Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1857-03-20

WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES


ABSTRACT Of me OpiHiOH % Judge Gurus OF !
The UnHed STATES Supreme Court
From the Springfield Republican.
The first and prominent fact in reference
to the subject, is that the United States
constitution nowhere defines the elements
of citizen. 1t tacitly leaves the matter to
the states, or accepts as citizens the whole |
people of the country.
Judge Curtis says that the citizens of the
United States, at the time Of the adoption
Of the constitution, could have been no
other than citizens of the United states
under the confederation. That government
was in existence when the present constitu-
ton was framed, SO that when the constitu-
ton speaks of citizen of the United States
it speaks Of him as he existed under the
government which obtained at the time OF
its adoption. 1t may be safely said that
the citizens of the several states were citi
zens Of the United States under the con-
federation. The government was simply
confederacy Of the several states possessing
a few defined powers over subjects of gen.
eral concern, each state retaining every
power, jurisdiction and right not expressly
delegated to the United States in Congress
assembled. And no power was thus dele
gated to the government of the contedera-
! ton, to act on any question OF citizenship
or to make any rules in respect thereto
| To determine whether native born descen-
! dants of Africans were then considered citi-
zcns of the United States, it is only neces
sary to know whether such persons were
citizens Of any Of the several states at the
time the constitution was adopted. There
| is no doubt of this All free descendants of
! slaves in New Hampshire, Massachusetts,,
New York, New Jersey and North Carolina
were citizens of those states, and possessed
] al. i IL. al
with other citizens. To prove this, Judge
Curtis quotes from the records of the SUI
preme court of North Carolina the opinion,
as delivered by Judge CASTOR, upon case
which involved the decision of this ques-
ton. We quote
According to the laws Of this state" says Mr..
Justice CASTOR in deli vering the opinion Of the
court, call human beings within it who are not
| slaves, fall within one or two classes. Whatever
| distinctions may have existed in the Roman laws
| between citizens and free inhabitants, they are
| unknown to our institutions. Slaves nanumtted
here become freemen, and, therefore, if born
within North Carolina, citizens Of North
Carolina, and all free persons born within the
state born citizens of the state The constitu-
ton extended the elective franchise to every free
man who had arrived at the age Of 81, aud paid a
public tax; and it is matter Of universal noto-
rety, that under 1t, free persons, without regard
to color, claimed and exercised the franchise,
til it taken from free men Of color a few
years since by our amended constitution"
In subsequent case before the same
court, this decision was referred to as au-
thOritative and decisive, having been arrived
at after much study and care. In Massachu.
sets the descendants of slaves have exer-
cised the right Of franchise from that time
to the present. New York has since at
tached new qualifications, as necessary for
colorel voters, and New Jersey has disfran-
chised them entirely as voters. But this
fact shows only that before the restrictions
were established no such restrictions exis-
ted.
The fourth of the fundamental articles Of
the confederation was that 1.-the free inhab'
itints of each of these states, paupers, vaga
bonds, and fugitives from Justice, excepted
shall be entitled to all the privileges anG
immunities of free citizens in the severa
states" This included free negroes, and
an attempt TO introduce the word white,
before ''inhabtants,'' was voted down, onl :
two states supporting it. Thus, at the
time of the adoption of the constitution
under the confederation, free colored per-
sons were recognized as citizens of the
several states, and therefore citizens Of the
United States.
That point being settled, did the consti-
&C., -, '"rriV" than of their citizenship
/ III hNc VI lHOsc states, tue Tree CDlUrGC
citizens voted on the question as to whether
the constitution should be adopted or not
There is nothing in the constitution that
deprives Of their citizenship any class OF
persons who We're citizens of the United
states at the time of its adoption, or who
should be native-born citizen of any state
alter its adoption, nor any power enabling
Congress to dlsranchse persons born on
the soil of any state, and entitled to citizen
ship ot such state by its constitution and
laws. Therefore, every free person born
on the soil of state, who is citizen OF
that state by force Of ITS constitution and
laws, is also a citizen Of the United States
The constitution having recognized this
rule, one of four things must be true -
First, That the constitution itself had described
what native born persons shall OF shall not be
citizens of the United States or
so or,
Third, That all free persons, born within the
several states, are citizens Of the United states or
Fourth, That il is lltt 10 each state TO deter
mine what tree persons, born within its limits,
shall be citizens Of such state, and esty be citi-
zens Of the United States.
No one will claim that the first OF these
alternatives has a basis of consideration.
We come then to the second Has it en-
powered Congress to enact what free per-
sons born within the several states shall or
shall not be citzens Of the United States
Has the constitution empowered Congress
! TO create privileged classes cHA3n the Statcsl
II SO the power is unlimlted-dscretiona
Tor certainly no limits of that discretion
can be found in the constitution If so.
Congress may not be able to establish no.
bihty, but it can create an oligarchy, in
whose hands would be concentrated the en-
tire power of the federal government. All
! provisions possibly bearing on this point
should be scrutinized. Among the powers
delegated to Congress is the power to es-
! tabllsh uniform rule Of naturalization
IL is not doubted that the power here allu-
ded t o Is that to prescribe a rule for the re-
moyal Of the disabilities consequent on for.
elgn birth. 1t can extend no further, and
this is the only power granted to Congress
to legslate concerning citizenship Whe-
Fer there be anything in the constitution
from which broader power may he implied
will best be seen when we'come to examine
the two other alternatives, which are, whe-
Their all free persons, born on the soil of the
several states, or only such of them as may
be citizens of each state respectively, are
thereby citizens of the United States. To
the last OF these Judge Curtis adheres.
We find that the constitution has recor-
nlzed the general principle of public law,
that allegiance and citizenship depend on
the place of birth, that the constitution was
ordained by the citizens of the several states,
that they were A" the people OF the United
States for whom and whose posterity the
government was declared, in the preamble
of the constitution, to be made, that each
OF them was citizen of the United States
at the time Of the adoption of this constitu-
ton, within the meaning of those words in |
that instrument that by them the govern
ment was to be and was in fact organized
and that no power is conferred on the gov
eminent Of the Union to discriminate be- |
tween them, or to disiranchise any of them.