency of the United States. When the nation becomes convinced, by its long trouble with labor problems such as have vexed it for several decades, that the Chinese population pos- sesses what it needs, and that the Chinese are even less objectionable than many elements now in the country, we may look for a repeal of the Chinese exclusion laws. With those repealed America will in truth be the asylum of the oppressed of all nations. APPENDIX A. List of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court under the XIV Amendment to the Constitution, arranged in the order 01 their rendition. Slaughter-House Cases, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36 Bradwell v. Illinois, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 133 Bartemeyer v. Iowa, (1873) 18 Wall. (U. S.) 133 Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162 Walker v. Sauvinet, (1875) 92 U. S. 90 Kennard v. Louisiana, (1875) 92 U. S. 480 U. S. v. Cruikshank, (1875) 92 U. S. 543 Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 U. S. 113 Hall v. De Cuir, (1877) 95 U. S. 485 Pennoyer v. Neff, (1877) 95 U. S. 714 Davidson v. New Orleans, (1877) 96 U. S. 97 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, (1877) 96 U. S. 521 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, (1879) 100 U. S. 491 Strauder v. West Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 303 Virginia v. Rives, (1879) 100 U. S. 313 Ex p. Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 339. Missouri v. Lewis, (1879) 101 U. S. 22 Neal 17. Delaware, (1880) 103 U. S. 370 Kelly v. Pittsburgh, (1881) 104 U. S. 78 Fox I?. Cincinnati, (1881) 104 U. S. 783 Pace V. Alabama, (1882) 106 U. S. 583 U. S. V. Harris, (1882) 106 U. S. 629 Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., (1883) 108 U. S. 477 Civil Rights Cases, (1883) 109 U. S. 3 Louisiana v. New Orleans, (1883) 109 U. S. 285 Hurtado v. California, (1884) 110 U. S. 516 Ex p. Yarbrough, (1884) 110 U. S. 651 Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., No. 108, (1884) 111 U. S. 701 Elk v. Wilkins, (1884) 112 U. S. 94 Foster v. Kansas, (1884) 112 U. S. 201 U. S. v. Waddell, (1884) 112 U. S. 77 Barbier v. Connolly, (1885) 113 U. S. 27 Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., (1885) 113 U. S. 9 Provident Sav. Inst. v. Jersey City, (1885) 113 U. S. 506 279 280 APPENDIX Soon King v. Crowley, (1885) 113 U. S. 703 Ex p. Reggel, (1885) 114 U. S. 642 Wurts v. Hoagland, (1885) 114 U. S. 606 Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, (1885) 115 U. S. 321 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, (1885) 115 U. S. 513 Campbell v. Holt, (1885) 115 U. S. 620 Brown v. Grant, (1886) 116 U. S. 207 Railroad Commission Cases, (1886) 116 U. S. 307 Presser v. Illinois, (1886) 116 U. S. 252 Boyd v. U. S., (1886) 116 U. S. 616 Royall v. Virginia, (1886) 116 U. S. 572 Walling v. Michigan, (1886) 116 U. S. 446 Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, (1886) 118 U. S. 194 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886) 118 U. S. 356 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., (1886) 118- U. S. 394 Philadelphia F. Assoc. v. New York, (1886) 119 U. S. 110 Schmidt v. Cobb, (1886) 119 U. S. 286 Hayes v. Missouri, (1887) 120 U. S. 68 Baldwin v. Franks, (1887) 120 U. S. 679 Barren v. Burnside, (1887) 121 U. S. 186 Church v. Kelsey, (1887) 121 U. S. 282 Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131 Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., (1887) 123 U. S. 288 Mugler v. Kansas, (1887) 123 U. S. 623 Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1888) 125 U. S. 181 Redemption Bank v. Boston, (1888) 125 U. S. 60 Spencer v. Merchant, (1888) 125 U. S. 345. Dow V. Beidelman, (1888) 125 U. S. 680 California v. Central Pac. R. Co., (1888) 127 U. S. 40 Ro Bards v. Lamb, (1888) 127 U. S. 58 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mackey, (1888) 127 U. S. 206 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Herrick, (1888) 127 U. S. 210 Powell v. Pennsylvania, (1888) 127 U. S. 678 Mahon v. Justice, (1888) 127 U. S. 700 Kidd v. Pearson, (1888) 128 U. S. 1 Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Alabama, (1888) 128 U. S. 96 Walston v. Nevin, (1888) 128 U. S. 578 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Beckwith, (1889) 129 U. S. 26 Kimmish'tf. Ball, (1889) 129 U. S. 222 Dent v. West Virginia, (1889) 129 U. S. 114 Huling v. Kaw Valley R., etc., Co., (1889) 130 U. S. 559 Freeland v. Williams, (1889) 131 U. S. 405 Cross v. North Carolina, (1889) 132 U. S. 131 APPENDIX 281 Pennie v. Reis, (1889) 132 U. S. 464 Sugg v. Thornton, (1889) 132 U. S. 524 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mississippi, (1890) 133 U. S. 587 Davis v. Season, (1890) 133 U. S. 333 Palmer v. McMahon, (1890) 133 U. S. 661 Eilenbecker v. District Ct., (1890) 134 U. S. 31 Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1890) 134 U. S. 232 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1890) 134 U. S. 418 Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1890) 134 U. S. 467 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Woodson, (1890) 134 U. S. 623 Home Ins. Co. v. New York, (1890) 134 U. S. 594 Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., (1890) 135 U. S. 641 In re Kemmler, (1890) 136 U. S. 436 York v. Texas, (1890) 137 U. S. 15 Crowley v. Christensen, (1890) 137 U. S. 91 Wheeler v. Jackson, (1890) 137 U. S. 245 Holden v. Minnesota, (1890) 137 U. S. 483 In re Converse, (1891) 137 U. S. 624 Caldwell v. Texas, (1891) 137 U. S. 692 Kauffman v. Wootters, (1891) 138 U. S. 285 Leeper v. Texas, (1891) 139 U. S. 462 In re Manning, (1891) 139 U. S. 504 Natal v. Louisiana, (1891) 139 U. S. 621 In re Shibuya Jugiro, (1891) 140 U. S. 291 Lent V. Tillson, ( 1891 ) 140 U. S. 316 In re Rahrer, (1891) 140 U. S. 545 New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co., (1891) 142 U. S. 79 McElvaine v. Brush, (1891) 142 U. S. 155 Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay, etc., Canal Co., (1891) 142 U. S. 254 Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. Gibbes, (1892) 142 U. S. 386 Pacific Express Co. V. Seibert, ( 1892 ) 142 U. S. 339 Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York, (1892) 143 U. S. 305 Budd v. New York, (1892) 143 U. S. 517 Schwab v. Berggren, (1892) 143 U. S. 442 Fielden v. Illinois, (1892) 143 U. S. 452 O'Neil v. Vermont, (1892) 144 U. S. 323 New York v. Squire, (1892) 145 U. S. 175 Brown v. Smart, (1892) 145 U. S. 455 McPherson v. Blacker, (1892) 146 U. S. 1 Morley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., (1892) 146 U. S. 162 Hallinger v. Davis, (1892) 146 U. S. 314 Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Com'rs, (1892) 146 U. S. 646 232 APPENDIX Jennings v. Coal Ridge Imp., etc., Co., (1893) 147 U. S. 147 Giozza v. Tiernan, (1893) 148 U. S. 657 Paulsen v. Portland, (1893) 149 U. S. 30 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Emmons, (1893) 149 U. S. 364 Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 698 McNulty v. California, (1893) 149 U. S. 645 Columbus Southern R. Co. v. Wright, (1894) 151 U. S. 470 New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol, (1894) 151 U. S. 556 Lawton V. Steele, (1894) 152 U. S. 133 Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min., etc., Co., (1894) 152 U. S. 160 Duncan v. Missouri, (1894) 152 U. S. 377 Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1894) 153 U. S. 380 Brennan v. Titusville, (1894) 153 U. S. 289 Brass v. North Dakota, (1894) 153 U. S. 391 Eagle Ins. Co. v. Ohio, (1894) 153 U. S. 446 McKane v. Durston, (1894) 153 U. S. 684 Scott v. McNeal, (1894) 154 U. S. 34 Covington, etc., Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, (1894) 154 U. S. 204 Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1894) 154 U. S. 362 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, (1894) 154 U. S. 421 Pearce v. Texas, (1894) 155 U. S. 311 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, (1895) 156 U. S. 649 Mattox v. U. S., (1895) 156 U. S. 237 Emert v. Missouri, (1895) 156 U. S. 296 Bergemann v. Backer, (1895) 157 U. S. 655 Gray v. Connecticut, (1895) 159 U. S. 74 Central Land Co. v. Laidley, (1895) 159 U. S. 103 Mills V. Green, (1895) 159 U. S. 651 Moore V. Missouri, (1895) 159 U. S. 673 Winona, etc., Land Co. v. Minnesota, (1895) 159 U. S. 526 Iowa Cent. R. Co. v. Iowa, (1896) 160 U. S. 389 Eldridge V. Trezevant, (1896) 160 U. S. 452 Geer v. Connecticut, (1896) 161 U. S. 519 Gibson v. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U. S. 565 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, (1896) 163 U. S. 1 Lowe v. Kansas, (1896) 163 U. S. 81 Murray v. Louisiana, (1896) 163 U. S. 101 Hennington v. Georgia, (1896) 163 U. S. 299 Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) 163 U. S. 537 Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. V. Bradley, (1896) 164 U. S. 112 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, (1896) 164 U. S. 403 Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, (1896) 164 U. S. 578 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mathews, (1897) 165 U. S. 1 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, (1897) 165 U. S. 150 Jones v. Brim, (1897) 165 U. S. 180 APPENDIX 283 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, (1897) 165 U. S. 194 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Indiana, (1897) 165 U. S. 304 Allgeyer v. Louisiana, (1897) 165 U. S. 579 New York, etc., R. Co. V. New York, (1897) 165 U. S. 628 Allen v. Georgia, (1897) 166 U. S. 138 Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Chicago, (1897) 166 U. S. 226 Gladson v. Minnesota, (1897) 166 U. S. 427 Sentell v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., (1897) 166 U. S. 698 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, (1897) 166 U. S. 150 Davis v. Massachusetts, (1897) 167 U. S. 43 Merchants', etc., Bank v. Pennsylvania, (1897) 167 U. S. 461 Turner v. New York, (1897) 168 U. S. 90- Craemer v. Washington, (1897) 168 U. S. 124 Hodgson v. Vermont, (1897) 168 U. S. 262 Nobles v. Georgia, (1897) 168 U. S. 398 McHenry v. Alford, (1898) 168 U. S. 651 Holden v. Hardy, (1898) 169 U. S. 366 Smyth v. Ames, (1898) 169 U. S. 466 Wilson v. North Carolina, (1898) 169 U. S. 586 Savings, etc., Soc. v. Multnomah County, (1898) 169 U. S. 421 Backus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., (1898) 169 U. S. 557 Williams v. Mississippi, (1898) 170 U. S. 213 Magoun v. Illinois Trust, etc., Bank, (1898) 170 U. S. 283 Williams v. Eggleston, (1898) 170 U. S. 304 Tinsley v. Anderson, (1898) 171 U. S. 101 King v. Mullins, (1898) 171 U. S. 404 New York v. Roberts, (1898) 171 U. S. 658 Meyer V. Richmond, (1898) 172 U. S. 83 Blake v. McClung, (1898) 172 U. S. 239 Norwood v. Baker, (1898) 172 U. S. 269 Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, (1899) 172 U. S. 557 Wilson v. Eureka City, (1899) 173 U. S. 33 Dewey v. Des Moines, (1899) 173 U. S. 193 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Paul, (1899) 173 U. S. 404 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (1899) 173 U. S. 684 Central L. & T. Co. v. Campbell Commission Co., (1899) 173 U. S. 84 Henderson Bridge Co. V. Henderson, (1899) 173 U. S. 592 Atchison, etc., R. Co. V. Matthews, (1899) 174 U. S. 99 Brown v. New Jersey, (1899) 175 U. S. 172 Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. U. S., (1899) 175 U. S. 211 Tullis v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., (1899) 175 U. S. 348 Gumming v. Board of Education, (1899) 175 U. S. 528 Bolln v. Nebraska, (1900) 176 U. S. 83 Clark v. Kansas City, (1900) 176 U. S. 114 Adirondack R. Co. v. New York, (1900) 176 U. S. 335 284 APPENDIX Roller v. Holly, (1900) 176 U. S. 398 Weyerhaueser v. Minnesota, (1900) 176 U. S. 550 Maxwell v. Dow, (1900) 176 U. S. 581 Petit v. Minnesota, (1900) 177 U. S. 164 Gundling v. Chicago, (1900) 177 U. S. 183 Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, (1900) 177 U. S. 190 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Schmidt, (1900) 177 U. S. 230 Saranac Land, etc., Co. v. Comptroller, (1900) 177 U. S. 318 Carter v. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 442 L'Hote v. New Orleans, (1900) 177 U. S. 587 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 28 Sully v. American Nat. Bank, (1900) 178 U. S. 289 Wheeler v. New York, etc., R. Co., (1900) 178 U. S. 321 Taylor v. Beckham, (1900) 178 U. S. 548 American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, (1900) 179 U. S. 89 Contzen v. U. S., (1900) 179 U. S. 191 New York v. Barker, (1900) 179 U. S. 279 Williams v. Fears, (1900) 179 U. S. 270 Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobson, (1900) 179 U. S. 287 Mason v. Missouri, (1900) 179 U. S. 328 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, (1900) 179 U. S. 388 McDonald v. Massachusetts, (1901) 180 U. S. 311 W. W. Cargill Co. V. Minnesota, ( 1901 ) 180 U. S. 452 Rasmussen v. Idaho, (1901) 181 U. S. 198 French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., (1901) 181 U. S. 324 Wight v. Davidson, (1901) 181 U. S. 371 Tonawanda v. Lyon, (1901) 181 U. S. 389 Webster v. Fargo, (1901) 181 U. S. 394 Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, (1901) 181 U. S. 396 Farrell v. West Chicago Park Com'rs, (1901) 181 U. S. 404 Detroit v. Parker, (1901) 181 U. S. 399 Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. Craig, ( 1901 ) 181 U. S. 548 Mallett V. North Carolina, (1901) 181 U. S. 589 Simon v. Craft, (1901) 182 U. S. 427 Cotting v. Kansas Stock Yards Co., (1901) 183 U. S. 79 Storti v. Massachusetts, (1901) 183 U. S. 138 Orr v. Oilman, (1902) 183 U. S. 278 Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, (1902) 183 U. S. 471 Nutting v. Massachusetts, (1902) 183 U. S. 553 McChord v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1902) 183 U. S. 483 Clark v. Titusville, (1902) 184 U. S. 329 King v. Portland, (1902) 184 U. S. 61. Booth v. Illinois, (1902) 184 U. S. 425. Goodrich v. Detroit, (1902) 184 U. S. 432 St. Louis Consol. Coal Co. v. Illinois, (1902) 185 U. S. 203 Fidelity Mut. L. Assoc. v. Mettler, (1902) 185 U. S. 308 APPENDIX 285 Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, (1902) 185 U. S. 368 Turpin 1?. Lemon, (1902) 187 U. S. 51 Reid v. Colorado, (1902) 187 U. S. 137 Dreyer v. Illinois, (1902) 187 U. S. 71. Chadwick v. Kelley, (1903) 187 U. S. 540 Otis v. Parker, (1903) 187 U. 8. 606 Billings v. Illinois, (1903) 188 U. S. 97 Andrews v. Andrews, (1903) 188 U. S. 14 Blackstone v. Miller, (1903) 188 U. S. 189 Hooker v. Los Angeles, (1903) 188 U. S. 315 Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, (1903) 188 U. S. 385 Williams v. Parker, (1903) 188 U. S. 491 Reetz v. Michigan, (1903) 188 U. S. 505 Kidd 17. Alabama, (1903) 188 U. S. 730. Tarrance v. Florida, (1903) 188 U. S. 519 Prout v. Starr, (1903) 188 U. S. 537 Glidden v. Harrington, (1903) 189 U. S. 255 Farmers', etc., Ins. Co. v. Dobney, (1903) 189 U. S. 301 Brownfield v. South Carolina, (1903) 189 U. S. 426 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Osborn, (1903) 189 U. S. 383 Giles v. Harris, (1903) 189 U. S. 486 Howard v. Fleming, (1903) 191 U. S. 126 Missouri 17. Dockery, (1903) 191 U. S. 165 Atkin 17. Kansas, (1903) 191 U. S. 207 Hibben v. Smith, (1903) 191 U. S. 310 State Board of Assessors 17. Comptoir Nat. D'Escompte, (1903) 191 U. S. 388 Arbuckle v. Blackburn, (1903) 191 U. S. 405 Cronin v. Adams, (1904) 192 U. S. 108. Stanislaus County 17. San Joaquin, etc., Canal, etc., Co., (1904) 192 U. S. 201 Rogers v. Alabama, (1904) 192 U. S. 226 Buttfield 17. Stranahan, (1904) 192 U. S. 470 Adams 17. New York, (1904) 192 U. S. 585. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1904) 193 U. S. 53 Leigh 17. Green, (1904) 193 U. S. 79 Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. V. Jones, (1904) 193 U. S. 532 Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, (1904) 193 U. S. 561 Cincinnati St. R. Co. 17. Snell, (1904) 193 U. S. 30 West 17. Louisiana, (1904) 194 U. S. 258 U. S. 17. Williams, (1904) 194 U. S. 279 Shepard 17. Barren, (1904) 194 U. S. 553 Ohio 17. Dollison, (1904) 194 U. S. 445 Public Clearing House v. Coyne, (1904) 194 U. S. 497 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. May, (1904) 194 U. S. 267 286 APPENDIX Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., (1904) 194 U. S. 618 Fischer V. St. Louis, (1904) 194 U. S. 361 Morris V. Hitchcock, (1904) 194 U. S. 384 Aikens v. Wisconsin, (1904) 195 U. S. 194 Seattle v. Kelleher, (1904) 195 U. S. 351 Hodge v. Muscatine County, (1905) 196 U. S. 276 Cook 17. Marshall County, (1905) 196 U. S. 261 Coulter v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1905) 196 U. S. 599 APPENDIX B. List of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court on the right of the States to regulate procedure, arranged in the order of their rendition. Edwards v. Elliott, (1874) 21 Wall. (U. S.) 557 Walker v. Sauvinet, (1875) 92 U. S. 90 Kennard v. Louisiana, (1875) 92 U. S. 480 Pearson V. Yewdall, (1877) 95 U. S. 294 Pennoyer v. Neff, (1877) 95 U. S. 714 Davidson v. New Orleans, (1877) 96 U. S. 97 Strauder v. West Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 303 Virginia v. Rives, (1879) 100 U. S. 313 Ex p. Virginia, (1879) 100 U. S. 339 Missouri v. Lewis, (1879) 101 U. S. 22 Neal v. Delaware, (1880) 103 U. S. 370 Hurtado v. California, (1884) 110 U. S. 516 Ex p. Reggel, (1885) 114 U. S. 642 Campbell V. Holt, (1885) 115 U. S. 620 Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, (1886) 118 U. S. 194 Hayes v. Missouri, (1887) 120 U. S. 68 Church v. Kelsey, (1887) 121 U. S. 282 Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U. S. 131 Powell V. Pennsylvania, (1888) 127 U. S. 685 Mahon v. Justice, (1888) 127 U. S. 700 Huling v. Kaw Valley R., etc., Co., (1889) 130 U. S. 559 Freeland V. Williams, (1889) 131 U. S. 405 Cross v. North Carolina, (1889) 132 U. S. 131 Pennie v. Reis, (1889) 132 U. S. 464 Eilenbecker v. District Ct., (1890) 134 U. S. 31 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Woodson, (1890) 134 U. S. 623 In re Kemmler, (1890) 136 U. S. 436 York v. Texas, (1890) 137 U. S. 15 Wheeler v. Jackson, (1890) 137 U. S. 245 Holden v. Minnesota, (1890) 137 U. S. 483 In re Converse, (1891) 137 U. S. 624 Caldwell v. Texas, (1891) 137 U. S. 692 Kauffman v. Wootters, (1891) 138 U. S. 285 Leeper v. Texas, (1891) 139 U. S. 462 In re Rahrer, (1891) 140 U. S. 554 287 238 APPENDIX McElvaine v. Brush, (1891) 142 U. S. 155 Schwab v. Berggren, (1892) 143 U. S. 442 Fielden v. Illinois, (1892) 143 U. S. 452 O'Neil v. Vermont, (1892) 144 U. S. 323 Brown v. Smart, (1892) 145 U. S. 455 McNulty v. California, (1893) 149 U. S. 645 Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min., etc., Co., (1894) 152 U. S. 160 Duncan v. Missouri, (1894) 152 U. S. 377. Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1894) 153 U. S. 380 McKane v. Durston, (1894) 153 U. S. 684 Scott v. McNeal, (1894) 154 U. S. 34 Pearce v. Texas, (1894) 155 U. S. 311. Bergemann V. Backer, (1895) 157 U. S. 655 Central Land Co. V. Laidley, (1895) 159 U. S. 103 Moore v. Missouri, (1895) 159 U. S. 673 Iowa Cent. R. Co. v. Iowa, (1896) 160 U. S. 389 Gibson v. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U. S. 565. Lowe 17. Kansas, (1896) 163 U. S. 81.. Allen V. Georgia, (1897) 166 U. S. 138 Hodgson v. Vermont, (1897) 168 U. S. 262 King v. Mullins, (1898) 171 U. S. 404. Central L. & T. Co. v. Campbell Commission Co., (1899) 173 U. S. 84 Brown v. New Jersey, (1899) 175 U. S. 172. Bolln v. Nebraska, (1900) 176 U. S. 83 Roller v. Holly, (1900) 176 U. S. 398 Maxwell v. Dow, (1900) 176 U. S. 581. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Schmidt, (1900)' 177 U. S. 230 Saranac Land, etc., Co. v. Comptroller, (1900) 177 U. S. 318 Carter v. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 442 McDonald v. Massachusetts, (1901) 180 U. S. 311 Mallett v. North Carolina, (1901) 181 U. S. 589 Nutting t7. Massachusetts, (1902) 183 U. S. 553 Turpin 17. Lemon, (1902) 187 U. S. 51 Dreyer 17. Illinois, (1902) 187 U. S. 71 Hooker v. Los Angeles, (1903) 188 U. S. 315 Tarrance V. Florida, (1903) 188 U. S. 519 Farmers', etc., Ins. Co. v. Dobney, (1903) 189 U. S. 301 Brownfield v. South Carolina, (1903) 189 U. S. 426 Howard v. Fleming, (1903) 191 U. S. 126. Arbuckle v. Blackburn, (1903) 191 U. S. 405 Rogers v. Alabama, (1904) 192 U. S. 226 Adams v. New York, (1904) 192 U. S. 585 Leigh v. Green, (1904) 193 U. S. 79 Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, (1904) 193 U. S. 532 APPENDIX 289 Newburyport Water Co. v. Newbuiyport, (1904) 193 U. S. 561 Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. Snell, (1904) 193 U. S. 30 West v. Louisiana, (1904) 194 U. S. 258 Ohio v. Dollison, (1904) 194 U. S. 445 APPENDIX C. List of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court on the power of the States to control and regulate the business of cor- porations, arranged in the order of their rendition. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, (1877) 96 U. S. 521 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, (1885) 115 U. S. 513 Railroad Commission Cases, (1886) 116 U. S. 307 Barron V. Burnside, (1887) 121 U. S. 186 Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1888) 125 U. S. 181 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Beckwith, (1889) 129 U. S. 26 Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. Minnesota, (1890) 134 U. S. 467 Home Ins. Co. v. New York, (1890) 134 U. S. 594 Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., (1890) 135 U. S. 641 Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. Gibbes, (1892) 142 U. S. 386 Budd v. New York, (1892) 143 U. S. 517 New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol, (1894) 151 U. S. 556 Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min. etc., Co., (1894) 152 U. S. 160 Brass v. North Dakota, (1894) 153 U. S. 391 Eagle Ins. Co. v. Ohio, (1894) 153 U. S. 446 Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1894) 154 U. S. 362 Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, (1896) 164 U. S. 578 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mathews, (1897) 165 U. S. 1 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, (1897) 165 U. S. 150 New York, etc., R. Co. v. New York, (1897) 165 U. S. 628 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, (1897) 166 U. S. 226 Gladson v. Minnesota, (1897) 166 U. S. 427 Blake v. McClung, (1898) 172 U. S. 239 Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, (1899) 172 U. S. 557 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Paul, (1899) 173 U. S. 404 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (1899) 173 U. S. 684 Tullis v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., (1899) 175 U. S. 348 Clark v. Kansas City, (1900) 176 U. S. 114 Adirondack R. Co. v. New York, (1900) 176 U. S. 335 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, (1900) 177 U. S. 28 Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., (1901) 183 U. S. 79 McChord v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1902) 183 U. S. 483 290 APPENDIX 291 Prout v. Starr, (1903) 188 U. S. 537 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Osborn, (1903) 189 U. S. 383. Stanislaus County v. San Joaquin, etc., Canal, etc., Co., (1904) 192 U. S. 201 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. V. Minnesota, (1904) 193 U. S. 53 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. May, (1904) 194 U. S. 267 Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., (1904) 194 U. S. 618 APPENDIX D. List of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court relative to the power of the States to regulate State taxation, condemnation, etc., arranged in the order of their rendition. Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 U. S. 113 McMillen v. Anderson, (1877) 95 U. S. 37 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, (1879) 100 U. S. 491 Kelly v. Pittsburgh, (1881) 104 U. S. 78 Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, (1884) 111 U. S. 701 Provident Sav. Inst. v. Jersey City, (1885) 113 U. S. 506 Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, (1885) 115 U. S. 321 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., (1886) 118 U. S. 394 . Philadelphia F. Assoc. v. New York, (1886) 119 U. S. 110 Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., (1887) 123 U. S. 288 Redemption Bank v. Boston, (1888) 125 U. S. 60 Spencer v. Merchant, (1888) 125 U. S. 345 Dow v. Beidelman, (1888) 125 U. S. 680 California v. Central Pac. R. Co., (1888) 127 U. S. 40 Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Alabama, (1888) 128 U. S. 96 Palmer v. McMahon, (1890) 133 U. S. 661 Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1890) 134 U. S. 232 Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay, etc., Canal Co., (1891) 142 U. S. 254 Pacific Express Co. V. Seibert, (1892) 142 U. S. 339 Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York, (1892) 143 U. S. 305 Budd 1?. New York, (1892) 143 U. S. 517 Columbus Southern R. Co. v. Wright, (1894) 151 U. S. 470 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Backus, (1894) 154 U. S. 421 Emert v. Missouri, (1895) 156 U. S. 296 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, (1895) 156 U. S. 649 Winona, etc., Land Co. v. Minnesota, (1895) 159 U. S. 526 Eldridge v. Trezevant, (1896) 160 U. S. 452 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, (1896) 163 U. S. 1 Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, (1896) 164 U. S. 112 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, (1896) 164 U. S. 403 292 1APPENDIX 293 Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, (1896) 164 U. S. 578 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, (1897) 165 U. S. 194 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Indiana, (1897) 165 U. S. 304 Sentell v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., (1897) 166 U. S. 698 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, (1897) 166 U. S. 150 Merchants', etc., Bank v. Pennsylvania, (1897) 167 U. S. 461 McHenry v. Alford, (1898) 168 U. S. 651 Wilson v. North Carolina, (1898) 169 U. S. 586 Savings, etc., Soc. v. Multnomah County, (1898) 169 U. S. 421 Magoun v. Illinois Trust, etc., Bank, (1898) 170 U. S. 283 Williams V. Eggleston, (1898) 170 U. S. 304 New York v. Roberts, (1898) 171 U. S. 658 Meyer v. Richmond, (1898) 172 U. S. 83 Blake v. McClung, (1898) 172 U. S. 239 Norwood v. Baker, (1898) 172 U. S. 269 Dewey v. Des Moines, (1899) 173 U. S. 193 . Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, (1899) 173 U. S. 592 Weyerhaueser v. Minnesota, (1900) 176 U. S. 550 Wheeler v. New York, etc., R. Co., (1900) 178 U. S. 321 American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, (1900) 179 U. S. 89 Williams v. Fears, (1900) 179 U. S. 270 New York v. Barker, (1900) 179 U. S. 279 Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobson, (1900) 179 U. S. 287 French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., ( 1901 ) 181 U. S. 324 Wight v. Davidson, (1901) 181 U. S. 371 Tonawanda v. Lyon, (1901) 181 U. S. 389 Webster V. Fargo, (1901) 181 U. S. 394 Cass Farm Co. v. Detroit, (1901) 181 U. S. 396 Farrell v. West Chicago Park Com'rs, (1901) 181 U. S. 404 Detroit v. Parker, ( 1901 ) 181 U. S. 399 Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. Craig, (1901) 181 U. S. 548 Orr v. Gilman, (1902) 183 U. S. 278 Florida Cent., etc., R. Co. v. Reynolds, (1902) 183 U. S. 471 Clark v. Titusville, (1902) 184 U. S. 329 King v. Portland, (1902) 184 U. S. 61 Goodrich v. Detroit, (1902) 184 U. S. 432 Chadwick v. Kelley, (1903) 187 U. S. 540 Blackstone v. Miller, (1903) 188 U. S. 189 Billings v. Illinois, (1903) 188 U. S. 97 Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, (1903) 188 U. S. 385 Williams v. Parker, (1903) 188 U. S. 491 Kidd v. Alabama, (1903) 188 U. S. 730 Glidden v, Harrington, (1903) 189 U. S. 255 294 APPENDIX Missouri v. Dockery, (1903) 191 U. S. 165 Hibben v. Smith, (1903) 191 U. S. 310. State Board of Assessors v. Comptoir Nat. D'Escompte, (1903) 191 U. S. 388 Shepard v. Barren, (1904) 194 U. S. 553.. Seattle v. Kelleher, (1904) 195 U. S. 351. Cook v. Marshall County, (1905) 196 U. S. 261 Coulter v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., (1905) 196 U. S. 599 TABLE OF CASES. ALPHABETICALLY ARRANGED. (See also the cases from the United States Supreme Court chron- ologically arranged in Appendixes A, B, C, and D.) PAGE Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506 25, 108, 125, 141, 148, 161 Abrigo v. State, 29 Tex. App. 149 2 Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585 143, 144, 145 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194 118 Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211 118 Adirondack R. Co. v. New York, 176 U. S. 335 132 Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194 214 Alabama State Bank v. Dalton, 9 How. 522 139 Alberty V. U. S., 162 U. S. 499 53 Allen v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 114 U. S. 311 130 Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 191 U. S. 171 119 Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 579 209, 214 Almy v. California, 24 How. 169 132 American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 22, 23, 25, 47, 122, 124, 135 American Pub. Co. v. Fisher, 166 U. S. 464 147 American Steel, etc., Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500 133 Ames V. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449 121 Amy v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 114 U. S. 387 130 Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 332 . 3 Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204 113, 148 Anderson v. U. S., 171 U. S. 604 118 Andres v. Arnold, 77 Mich. 87 57 Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14 137, 140, 148, 204, 240 Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272 137 Anglo American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U. S. 373 140, 168 Anonymous, 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 98, 1 Fed. Gas. No. 465 60 Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769 130 Arbuckle V. Blackburn, 191 U. S. 405 138 Arkansas Valley Land, etc., Co. v. Mann, 130 U. S. 69 146 Armstrong v. Treasurer, 16 Pet. 281 128 Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129 117 Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 436 117 295 296 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Aspinwall v. Daviess County, 22 How. 364 128 Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207 214 Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359 130 Augusta Bank v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519 135, 139, 140, 168 Backus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557 137, 214 Baird v. Byrne, 3 Wall. Jr. 1 59 Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284 137 Baker v. Kilgore, 145 U. S. 487 131 Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678 201, 258 Baltimore v. Baltimore Trust, etc,, Co., 166 U. S. 673 131 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456 116 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Nesbit, 10 How. 395 128 Baltzer v. North Carolina, 161 U. S. 240 131 Bankers' Mut. Casualty Co. v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 192 U. S. 371 138 Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 134 131 Banks V. Walker, 3 Barb. Ch. 438 59 Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 211, 243 Barings v. Dabney, 19 Wall. 1 129 Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S. 118 131 Barren v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 127, 144, 146 Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 186 136, 169, 209 Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129 116, 212 Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548 145 Beale v. New Mexico, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 535 22, 25 Bedford v. Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc., 181 U. S. 227 132 Bedford v. U. S., 192 U. S. 217 145 Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527 128 Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329 119, 128 Belcher v. Farren, 89 Cal. 73 60, 265 Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 237 248 Benner V. Porter, 9 How. 235 121 Benson v. U. S., 146 U. S. 325 124 Berry v. Hull, 6 N. Mex. 643 57, 58 Berthemy's Case, ( 1866 ) 12 Op. Atty.-Gen. 7 65 Bier v. McGehee, 148 U. S. 137 131 Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339 139 Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 451 129 Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 189 132, 140 Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239 140, 169, 209 Blanck v. Pausch, 113 111. 60 3 Blight v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 546 ' 60 Blount v. Walker, 134 U. S. 607 139 Blount v. Windley, 95 U. S. 173 129 Blyew v. U. S., 13 Wall. 581 136 TABLE OF CASES 297 PAGE Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521 139 Bonaparte v. Appeal Tax Ct., 104 U. S. 592 139 Booth v. Illinois, 184 U. S. 425 245 Borer v. Chapman, 119 U. S. 587 139 Boston Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25 116, 129, 212 Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 465 117, 148, 212 Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 161 264 Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135 22, 53, 60 Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616 143, 144 Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348 119 Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S. 291 142, 188 Bradley v. People, 4 Wall. 459 114 Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 140, 214, 215 Brass v. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391 117 Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 413 135 Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289 117, 213 Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78 117, 213 Briscoe v. Kentucky Com. Bank, 11 Pet. 257 120, 127 Broadis v. Broadis, 86 Fed. Rep. 951 63 Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311 128 Brooks 17. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394 146 Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622 116, 132, 139 Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112 135 Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 115, 132, 133 Brown v. Smart, 145 U. S. 457 120 Brown v. U. S., 8 Cranch 110 122 Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 145 Brownfield v. South Carolina, 189 U. S. 426 241 Bryan v. Board of Education, 151 U. S. 639 131 Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586 148 Burrov-Giles Lith Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53 121 Burr's Trial, 4 Cranch, 469 75, 138 Burton v. Burton, 1 Keyes (N. Y. ) 359 65 Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110 136 Butchers' Union Slaughter-house, etc., Co. V. Crescent City Live- stock Landing, etc., Co., Ill U. S. 746 130 Butler 17. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402 128 Butterworth, Applicant, 1 Woodb. & M. 323 57 Buttfield 17. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470 119, 145 Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575 129 Byrne v. Missouri, 8 Pet. 40 127 Cairo, etc., R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 168 129 Calder V. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 127, 163 Caldwell v. Carrington, 9 Pet. 86 139 California v. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U. S. 1 117, 208 298 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540 25, 144, 146 Calvin's Case, 7 Coke 1 , 68 Campbell v. Wade, 132 U. S. 34 130 Canada Southern R. Co. v. Gebhard, 109 U. S. 527 130 Cannon v. New Orleans, 20 Wall. 577 133 Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238 119, 145 Cardwell v. American Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205 116 Carlisle v. U. S., 16 Wall. 147 68, 69, 89, 90, 268 Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456 125, 128, 165 Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S. 87 140 Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556 136, 141 Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442 137, 206, 208 Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236 135 Case of Armes, Popham 121, Foster 208 84 Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451 136, 147 Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103 137 Chadwick v. Kelley, 187 U. S. 540 140, 201 Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch 306 135 Chappell v. U. S., 160 U. S. 499 124 Charge to Grand Jury, 4 Blatchf. 518, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,270 77, 82, 85 Charge to Grand Jury, 1 Bond 609, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,272 77, 84, 88, 89, 90, 138 Charge to Grand Jury, 2 Curt. 630, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,269 77, 78 Charge to Grand Jury, 1 Sprague 602 68, 79, 82, 85, 87 Charge to Grand Jury, 1 Story 614 80, 86 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420 128, 165, 166 Charlotte, etc., R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 391 241 Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U. S. 72 140, 172 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 135 Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U. S. 641 117 Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 179 U. S. 388 118, 194 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 137, 147, 201, 206 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 560 116 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418 208 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467 130 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57 131 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U. S. 133 118 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Strum, 174 U. S. 710 140 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 136 Chicago, etc., R. Co. V. Wiggins Ferry Co., 108 U. S. 18 136 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U. S. 615 139 Chichester v. Philips, T. Raym. 404 84 Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581 108, 122, 267 TABLE OF CASES 299 PAGE Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269 54 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 121, 134, 135, 148 Christ Church v. Philadelphia County, 24 How. 300 128 Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290 139 Church v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 282 130, 148 Church of Jesus Christ v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1 25, 122, 142, 188 Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275 116 Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559 . . 127, 133 Citizens' Bank v. Parker, 192 U. S. 73 132 Citizenship, ( 1862) 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 382 21 Citizenship, ( 1874) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 402 65 Citizenship, etc., 21 Fed. Rep. 905 51 Citizenship Levy's Case, (1874) 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 509 56, 59 Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Owensboro, 173 U. S. 636 132 City R. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 166 U. S. 557 131, 137 Civil Rights Case, 109 U. S. 3 29, 108, 192, 193, 199, 202, 205 Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130 136, 148 Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U. S. 186 140 Clay County v. Savings Soc., 104 U. S. 579 130 Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434 22, 25 Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall. 454 116 Close 17. Greenwood Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466 130 Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517 116, 133 Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 108, 121, 124, 135, 148 Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107 139, 140 Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113 114, 148 Collet v. Collet, 2 Dall. 294 54 Collins v. New Hampshire, 171 U. S. 30 118 Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377 135 Columbia Bank v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235 146 Com. v. Blanding, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 314 190 Com. 17. Trowles, 5 Leigh ( Va.) 743 60 Commercial, etc., Bank v. Slocum, 14 Pet. 60 135 Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92 76 Confiscation Cases, 1 Woods 221 76 Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602 132 Conner 1?. Elliott, 18 How. 591 140, 171, 172 Contzen v. U. S., 179 U. S. 191 58, 60, 266 Conway V. Taylor, 1 Black 603 115 Cook 17. Moffat, 5 How. 295 119, 128 Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566 1 16, 132 Cook v. U. S., 138 U. S. 157 126, 146 Cook County 17. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc., Co., 138 U. S. 635 136 Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375 136 300 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299 114, 115, 126, 132, 133, 157 Cooper v. Roberts, 18 How. 177 98 Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727 116 Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682 25 Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. 371 99 Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U. S. 418 126, 133 Corson v. Maryland, 120 U. S. 502 117, 171 Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79 209 Coughran V. Bigelow, 164 U. S. 301 147 Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 145 Covington v. Kentucky, 173 U. S. 231 132, 137 Covington, etc., Bridge Co. V. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204 118 Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578 131, 208, 241, 242 Coxe v. M'Clenachan, 3 Ball. 478 113 Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410 127 Crandall V. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 115, 122, 123, 124, 132, 140 Crawford v. Branch Bank, 7 How. 279 128 Crenshaw v. U. S., 134 U. S. 99 130 Croesus Min., etc., Co. v. Colorado Land, etc., Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 78 56 Cronin v. Adams, 192 U. S. 108 212 Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. (U. S.) 164 22, 25 Grossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189 119 Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 91 212 Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47 117 Cumjning v. Board of Education, 175 U. S. 528 246 Cummings v. Chicago, 188 U. S. 410 119, 137 Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 125, 129, 164 Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304 128 Darby V. Mayer, 10 Wheat. 465 139 D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165 139 Darrington v. Branch Bank, 13 How. 12 127 Dartmouth College V. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518 128 Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97 144, 250, 251 Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333 25, 142, 186, 188, 245 Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203 136 Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U. S. 44 244 Davis v. Packard, 6 Pet. 41, 7 Pet. 276 135 Davis v. Packard, 8 Pet. 312 135 Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156 139 Dean, Petitioner, 83 Me. 489 56 Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206 116 De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1 48, 115, 126 TABLE OF CASES 3Q1 PAGE Denney v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 489 130 Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 215 Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U. S. 499 132, 138 De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U. S. 517 112 Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Osborn, 189 U. S. 383 138 Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193 137, 208 Diamond Glue Co. v. U. S. Glue Co., 187 U. S. 611 119, 132, 140 Dobbins v. Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 114 Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331 128 Dooley v. U. S., 182 U. S. 222 25, 115, 137 Dooley v . U. S., 183 U. S. 151 126, 133, 151 Dorsey v. Brigham, 177 111. 250, 69 Am. St. Rep. 232 4, 63 Douglas v. Kentucky, 168 U. S. 488 131, 137 Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244 25, 48 Downham v. Alexandria, 10 Wall. 173 116, 140 Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535 136, 169 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (U. S.) 393 4, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 47, 112, 119, 120, 140, 141, 197 Drehman v. Stifle, 8 Wall. 595 125, 129 Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71 145 Dryden v. Swinburne, 20 W. Va. 89 60 Dubuque, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, 19 Wall. 584 116 Ducat V. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410 168 Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377 131 Dunphy v. Kleinsmith, 11 Wall. 610 124 Durousseau v. U. S., 6 Cranch 307 135 Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65 123, 144 Eagle Ins. Co. v. Ohio, 153 U. S. 446 131 Eastern Bldg., etc., Assoc. v. Welling, 181 U. S. 47 137 East Saginaw Salt Mfg. Co. v. East Saginaw, 13 Wall. 373 129 Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532 146, 236 Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595 129, 165 Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U. S. 566 130 Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 212, 235 Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S. 452 172 Elk V. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 32, 52, 197, 264, 265 Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485 136 Emert V. Missouri, 156 U. S. 296 118, 214 Escanaba, etc., Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 107 U. S. 678 116 Essex Public Road Board v. Skinkle, 140 U. S. 334 131 Expatriation Foreign Domicile Citizenship, 14 Op. Atty.- Gen. 295 265 Ex p. Bain, 121 U. S. 1 144 Ex p. Bollman, 4 Cranch 75 76, 79, 80, 86, 125, 135, 138 302 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Ex p. Boyd, 105 U. S. 647 136 Ex p. Chin King, 35 Fed. Rep. 354 51 Ex p. Cregg, 2 Curt. 98 56 Ex p. Dorr, 3 How. 103 125 Ex p. Garland, 4 Wall. 333 125, 128, 142, 164 Ex p. Jackson, 96 U. S. 727 120 Ex p. Karstendick, 93 U. S. 396 125 Ex p. Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38 125, 135, 146 Ex p. Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 56 Ex p. Lange, 18 Wall. 163 77, 125, 139, 144 Ex p. McCardle, 7 Wall. 506 125 Ex p. McKenzie, 51 S. Car. 244 56 Ex p. McNeil, 13 Wall. 236 116, 157 Ex p. Milburn, 9 Pet. 704 125 Ex p. Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 125, 136, 143, 144, 146, 163 Ex p. Parks, 93 U. S. 18 125 Ex p. Quarrier, 2 W. Va. 569 80, 81 Ex p. Reggel, 114 U. S. 642 141, 175, 238 Ex p. Reynolds, 5 Dill. 394 52, 69 Ex p. Sauer, 81 Fed. Rep. 355 58, 59 Ex p. Seibold, 100 U. S. 371 108, 134 Ex p. Smith, 8 Blackf. 395 57 Ex p. Thompson, 3 Hawks. (N. Car.) 362 69 Ex p. Tweedy, 22 Fed. Rep. 84 56 Ex p. Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 243 121, 125, 136, 189 Ex p. Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 29, 125, 199, 204, 205, 208 Ex p. Wall, 107 U. S. 265 144 Ex p. Watkins, 3 Pet. 193 125 Ex p. Wilson, 114 U. S. 417 144 Ex p. Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651 Ill, 216, 217, 259 Ex p. Yerger, 8 Wall. 85 125, 136, 160, 162 Fairbank v. U. S., 181 U. S. 292 126 Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112 137 Fargo V. Michigan, 121 U. S. 230 117 Farmers', etc., Bank v. Smith, 6 Wheat. 131 119, 128 Farrell v. U. S., 110 Fed. Rep. 942 52 Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679 129 Felsenheld v. U. S., 186 U. S. 126 115 Fenne v. Holme, 21 How. 481 136 Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 145 U. S. 1 117 Fidelity, etc., Ins. Co. v. U. S., 187 U. S. 315 146, 147 Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 194 U. S. 621 243 Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649 113, 114, 115, 117, 134 Finney v. Guy, 189 U. S. 335 140 Fisk 17. Jefferson Police Jury, 166 U. S. 131 130 TABLE OF OASES 3Q3 PAGE Fister v. Davenport, 22 How. 244 7.15 Fitts v. McGehee, 172 U. S. 516 137 Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603 70 Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87 125, 128, 164 Folsom v. Township Ninety-Six, 159 U. S. 611 137 Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698 143, 145, 146, 147, 264, 266, 267 Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506 137, 148 Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201 116, 212 Foster v. New Orleans, 94 U. S. 246 116 Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S., 183 U. S. 176 114, 115, 126 Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410 120, 144, 146 Franklin v. U. S., 1 Colo. 38 48 Franklin Branch Bank v. Ohio, 1 Black 474 128 Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405 130 French 17. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U. S. 324 145 Fretz v. Bull, 12 How. 466 135 Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282 117 Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525 124, 125 Furman V. Nicol, 8 Wall. 44 129 Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10 136 Gagnon v. U. S., 38 Ct. Cl. 10 60 Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, 170 U. S., 226 131 Gardiner v. Miller, 47 Cal. 575 48 Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 196 129 Gassies V. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761 23, 119, 140, 168, 196 Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258 124 Georgia V. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50 136 German Sav., etc., Soc. v. Dormitzer, 192 U. S. 125 140 Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U. S. 404 112, 124 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 115, 132, 155, 156 Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 92 22, 25 Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565 131, 216, 219, 238 Giles v. Harris, 189 U. S. 486 185, 216, 220 Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co., 109 U. S. 401 130 Gilman v. Lockwood, 4 Wall. 410 120 Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713 1 15, 157 Gilman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black 510 129, 144 Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657 211, 212 Gladhill, Petitioner, 8 Met. (Mass. ) 168 56 Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427 118, 120 Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall. 6 135 Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S. 360 140 Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196 116 Golden v . Prince, 3 Wash. 313 54 304 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Gordon v. Appeal Tax Ct., 3 How. 133 128 Gordon's Case, 1 East P. C. 71 88 Gougar v. Timberlake, 148 Ind. 41, 62 Am. St. Rep. 489 4 Grand Lodge, etc., v. New Orleans, 166 U. S. 143 131 Grant V. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218 121 Gray v. Connecticut, 159 U. S. 74 212, 215 Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1 128, 133 Green v. Mills, 69 Fed. Rep. 852, 159 U. S. 651 185, 216 Green v. Salas, 31 Fed. Rep. 106 59, 264, 265 Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139 139 Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U. S. 58 118, 137 Greenwood v. Union Freight R. Co., 105 U. S. 13 130 Greer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519 118, 159, 173 Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477 136 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150 208, 241, 242 Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98 118 Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183 213 Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610 129 Gut v. Minnesota, 9 Wall. 35 128 Guy v. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434 116, 170 Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485 52, 116, 198 Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 5 130 Hamilton v. Dillin, 21 Wall. 73 122 Hamilton Gas Light, etc., Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U. S. 258 131 Hampton v. M'Connel, 3 Wheat. 234 139 Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342 89, 90 Hanauer v. Woodruff, 15 Wall. 439 70 Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Warren, 181 U. S. 73 148 Hancock Nat. Bank V. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640 137, 140 Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S. 273 131 Hanley v. Donoghue, 1 16 U. S. 1 139 Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465 116 Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181 119, 121, 132, 145 Hans V. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 130, 136 Harman v. Chicago, 147 U. S. 396 117 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197 145, 146 Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189 128 Hawthorne V. Calef, 2 Wall. 10 129 Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 410 135 Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68 240 Head v. Missouri Univ., 19 Wall. 526 129 Headman v. Rose, 63 Ga. 458 65 Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580 115, 116 Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259 116 TABLE OF CASES 395 PAGE Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 141 U. S. 679 117 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson, 173 U. S. 592 118, 132 Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 150 118 Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299 1 18, 213 Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445 124, 125, 135 Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall. 603 129, 144 Hill v. Merchant's Mut. Ins. Co., 134 U. S. 515 131 Hinson v. Lett, 8 Wall. 148 114, 132 Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 303 135 Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U. S. 773 60 Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366 214, 244 Holden v. Minnesota, 137 U. S. 483 128 Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Ball. 378 135, 148 Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540 115, 125, 141, 175 Holyoke Water-Power Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500 129 Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 116 129 Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 136, 169 Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 606 241, 248 Home of Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 430 129 Homestead Case, 1 Pa. Dist. 785 69, 79, 86 Hooker v. Los Angeles, 188 U. S. 314 137 Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648 118 Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch 57 135 Hopkins i?. U. S., 171 U. S. 578 118 Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574 126 Homer v. U. S., 143 U. S. 207 120, 142 Horn Silver Min. Co. V. New York, 143 U. S. 305 117 Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1 108, 123, 124 Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, 170 U. S. 243 131 Howard v. Bugbee, 24 How. 461 128 Howard v. Fleming, 191 U. S. 126 138 Howe Mach. Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 676 116 Humphrey V. Pegues, 16 Wall, 244 129 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657 140 Huse v. Glover, 119 U. S. 543 133 Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170 136 Hylton v. U. S., 3 Ball. 171 114, 153 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28 132 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. S. 387 131 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142 118, 120 Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479 133 Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 121. . .8, 69, 134, 263 Inman Steamship Co. V. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238 132, 133, 148 In re An Alien, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 201a 60 In re Bailey, 2 Sawy. 200 58 306 TABLE OF CASES PAGE In re Bodek, 63 Fed. Kep. 813, 3 Pa. Dist. 725 57, 59 In re Celestine, 114 Fed. Rep. 553 53 In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661 143 In re Converse, 137 U. S. 631 237 In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564 118, 120, 137 In re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449 141, 184 In re Frederich, 149 U. S. 70 125, 161 In re Fronascone, 99 Fed. Rep. 48 57 In re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1 1 17, 136 In re Geagle, 135 U. S. 356 136 In re Giovanna, 93 Fed. Rep. 659 51 In re Green, 134 U. S. 377 Ill, 121, 134 In re Kanaka Nian, 6 Utah 259 59 In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436 201, 211, 239 In re Kollock, 165 U. S. 526 115 In re Langtry, 31 Fed. Rep. 879 57 In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548 137 In re Loney, 134 U. S. 373 121 In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed. Rep. 907 262, 264 In re McCoppin, 5 Sawy. 630 6. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447. . . . 118, 137, 143 Iowa Cent. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 393 240 Irvine V. Marshall, 20 How. 558 136 Israel v. Arthur, 152 U. S. 355 137 Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 188 69 Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280 128 Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136 135 Jaehne v. New York, 128 U. S. 189 128 James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127 203, 216, 258 Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86 145 Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black 436 128 Jennes v. Landes, 84 Fed. Rep. 74 264 Johnson v. Chicago, etc., Elevator Co., 119 U. S. 388 117, 127 TABLE OF CASES 397 PAGE Johnson v. New York L. Ins. Co., 187 U. S. 491 140 Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S. 109 145 Johnson v. U. S., 29 Ct. 01. 1 59 Jones v. Brim, 165 U. S. 180 213 Jones v. League, 18 How. 76 136 Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S. 202 136, 146 Jones v. Van Zandt, 5 How. 215 25, 141 Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274 146 Kane v. McCarthy, 63 N. Car. 299 63, 65 Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S., 125 137, 148 Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454 130 Kelly V. Owen, 7 Wall. 496 64, 65 Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78 144 Kendall v. U. S., 12 Pet. 524 124 Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480 239, 252 Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 136, 141, 175, 176, 177, 185 Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80 132, 133 Keppel v. Petersburg R. Co., Chase (U. S.) 167, 14 Fed. Gas. No. 7,722 70, 77 Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1 117, 212 Kilbourn V. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168 113, 154 Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S. 217 140, 173, 213, 217 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491 116 Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257 125 Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 115 Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13 132 Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367 124, 144 Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668 130 Kreitz V. Behrensmeyer, 125 111. 141 60 Kring v. Missouri, 107 U. S. 221 128, 142, 163, 165 Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 501 275 La Abra Silver Min. Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 423 114, 137 Laeton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133 214 Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404 168 Laing v. Rigney, 160 U. S. 531 137, 140 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio, 165 U. S. 365 118 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. V. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285 118 Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684 132, 209, 214, 241 Lamar v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187 122 Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 76 110 Langford v. U. S., 101 U. S. 341 144 Lanz I?. Randall, 4 Dill. 425 59 Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537 141, 176 Laurent v. State, 1 Kan. 313 3 308 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Law of Treason, 5 Blatchf . 549 84 Law of Treason, 1 Story 614 , 84 Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133 159, 173 Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462 240 Lees v. IL S., 150 U. S. 476, 145, 267 Lee Sing Far v. U. S., 94 Fed. Rep. 834. . 51 Legal Tender Case, 110 U. S. 421 115 Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457 108, 120, 129, 144 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192 117 Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S. 388 130 Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U, S. 100 117, 148, 212 Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176 134 Leloup v. Mobile* 127 U. S. 640 117 Lem Moon Sing v. U. S., 158 U. S. 547 269 Leonard v. Grant, 5 Fed. Rep. 11 64 Levin v. U. S., 128 Fed. Rep. 826 56 License Cases, 5 How. 504 212 License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462 114, 126, 132 Lincoln County v. Liming, 133 U. S. 529 136 Lindsay, etc., Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126 118 Linford v. Ellison, 155 U. S. 503 145 Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566 116, 140, 168 Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469 146, 147 Locke 1?. New Orleans, 4 Wall. 172 125, 128 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553 145 Looker v. Maynard, 179 U. S. 46 132 Lord v. Goodall, etc., Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541 116 Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317 113, 114, 124 Louisiana i?. New Orleans, 102 U. S. 203 130 Louisiana v. New Orleans, 108 U. S. 568 136 Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285 130 Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. 278 130 Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1 118, 137 Louisville, etc., Ferry Co. v. Kentucky, 188 U. S. 385 119, 209 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Eubank, 184 U. S. 27 119 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677 131 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503 119, 201, 236 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587 117, 194, 245 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Petson, 2 How. 497 135 Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Woodson, 134 U. S. 614 145 Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizen's Gas Co., 115 U. S. 683 130 Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 1 131 Louisville Water Co. V. Kentucky, 170 U. S. 127 131 Luther 17. Borden, 7 How. (U. S.) 1 7, 123, 125, 135, 141, 180, 181 TABLE OF CASES 399 PAGE Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U. S. 525 117 Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 583 21, 24 Lyng v. Michigan, 135 U. S. 161 212 Lyons v. Cunningham, 66 Cal. 42 3 Mackin v. U. S., 117 U. S. 348 144 Mager v. Grima, 8 How. 490 115, 132 Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700.. 141, 148, 176 Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U. S. 217 117 Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589 128 Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240.. 117, 136, 140, 148, 173 Manning v. French, 133 U. S. 186 145, 147 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch' 137 135 Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 153 U. S. 380 145 Marlin Fire Arms Co. v. Shields, 171 N. Y. 384 190 Marshall v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 16 How. 314 135 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 121, 122, 135, 148 Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 123 Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325 130 Maryland v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 3 How. 534 128 Mason v. Haile, 12 Wheat. 370 128 Mason v. Missouri, 162 U. S. 565 216 Massachusetts t?. Western Union Tel. Co., 141 U. S. 40 117 Matter of , 7 Hill (N. Y.) 137 59 Matter of Christern, 43 N. Y. Super. Ct. 523 56, 59 Matter of Clark, 18 Barb. 446 59 Matter of Conner, 39 Cal. 98 56 Matter of Desty, 8 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 250 60 Matter of Ramsden, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 429 56 Matthews v. Zane, 7 Wheat. 164 135 Mattox v. U. S., 156 U. S. 237 146, 260 Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581 145, 146, 197, 211, 238 May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496 133 Mayfield v. Richards, 115 U. S. 137 122 Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129 139 Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 130 McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174 121 McCall v. California, 136 U. S. 104 117 McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263 59 McChord v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 183 U. S. 483 119 McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. 608 128 McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391 116, 140, 159, 173, 174 McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102 132, 137 McDaniel V. Richards, 1 McCord L. (S. Car.) 187 60 McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U. S. 311 128, 145, 147, 238, 245 McElrath v. U. S., 102 U. S. 426 146 310 TABLE OF CASES PAGE McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 155 147 McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662 131 McGuire v. Massachusetts, 3 Wall. 387 114 McNulty v. California, 149 U. S. 645 137 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 111, 134, 201, 216, 218, 236, 258 M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 316 22, 25, 108, 114, 132, 147, 148 Medley, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 160 128 M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312 139 Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Gaines, 97 U. S. 697 130 Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 337 130 Memphis Gas Light Co. v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 109 U. S. 398 130 Merchant's Nat. Bank V. U. S., 101 U. S. 1 115 Messenger's Trial, J. Kel. 70 85 Meyer v. Richmond, 172 U. S. 82 137 M'Growther's Case, 1 East P. C. 71, Foster Crown Law 13 88 Michigan v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 152 U. S. 363 137 Miller v. Cornwall R. Co., 168 U. S. 131 137 Miller v. New York, 15 Wall. 478 129 Miller v. New York, 109 U. S. 385 116 Miller v. Reinhart, 18 Ga. 239 60 Miller v. U. S., 11 Wall. 268 122, 144, 146 Mills v. Duryea, 7 Cranch 481 139 Minneapolis v. Reum, 56 Fed. Rep. 580 23 Minneapolis v. Reum, 12 U. S. App. 446 53 Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467 208 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 209 241 Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257 119 Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 318 117, 213 Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162 3, 4, 18, 63, 100, 215, 216, 259 Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475 136 Missouri V. Dockery, 191 U. S. 170 201 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208 137 Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22 206, 208, 254 Missouri v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 78 131 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613 118, 148 Missouri, etc., R. Co. V. McCann, 174 U. S. 580 118 Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177 129 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 513 242 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U. S. 209 241, 243 Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska, lt>4 U. S. 403 208 Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U. S. 633 121 Mitchell 1?. Harmony, 13 How. 115 144 TABLE OF CASES 3H PAGE M'Millan v. M'Neil, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 209 119, 128 Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289 130 Mobile County v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691 116, 157 Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486... 131, 137, 201, 211 Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 187 U. S. 410 137 Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U. S., 148 U. S. 312 117, 145 Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min., etc., Co., 152 U. S. 160 214 Montgomery v. Portland, 190 U. S. 89 119 Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13 25, 140, 141, 144 Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U. S. 69 116 Morewood v . Enequist, 23 How. 491 136 Morgan v. Dudley, 18 B. Mon. 693 56 Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health, 118 U. S. 455 117,127 Morley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 146 U. S. 162 131 Morris v. Hitchcock, 194 U. S. 384 213 Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12 135 Motes v. U. S., 178 U. S. 458 146 Moultrie County v. Rockingham Ten-Cent Sav. Bank, 92 U. S. 631 129 Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404 122 Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 212 Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444 136 Mulligan v. Corbins, 7 Wall. 487 129 Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281 128 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 126, 127, 251 Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432 129 Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 18 How. 272 121, 136, 143, 144, 250, 253 Nalle V. Fenwick, 4 Rand. ( Va.) 585 60 Nashua, etc., R. Corp. v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 136 U. S. 356. .. 136 Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96 25, 117 Natal v. Louisiana, 139 U. S. 621 214 Nathan v. Louisiana, 8 How. 73 115 Navigation Laws, 17 Op. Atty.-Gen. 534 60 Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370 206, 208, 216, 217, 259 Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109 126, 145 Neil v. Ohio, 3 How. 720 128 Nelson v. Police Jury, 111 U. S. 716 130 Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 268 .' 135 New England Mut. Marine Ins. Co. V. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1 136 New Haven, etc., R. Co. v. Hamersley, 104 U. S. 1 130 New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 284 135 New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch 164 128 New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104 129 312 TABLE OF CASES PAGE New Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411 131, 137 New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Pet. 224 135 New Orleans v. Houston, 119 U. S. 265 130 New Orleans v. Morris, 105 U. S. 600 130 New Orleans V. New Orleans Water-Works Co., 142 U. S. 79 131 New Orleans City, etc., R. Co. v. Louisiana, 157 U. S. 219 131 New Orleans City, etc., R. Co. v. New Orleans, 143 U. S. 192... 131 New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 650.. 130 New Orleans Water- Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18 130 New Orleans Water- Works Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 674 130 Newport, etc., Bridge Co. v. U. S., 105 U. S. 470 116 Newport Light Co. v. Newport, 151 U. S. 527 137 Newton v. Mahoning County, 100 U. S. 548 130 New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102 109, 115 New York v. Knight, 192 U. S. 21 119 New York v. Roberts, 171 U. S. 658 118 New York v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175 131, 214 New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556 . . 131, 137, 214, 242 New York, etc., R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628 118 New York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 153 U. S. 628 115, 131 New York, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U. S. 431 118 New York Guaranty, etc., Co. v. Board of Liquidation, 105 Ui S. 622 130 New York L. Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389 118, 132 Nichol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509 115, 126,137 Nichimura Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651.... 117, 119, 122, 123, 267 Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 114 117 Norris v. Boston, 7 How. 414 127 North Carolina v. Yemple, 134 U. S. 22 136 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Maryland, 187 U. S. 258 132 Northern Securities Co. v. Minnesota, 194 U. S. 48 241 Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197.... 119, 155, 158 Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659 129 Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis, 100 U. S. 423.. 116, 126, 133 Northwestern Univ. v. People, 99 U. S. 309 130 Norwich, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 195 129 Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269 208 Nutting V. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553 1 19 Ochiltree v. Iowa R. Contracting Co., 21 Wall. 249 129 Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213 54, 119, 120, 125, 128, 164 Ohio v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445 149, 191 Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276 124 Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. McClure, 10 Wall. 511 129 TABLE OF CASES 3^3 PAGE Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black 286 136 Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U. S. 190 214 O'Neil I?. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323 117, 147 Opinion of Justices, 44 Me. 507 3 Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 561 168, 242, 251 Orr v . Oilman, 183 U. S. 278 132 Osborne v. Florida, 164 U. S. 650 118 Osborne V. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479 116 Osborn V. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654 29, 129, 144, 192, 193 Osborn v. U. S. Bank. 9 Wheat. 738 53, 114, 121, 135, 148 Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. Oshkosh, 187 U. S. 437 132 Otis 1?. Parker, 187 U. S. 606 245 Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken, 121 U. S. 444 133, 148 Owensboro v. Owensboro Waterworks Co., 191 U. S. 358 132 Ovvings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch 344 135 Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420 128 Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648 137 Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583 244 Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S. 372 126 Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. 339 117 Pacific R. Co. v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 36 129 Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691 133, 136 Parkinson v. U. S., 121 U. S. 281 144 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 146 Passaic Bridges, 3 Wall. 782 115 Passaic River, etc., Bridge v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 1 Wall. 116 129 Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345 118,133 Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U. S. 169 119, 138 Patton v. Brady, 184 U. S. 608 137 Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 115, 139, 140, 168 Paup v. Drew, 10 How. 218 128 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425 136 Pearce v. Texas, 155 U. S. 311 178 Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co., 161 U. S. 646 131 Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U. S. 294 236 Peete v. Morgan, 19 Wall. 581 116, 133 Peguinot v. Detroit, 16 Fed. Rep. 214 264 Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181 118, 140, 169, 241, 242 Pennie v. Reis, 132 U. S. 464 130 Penniman's Case, 103 U. S. 714 130 Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1 131 314 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 121, 139 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., 13 How. 518 115, 135, 146 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., 18 How. 421 .... 115, 120, 126, 127 Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wall. 190 129 Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Miller, 132 U. S. 75 130 Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1 116, 120, 121 Peonage Cases, 123 Fed. Rep. 671 192 People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59... 132 People v. Cook, 148 U. S. 397 131 People v. Hyatt, 72 N. Y. 176 177 People v. Lynch, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 550 80 People v. McGowan, 77 111. 644 56, 60 People v. McNally, 59 How. Pr. 500 60 People v. Sweetman, 3 Park. Grim. (N. Y.) 358 56 Pervear v. Massachusetts, 5 Wall. 475 114, 147 Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164 213, 214 Philadelphia v. Collector, 5 Wall. 720 136 Philadelphia, etc., Steamship Co. V. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326 117 Philadelphia Fire Assoc. v. New York, 119 U. S. 110 117, 140, 168, 242 Phillips v. Payne, 92 U. S. 130 124 Pickard v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 34 116 Pierce v. Carskadon, 16 Wall. 234 126 Pierce v. New Hampshire, 5 How. 585 120 Piqua Branch of State Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369 128 Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 577 118, 126, 133, 140 Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590 118, 133 Planter's Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301 128 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 29, 193, 194, 199, 246 Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461 118, 137 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270 130 Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 25 Pollock 17. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 157 U. S. 429. . . .112, 115, 148, 153 Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 158 U. S. 601 112, 153 Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185 133 Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621 216, 220/227 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688 118 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S. 692 117 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Taylor, 192 U. S. 64 119 Postmaster at New Orleans, 9 Op. Atty.-Gen. 259 53 Pound v. Turck, 95 U. S. 459 116 TABLE OF CASES 315 PAGE Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 201,213 Powers of Congress, ( 1855) 8 Op. Atty.-Gen. 139 69 Prentice v. Miller, 82 Cal. 570 60 Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 133, 240, 252 Preto's Case, 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 321 266 Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 25, 26, 135, 141 Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443 115, 135 Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537 209 Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514 128 Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497 245 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 18 117 Pumpelly v. Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. 13 Wall. 166 144 Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 347, 352 116 Rasmussen V. Idaho, 181 U. S. 198 118, 173, 213 Rassmussen V. U. S., 197 U. S. 516 34 Ratterman V. Western Union Tel. Co., 127 U. S. 411 117 Raymond V. Raymond, 83 Fed. Rep. 721 53 Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362 137, 208 Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. Craig, 181 U. S. 548 132 Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505 128, 215 Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 129, 38 E. C. L. 70 84 Reg. v. Gallagher, 15 Cox (C. C.) 291 84 Reg. v. McCafferty, 10 Cox (C. C.) 603 85 Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137 119, 173, 213 Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S. 277 139 Respublica v. Chapman, 1 Ball. (Pa.) 53 70, 74, 77 Respublica v. McCarty, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 86 88, 89 Rex v. Cook, 13 How. St. Tr. 391 84 Rex V. Cranburne, 13 How. St. Tr. 227 74 Rex V. Dammaree, 15 How. St. Tr. 522 85, 90 Rex v. Gregg, 14 How. St. Tr. 1376 89 Rex V. Regicides, 5 How. St. Tr. 1224 85 Rex v. Stone, 6 T. R. 527 84 Rex V. Vaughan, 13 How. St. Tr. 486 74, 82, 85, 87 Reymann Brewing Co. v. Brister, 179 U. S. 445 118,212 Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254 139 Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145 142, 146, 186, 187 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657 135, 140 Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 412 118 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Louisa R. Co., 13 How. 71 128 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co., 169 U. S. 311 118 Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Richmond, 96 U. S. 521 129, 214 Right of Expatriation, (1859) 9, Op. Atty.-Gen. 356 69, 262, 264, 265 310 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Ritchie v. Putnam, 13 Wend. 524 60 Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489 117, 157 Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80 176 Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275 29, 121, 137, 189, 194, 195 Robertson ?. Pickrell, 109 U. S. 608 139 Roff V. Burney, 168 U. S. 218 53 Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226 138, 206, 208 Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398 209 Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241 135 Rosen v. U. S., 161 U. S. 29 146 Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572 209,215 Ruckgaber v. Moore, 104 Fed. Rep. 948 64, 65, 264 Rushworth v. Judges, 58 N. J. L. 97 56 Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288 117 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U. S. 394 208, 241 Sasportas v. De La Motta, 10 Rich, Eq. (S. Car.) 38 60 Satterlee V. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 380 128 Schaefer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516 137 Schmidt V. Cobb, 119 U. S. 286 212 Scholey V. Rew, 23 Wall. 331 112, 115 Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania, 171 U. S. 1 118 Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 7 Cranch 116 69 Schultz's Petition, 64 N. H. 241 58 Scotland County Ct. v. U. S., 140 U. S. 41 131 Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58 118, 133, 137 Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34 201, 209 Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106 147 Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141 118, 145 Seibert V. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284 130 Sentell v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 166 U. S. 698 256 Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch (U. S.) 332 23, 47 Sewing Mach. Co.'s Case, 18 Wall. 553 136 Shapleigh v. San Angelo, 167 U. S. 646 131 Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441 135 Sherlock v. Ailing, 93 U. S. 99 116 Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 48 48 Shoemaker v. U. S., 147 U. S. 282 124 Shortridge v. Macon, Chase (U. S.) 136 70 Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439 139 Simmons v. U. S., 142 U. S. 148 145 Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 144 Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227 115 Sioux City St. R. Co. v. Sioux City, 138 U. S. 98 131 Slade v. Minor, 2 Cranch (C. C.) 139 60 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 20, 29, 31, 32, 51, 66, 99, 140, 173, 193, 197, 198, 211, 227 Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447 214 Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 117 Smith 1?. Maryland, 18 How. 71 115, 135, 143 Smith v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 592 241 Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436 137 Smith v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 181 U. S. 248 118 Smith v. Turner, 7 How. 283 54, 115 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 137, 208, 209, 241 Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596 129 Soon King v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703 211, 255 South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 4 116 South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286 138 Southern Pac. R. Co. V. California, 118 U. S. 109 136 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202 135 Southern Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens, 6 Wall. 31 115 South, etc., Alabama R. Co., v. Alabama, 101 U. S. 832 130 Southwestern Coal Co. V. McBride, 185 U. S. 499 126 Sparenburgh v. Bannatyne, 1 B. & P. 163 87, 88 Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 191 U. S. 526 138 Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149 Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90 127 Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 406 59 Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U. S. 397 138 f pringer v. U. S., 102 U. S. 586 115, 126 Spring Valley Water Works v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347 130 Sprott v. U. S., 20 Wall. 459 70, 90 Stanislaus County v. San Joaquin, etc., Canal Co., 192 U. S. 201 132 St. Anna's Asylum V. New Orleans, 105 U. S. 362 130 St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Com'rs., 168 U. S. 349 118, 131, 148 Stark v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cranch 420 60 State V. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65 57, 59 State v. Denoyer, 6 N. Dak. 586 53 State v. Hoeflinger, 35 Wis. 393 60 State v. Hunt, 2 Hill L. (S. Car.) 1 68 State v. Macdonald, 24 Minn. 48 59 State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & B. L. (N. Car.) 26 21 State v. MacDonald, 2 Port. (Ala.) 449 79 State v. M'Donald, 4 Port. (Ala.) 449 , 84 State v. Webster, 7 Neb. 471 56 State v. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245 56 State Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 232 116 318 TABLE OF CASES PAGE State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 612 249 State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300 114, 129 State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284 116, 132 State Tonnage Tax Cases, 12 Wall. 204 132, 133 St. Clair County v. Interstate Sand, etc., Co., 192 U. S. 454 119 Stearns V. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 223 132 Stein v. Beinville Water Supply Co., 141 U. S. 67 131 Stevens v. Nichols, 157 U. S. 370 137 Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 493 47, 122 St. Louis Consol. Coal Co. v. Illinois, 185 U. S. 203 214 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649 131, 137 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545 133, 137 St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mathews, 165 U. S. 1 131 Stockard v. Morgan, 185 U. S. 27 119 Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814 130 Stoughton v. Taylor, 2 Paine 661 263, 266 Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141 117, 124 St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142 132 Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82 25, 141 Strauder V. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 29, 197, 204, 208 Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 135 Strickley v. Hill, 22 Utah 268 60 St. Tammany Water-Works v. New Orleans Water-Works, 120 U. S. 64 130 Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch 299 121 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 119, 128 Susquehanna, etc., Valley R., etc., Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172 136 Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67 119, 135 Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487 Ill, 137, 216, 219, 259 Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U. S. 380 145 Talbot v. Janson, 3 Dall. 162 263 Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376 145 Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 397 108, 123, 125, 136, 161 Tarrance v. Florida, 188 U. S. 519 206, 208 Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548 141, 184, 216, 249 Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366 141 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257 136, 148 Tennessee v. Pullman Southern Car Co., 117 U. S. 51 116 Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69 129 Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 43 142, 187 Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628 129 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700 141, 148, 183 Texas v. White, 116 U. S. 252 124 Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate Transp. Co., 155 U. S. 585 118 TABLE OF CASES 3^9 PAGE Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 137 U. S. 48 117 The Acorn, 2 Abb. 434 60 The Alicia, 7 Wall. 571 136 The Brig Amy Warwick, 2 Black 673 110 The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557 116 The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 136 The Lottawanna, 21 Wall. 558 116, 136 The Miantinomi, 3 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 46, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,521 120 The Montello, 11 Wall. 411 116 The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411 136 The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 227 4 The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black 574 136 The Roanoke, 189 U. S. 185 119,137 The Steamer St. Lawrence, 1 Black 522 .' 136 The Venus, 8 Cranch 280 270 Thomas v. U. S., 192 U. S. 363 112, 115 Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449 3 Thomson V. Pacific R. Co., 9 Wall. 579 115 Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U. S. 380 128 Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343 146 Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 139 Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S. 490 145 Thorington V. Smith, 8 Wall. 1 70, 77 Thormann V. Frame, 176 U. S. 350 140 Thurlow v. Massachusetts, 5 How. 504 54, 114, 115 Tierman V. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123 116 Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101 137 Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460 129 Tomlinson V. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454 129 Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U. S. 389 145 Trade-mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82 116, 121 Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, 185 U. S. 364 140, 172 Trial of Regicides, J. Kel. 13 89 Tullis v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 175 U. S. 348 242 Tullock v. Mulvane, 184 U. S. 497 137 Turner v. Maryland, 107 U. S. 38 116,132 Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504 126, 133 Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U. S. 196 113, 114 Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, 7 Wall. 321 144, 146 Tyler v. Defrees, 11 Wall. 331 122 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5 115 U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392 139 U. S. v. Arjona, 120 U. S. 479. 122 U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691 135 U. S. v. Ballin, 144 U. S. 1 114 320 TABLE OF CASES PAGE U. S. V. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 17 Wall. 322 114 U. S. 17. Bellingham Bay Boom Co., 176 U. S. 211 118 U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336 123, 135 U. S. v. Bollman, 4 Cranch 127 80 U. S. v. Boyd, 83 Fed. Rep. 547 52, 53 U. S. v. Burlington, etc., Ferry Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 340 123 U. S. v. Burr, 25 Fed. Gas. No. 14, 693 77, 78, 79, 85, 89, 91 U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 146 U. S. v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415 146 U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Pet. 72 115 U. S. v. Coxe, 18 How. (U. S.) 100 22, 25 U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542. . . 2, 142, 143, 146, 199, 200, 211, 216, 217, 258 U. S. v. DeWalt, 128 U. S. 393 144 U. S. v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41 124 U. S. v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576 121 U. S. v. Dunnington, 146 U. S. 338 139 U. S. V. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1 118 U. S. V. Fox, 94 U. S. 315 124, 148 U. S. v. Fries, 3 Dall. (Pa.) 515, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,126 78, 79 U. S. V. Furlong, 5 Wheat. 184 122 U. S. v. 43 Gallons Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188 116 U. S. v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526 22, 25 U. S. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U. S. 645 144 U. S. v. Greathouse, 2 Abb. 364 68, 76, 78, 79, 86, 88 U. S. v. Greiner, 4 Phila, (Pa.) 396, 18 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 149, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,262 68, 75, 78, 85, 88 U. S. v. Grottkau, 30 Fed. Rep. 672 60 U. S. V. G'uthrie, 17 How. 284 135 U. S. v. Hadley, 99 Fed. Rep. 437 52 U. S. V. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17 125 U. S. V. Hanway, 2 Wall. Jr. (C. C.) 139 76, 77, 78, 83, 86 U. S. V. Harris, 106 U. S. 640 201, 205, 258 U. S. v. Higgins, 103 Fed. Rep. 348 52 U. S. v. Higgins, 110 Fed. Rep. 609 52 U. S. V. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407 115 U. S. v. Hoxie, 1 Paine 265 76, 77, 78, 80, 87, 138 U. S. V. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32 135 U. S. v. Insurgents, 2 Dall. 335 75, 76, 138 U. S. v. Joint Traffic Assoc., 171 U. S. 505 145 U. S. v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513 144 U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 117 U. S. v. Kellar, 13 Fed. Rep. 82, 11 Biss. 314 64 U. S. v. Kopp, 110 Fed. Rep. 160 52 U. S. v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297 135, 140 TABLE OF CASES 321 PAGE U. S. V. Lehman, 39 Fed. Rep. 49 56 U. S. v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445 119, 145 U. S. v. Marigold, 9 How. 560 115, 120 U. S. v. McClellan, 127 Fed. Rep. 971 192 U. S. v. Memphis, 97 U. S. 284 130 TL S. i?. Mills, 7 Pet. 142 146 U. S. v. Mitchell, 2 Dall. 348 75, 76, 138 U. S. v. More, 3 Cranch 159 135 U. S. v. Morris, 125 Fed. Rep. 325 4 U. S. v. Nelson, 29 Fed. Rep. 204, 30 Fed. Rep. 115 48 U. S. V. Norsch, 42 Fed. Rep. 417 60 U. S. v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211 131 U. S. v. Norton, 1 U. S. 569 114 U. S. v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467 135 U. S. v. Osborne, 6 Sawy. 406 52 U. S. V. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610 122 U. S. v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 144 U. S. v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115 121 a. S. v. Power, 14 Blatchf. 223. 56 U. S. V. Pryor, 3 Wash. 234 76, 83, 89, 90 U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407 176 U. S. v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 427 115 U. S. v. Reese, 92 U. 8. 214 200, 215, 258 U. S. v. Rice, 4 Wheat. 246 70 U. S. v. Ritchie, 17 How. 525 121 U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. 28, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,151 21, 52, 123 U. S. v. Rogers, 4 How. 567 22, 25, 53 U. S. v. Singer, 15 Wall. Ill 114 U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153 122 U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621 136 U. S. v. Thoman, 156 U. S. 353 131 U. S. v. Tract of Land, 1 Woods 475 76 U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 98 U. S. 569 121, 136 U. S. V. Vigol, 2 Dall. 346 86, 89 U. S. v. Villato, 2 Dall. (Pa.) 370 54, 76 U. S. v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76 216 U. S. v. Ward, 42 Fed, Rep. 320 52 U. S. v. Weil, 29 Ct. 01. 540 114 U. S. v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279 189, 245, 268 U. S. V. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76 74, 76, 122 U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 20, 32, 33, 51, 54, 193, 197, 264 U. S. v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 475 146 U. 8. Bank v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch 61 135, 140, 167 Utter v. Franklin, 172 U. S. 416 141 322 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573 114 Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151 115, 124 Vance v. Vance, 103 U. S. 514 130 Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 438 118, 140 Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall. 41 136 Vaux v. Nesbit, 1 McQprd Eq. (S. Car.) 352 60 Veazie v. Moor, 14 How. 568 115 Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533 112, 114, 126 Vicksburg v. Tobin, 100 U. S. 430 133 Vicksburg Water Works Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65 132 Vidal v. Philadelphia, 2 How. 127 142, 185 Vincennes Univ. v. Indiana, 14 How. 268 128 Virginia V. Rives, 100 U. S. 313 199, 204 Virginia t?. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503 133, 134 Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39 136 Voight v. Wright, 141 U. S. 62 117 Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535 129,167 Wabash, etc., Canal Co. v. Beers, 2 Black 448 128 Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557 117 Wabash R. Co. v. Defiance, 167 U. S. 88 131 Wabash R. Co. V. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 29 140 Wabash R. Co. v. Pearce, 192 U. S. 179 138 Waggoner v. Flack, 188 U. S. 595 132 Walker v. New Mexico, etc., R. Co., 165 U. S. 593 147 Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90 236 Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314 129 Wallace V. Harmstad, 44 Pa. St. 501 69 Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 202 76, 139 Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U. S. 1....131, 137 Walling V. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446 116, 157, 170 Walsh v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 176 U. S. 469 132 Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418 99, 140, 170, 171 Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 441 135 Waring v. Mobile, 8 Wall. 110 115, 132 Washington, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Maryland, 3 Wall. 210 129 Washington Univ. V. Rouse, 8 Wall. 439 129 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28 118, 242 Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88 125, 127 Weber v. Rogan, 188 U. S. 10 132 Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437 146 Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573 140 Welton V. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 116 West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 263 235 Westmoreland v. U. S., 155 U. S. 545 53 Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 114 TABLE OF CASES 323 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507 128, 144 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Alabama State Board of Assessment, 132 U. S. 472 117 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 178 U. S. 239 137 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atty.-Gen., 125 U. S. 530 117 Western Union Tel. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650 118 Western Union Tel. Co. v. New Hope, 187 U. S. 419 119 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347 117, 148 Western Union Tel. Co. V. Taggart, 163 U. S. 1 118 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460 116 West Wisconsin R. Co. v. Trempealeau County, 93 U. S. 595 129 Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155 106, 133 Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 121 Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U. S. 245 131 Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 138 U. S. 287 131 Wheeling, etc., Transp. Co., V. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273 116, 133 White v. Clements, 39 Ga. 232 3 White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646 29, 30, 129, 192, 193, 228 Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146 147 White's Bank v. Smith, 7 Wall. 646 115 Whitman v. Oxford Nat. Bank, 176 U. S. 559 137 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365 116, 133 Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371 124, 145 Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58 Ill, 137, 216, 219, 258 Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U. S. 506 114, 140 Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 1 117 Willard v. Presbury, 14 Wall. 676 124 Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176 129 Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304 131 Williams v. Fears, 179 U. S. 270 118, 126, 14Q Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213 185, 216, 219, 237, 255 Williams v. The Lizzie Henderson, 29 Fed. Gas. No. 17, 726a 127 Williamson v. New Jersey, 130 U. S. 189 130 Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245 115 Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. Alsbrook, 146 U. S. 279 131 Wilmington, etc., R. Co. V. King, 91 U. S. 3 129 Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264 129 Wilson v. Eureka City, 173 U. S. 32 214, 244 Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U. S. 55 132 Wilson 17. Lambert, 168 U. S. 611 145 Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572 116 Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 76 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Price County, 133 U. S. 496 25 Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 388 118 Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, 191 U. S. 379 132 324 TABLE OF CASES PAGE Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84 144, 146 Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358 130 Wong Wing v. U. S., 163 U. S. 228 145, 146 Woodruff v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 291 131, 137 Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123 114, 132, 140 Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190 128 Woolen i?. Banker, 2 Flipp. 33, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 18,030 121 Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 115 Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791 130 W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 452 118, 140, 214 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 208, 211, 255, 256 INDEX. Aliens - See NATURALIZATION. PAGE Alien friends, privileges and disabilities in general 268 Chinese immigration 275 Definition 268 Enemies, privileges and disabilities in general 272 Exclusion of 267 Jurisdiction and powers of courts 274 Mineral lands 271 Personal property 271 Real property, rights as to . 270 State control of 249 Statutory modifications of common-law doctrine 271 Statutory provisions as to alien enemies 273 Taxation 272 Territories, right to hold real estate in 274 Transactions with hostile nation or its citizens 273 Treaties 272 Voting by 66 Allegiance See TREASON. Controversy as to paramount allegiance 70 Definition and tests of 68 Doctrine established by Civil War 71 Dual allegiance 70 Effect of change of government 69 Formal compact not necessary 69 Kinds of 69 Oath of paramount allegiance 72 Paramount allegiance 13 Amendments See FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. Eleventh Amendment 149 First ten amendments 149 Last three amendments 150 Powers affected by 148 Twelfth Amendment 149 American citizenship Origin and kinds 4 325 326 INDEX Articles of Confederation PAGE Citizenship under 8 Guarantees to individuals under 106 New citizenship proposed The Federalist 10 Bills of attainder Nature of 163 Bills of rights Virginia bill of rights 100 Birth Citizens by 51 Black persons See COLORED POPULATION. British citizenship Of colonists 5 Brown, John See JOHN BROWN'S RAID. Business pursuits Regulation of 211 Capital punishment Form of 238 Cattle Infected cattle, guarding against introduction of 213 Children Citizenship of 65 Foreign-born children of citizens 62 Chinese Immigration of 275 Churches See RELIGION. Citizenship See COLONIAL RULE. NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP. NORTHWEST TERRITORY. STATE CITIZENSHIP. TERRITORIES. Civil rights Civil rights bill 199 Discrimination against negroes on juries 203 Enforcement act 198 Equal accommodation for the races 193 Legislation against state action alone 203 Thirteenth amendment 193 INDEX 327 Civil war PAGE Antagonism between sections 27 Controversy as to paramount allegiance 70 Doctrine established by 71 Dual allegiance 70 Interests and views of North and South 26 Secession and emancipation 28 Status of seceding states Texas v. White 181 Glass legislation See CIVIL RIGHTS. COLORED POPULATION. DISCRIMINATION. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. JURIES. TAXATION. Colonial rule British citizenship of colonists 5 Citizenship recognized by Great Britain 7 Citizenship under 4 Continental Congress, power of 14 League among colonists 7 Liberty in the colonies 93 Colored population See SLAVERY. SUFFRAGE. Change in status of negro 30 Discrimination against negroes on juries 203 Dred Scott case 27, 171 Enforcement act 198 Equal accommodations for races 193 Equal protection of the law 254 Interests and views of North and South 26 Juries, exclusion of negroes from 240 Negro suffrage, reasons for indifference as to 222 Racial representation on juries, right to 237 Representation in Congress, white and black inhabitants 24 Secession and emancipation 28 Separation of races in public places, power of states 245 Suffrage under Fourteenth Amendment 215 Commerce Earliest and latest decisions 155 Early interference with commerce by states 154 Exclusiveness of federal power 155 Fish and game laws 158 Opposing theories of construction 157 328 INDEX PAGE Separation of races in public conveyances 245 Supremacy in case of conflict 156 Test of federal legislation 156 Test of state legislation 156 What state rights unaffected 156 Congress Attitude of House of Representatives on suffrage 221 Importance of power to reduce representation 230 Improbability of actual reduction of representation 232 Legislative privilege, history and nature of 153- Power to reduce representation in, not repealed by Fifteenth Amendment 231 Reduction of representation of states in Congress 223 Representation in, white and black inhabitants 24 Right to vote for Congressmen 217 Treason, power of Congress as to 78 Constitution See FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. Virginia bill of rights 104 Continental Congress Power of 14 Corporations As citizens 167 Control and regulation of, power of states 241 Foreign corporations, legislation affecting 168 Taxing corporate shares 172 Declaration of Independence Effect of 6 Interim between independence and Constitution 12 Principles enunciated by 104 Virginia bill of rights 104 De facto government Duty to 77 Desertion Forfeiture of citizenship 274 Discrimination Equal protection of the law 254 Rights of citizens of each state to all privileges and im- munities of citizens in several states 167 Taxation by states 246 Dorr's rebellion Republican form of government 178 INDEX 329 Dred Scott decision PAGE Account of 27 Due process of law Claims almost invariably rejected 252 Definition of 250 General principles established 252 History of provisos 249 Litigation under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments 251 Dutch See HOLLAND. Election See SUFFRAGE. Enforcement act Early cases under 200 Under Fourteenth Amendment 198 England American charities, hospitals and prisons 95 American elections and public prosecutions 95 American system of land tenures 95 American tenets not derived from England 94 Educational system in America 96 Religious toleration in America 95 Source of American plan of government and rights of citi- zenship 93 Equal protection of the law Business regulations 254 Negroes excluded from juries 254 Racial discriminations 255 Railroads, regulation of 56 Relation to due process 254 Rights settled by Fourteenth Amendment 256 Territorial and municipal arrangements 254 Expatriation Confused citizenship 266 Doctrine sustained 264 Fundamental American doctrine 263 Power of Congress, limitation of protection 266 Proof of 265 Statutory provisions 263 Who may renounce citizenship 265 Ex post facto laws Nature of ... 164 Extradition Abduction of defendant from state.. . 176 330 INDEX PAGE Extradition on one charge and trial on another 176 Federal guarantee of 174 Indictment, sufficiency of 177 Federal citizenship See NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP. Federalist New citizenship proposed 10 Fifteenth Amendment Causes of denial comprehended 257 Decisions under 258 Individual acts not inhibited 257 Interpretation as of date of adoption 260 Nature of 257 Relates to voting exclusively 257 Restriction of suffrage generally 259 State constitutions, effect on 259 Fish and game Discriminating laws 173 Food Inspection of - 213 Foreign corporations See CORPOBATIONS. Foreign relations Protection of citizens abroad 261 Fourteenth Amendment Aliens, right of state to control 249 Basic principles of decisions 210 Business pursuits, regulation of 211 Citizenship under 31 Civil rights bill 199 Conduct of individuals and bodies of citizens in public places, right to control 243 Corporations, power of state to regulate and control busi- ness of 241 Due process of law 249 Early view as to scope 194 Enactments prolific of litigation 196 Enforcement act 198 Equal protection of the law 254 Functions of amendments generally 709 Grounds of relief 207 Instruct! veness of cases rejecting claims 208 Juries, right of states to regulate procedure 235 Morality and decency, right to require citizens to observe. . . 244 INDEX PAGE Old and new principles of citizenship 196 Particular rights established 208 Professions, regulation of 215 Proposal and adoption of 31 Provisions directed against state legislation 197 Eesults of litigation 207 Right of legislation conferred 195 Second clause 197 Separation of races in public places, power of states 245 Slaughter-House Cases 32 State procedure, right of states to regulate 235 Suffrage 215 Taxation, power of state to regulate 246 United States v. Wong Kim Ark 33 Volume of decisions construing 206 Women's rights, regulation of 214 Freedom of tie press General considerations 189 Injunction or action for damages 190 Free speech. - Limitations 188 Right of 188 Fugitives from justice See EXTRADITION. Government Source of American plan 93 Guam No special provision for 42 Habeas corpus Common writ 161 Federal and state writs 161 Form of writ 160 Importance of right to 159 Origin, history, etc 162 Rights of citizens 159 Suspension 162 Various purposes of 160 Hawaii Acquisition of 35 Act of April 30, 1900 37 Government of 36 Legislature of 38 332 INDEX Holland PAGE Influence of, on American plan of government and rights of citizenship 93 Immigration Chinese immigration 275 Exclusion of aliens 267 Immunities See RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES. Impairment of obligation of contracts See OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. Independence See DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Insular possessions Citizenship in 46 Qualified citizenship in territorial and acquired posses- sions 34 Source of power to acquire and govern 47 Interstate commerce See COMMERCE. John Brown's Raid Offense against state 82 Treason against both nation and state 81 Juries Discrimination against negroes on juries 203 Equal protection of the law 254 Federal courts, rights to juries in 235 Negroes, exclusion of 240 Qualification of jurors 238 Racial representation on juries, right to 237 State courts, right to juries in 235 State procedure, right of states to regulate 235 Jurors Number of jurors 238 Laundries Regulation of , 211 Legislature See CONGRESS. Liberty See RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES. Licenses Equal protection of the law 256 Practice of profession, regulation of 215 Vendors' licenses 213 INDEX 333 Limitations PAGE Nonresident plaintiffs 172 Liquor traffic Regulation of , 212 Marriage Citizenship by 63 Statutes discriminating as to marital rights 171 Morality and decency Requiring citizens to observe .. 244 National citizenship See ALLEGIANCE. EXPATRIATION. PATRIOTISM. STATE CITIZENSHIP. TREASON. Acquisition of 51 Beginning of 4 11 Citizenship in United States 17 Dred Scott decision 27 Dual treason 80 Foreign-born children of citizens 62 Fourteenth Amendment, rights of citizens under 194 Guarantees to individuals under Federal Constitution 106 Interim between independence and Constitution 12 Liberty in England and in United States 93 Negro, changed status of 30 New Constitution, who were citizens under 20 New government and new class of citizens 18 Obligations and duties of citizens to nation 68 Reference to citizenship in the Constitution 19 Representation in Congress, white and black inhabitants. ... 24 Slavery under the Constitution 25 Source of American plan of government and rights of citi- zenship 93 State and national citizenship not necessarily coexistent 66 Territories, government of inhabitants as citizens 22 Thirteenth Amendment 29 Naturalization Act of 1813 55 Children, provisions concerning 60 Declaration of intention 55 Discharged soldiers 55 Oath 58 Persons exempt from preliminary declaration 57 Renunciation of titles 60 334 INDEX PAGE Residence and character 59 Seamen 55 Who may be naturalized 53 Nature of citizenship 1 Negroes See COLORED POPULATION. Northwest Territory Citizenship of 13 Ordinance a compact 15 Political rights and citizenship under Ordinance 16 Power of Continental Congress 14 Settlement of 14 Obligation of contracts Change of remedy 166 General considerations 165 Leading case, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge 166 Volume of litigation 166 Oil wells Regulation of flow 214 Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Ter- ritory See NORTHWEST TERRITORY. Origin of citizenship 1 Patriotism Characteristics of 73 Philippine Islands Act of March 2, 1900 42 Act of July 1, 1902 44 Attitude of United States Supreme Court 46 Bureau of Insular Affairs 45 Citizenship in insular possessions 46 Citizenship in Philippine Islands 44 Elections and popular assembly 45 Government generally 45 Government under Commission 43 Rights of the Philippines 44 Source of power to acquire and govern 47 Police powers See FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. Conduct of individuals and bodies of citizens in public places, right to control 243 Regulation of ordinary business pursuits by states 211 INDEX 335 Polygamy PAGE Laws against 244 Porto Rico Act of April 12, 1900 , 39 Legislative and judicial power 40 Nature of government 41 President Protection of citizens abroad 261 Press See FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Privileges See RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES. Procedure Crime, power of state to deal with 240 Form of action, right to particular 240 Interference with state procedure not justified 236 Judicial statements of state rights of procedure 239 Marriage and divorce 240 Punishment of habitual criminals 238 Review by federal courts, extent of 239 State procedure, right of states to regulate 235 Professions Regulation of practice 215 Protection Citizens abroad 261 Qualified citizenship Territorial and acquired possessions 34 Railroads Equal protection of the law 256 Religions Church property 186 Free exercise of 185 Offenses against morality and decency 187 Sectarian control of government hospital 188 Renouncement of citizenship See EXPATRIATION. Republican form of government Dorr's rebellion 178 Guarantee of 178 Secession of Texas 180 Residence Affecting state citizenship 66 336 INDEX Bights, privileges and immunities PAGE Amendments, what powers affected by 148 Apportionment of representation and taxation 112 Appropriations for war purposes 122 Articles of Confederation, guarantees to individuals under ... 106 Assembly and petition 142 Attainder 138 Attainder and ex post facto laws 125 Bail, fines and punishments 147 Bankruptcy 119 Bearing arms 143 Bills of credit 127 Cattle laws 172 Census 112 Classification of rights Ill Coinage of money 127 Coinage, weights and measures 120 Compensation for property taken 145 Construction of constitutional amendments 108 Decisions, necessity of studying 152 Direct taxes 125 Due process of law 145 Election of President and Vice-President. 134 Election of representatives in Congress Ill Eligibility of representatives in Congress Ill Equality in the Senate 142 Enforcement left to Congress and executive 184 Enumeration of rights, effect of 147 Executive sanction of laws 114 Export duties 126 Extension of guarantees under Constitution 106 Extradition 141 Federal Constitution 106 Federal courts 121 Federal courts, suing in 134 Fish and game laws 173 Former jeopardy 145 Fourteenth Amendment, rights of citizens under 194 Freedom of religion, speech and press 142 Full faith and credit 139 Government territory, authority over 123 Grand jury 144 Habeas corpus 124 Impeachments 113 Imposts, etc., by states 132 Inspection of food, liquor traffic 174 INDEX 337 PAGE International and interstate commerce 115 Interpretations by Supreme Court 151 Juries in civil cases 146 Jury trial 134 Legal tender 127 Liberty in England and in the United States 93 Liberty in the colonies 93 Limitation of actions 172 Limitations of federal power 107 Militia, use of 123 Naturalization 119 Navy 123 Obligation of contracts 127 Offenses against law of nations 121 Of the citizen 92 Origin of 92 Patents and copyrights 121 Postal system 120 Presidency, eligibility to 134 Privileges of members of Congress 113 Protection of states 141 Quartering troops 143 Religion, free exercise of 185 Republican form of government 141 Reservation of powers 147 Reservation of undelegated powers 151 Retrial on facts 147 Revenue bills 113 Rights in states before union 150 Scope of federal powers 150 Searches and seizures 143 Search warrants 143 Self-incrimination 145 Senators, eligibility as 1 13 Source of American plan of government 93 Source of American rights of citizenship 93 State bills of rights 100 State citizens entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of several states 167 State citizenship, rights under 98 State ports 126 Statutes assailed on double grounds 169 Titles of nobility 126, 127 Tonnage duties, etc., by states 133 Treason 138 338 PAGE Treaties by states 126 Trial, speedy and public 145 Uniformity of duties, etc 114 Universal privileges 140 Venue in criminal cases 134 Vice-presidency, eligibility to 134 Virginia bill of rights 100 War and letters of marque 122 Schools Separation of races 246 Secession See dviL WAR. Slaughter-House Cases Citizenship established by 32 Slaughter houses Regulation of 211 Slavery Dred Scott case 171 Guarantee that persons held to service escaping shall be delivered up 178 Thirteenth Amendment 192 Under the Constitution 25 Spanish possessions Colonization of 34 Treaties with Spain 35 Speech See FREE SPEECH. State citizenship See NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP. Acquisition by birth 61 Bills of rights 100 Fourteenth Amendment on 62 National citizenship not necessarily coexistent with 66 No enumeration of rights 98 Obligations and duties of citizen to state 68 On organization of United States 11 Origin and nature of 6 Residence affecting 66 Right of citizens to all privileges and immunities of citi- zens in several states 167 Rights of citizens of states 98 Treason against states 79 State constitutions After United States independence 6 INDEX 339 PAGE Status of the citizen 2 Subjects Citizens contrasted with 4 Suffrage Aliens, state control of 249 Congressmen, right to vote for 217 Constitutionality of reconstruction acts 227 Court's lack of power to relieve 220 Examples of valid enactments 220 Fifteenth Amendment 257 House of Representatives, attitude of 221 Importance of power to reduce representation 230 Jurisdiction of federal courts 219 Negro suffrage, reasons for indifference as to 222 Political questions 220 Possibility of wrongful administration of laws 219 Power of states to restrict 219 Presidential electors, voting for 218 Reduction of representation of states in Congress 223 Restriction of suffrage generally 259 Right to abridge restricted only by Fifteenth Amendment. . . 226 Right to vote derived from states 215 Theory of universal suffrage 229 Sunday Business on, prohibition of 213 Taxation Aliens 272 Class legislation, local assessments 248 Corporate shares, taxing of 172 Decisions as to 153 Limitations on taxing power 152 Occupation taxes, discrimination in 169 Regulation by states, power of states 246 Territories Government of 22 Inhabitants as citizens 22 Qualified citizenship in territorial and acquired posses- sions 24 Thirteenth Amendment Equal accommodations for races 193 Proposal and adoption of 29 Ratification of 29 Slavery abolished 192 340 INDEX Treason PAGE Adhering to enemies 87 Against nation and state compared 80 De facto government, duty to 77 Definition and grades of 74 Dual treason 80 Elements of offense 83 Enemies, aid and comfort to 88 Enemies, who are 87 Evidence of reputation 90 Federal statutes 75 Force necessary 85 Intent and overt act 83 John Brown's raid 81 Levying war, what constitutes 85 Misprision of treason 76 Overt act, what is 84 Power of courts 78 Principals, all participants are 90 Rioting and levying war distinguished 86 State constitutions and statutes 79 Treaties Aliens, status of 272 United States See NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP. Voters See SUFFRAGE. Voting Alien voters 66 War See CIVIL WAR. TREASON. Levying war, what constitutes 85 Rioting and levying war distinguished 86 War amendments See FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT. Women Citizenship by marriage 63 Nonresident wives of citizens 64 Women's rights Regulation of 214 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS LD 21-100m-8,'34 % YC 08'