The Washington union., 1857-06-04

though the section of the constitution conferrng the
power has not been harmoniously agreed upon. We
acquire, and all agree that the acquisition is legal
We govern but dispute concerning the source OF the
power under which we act as well as its extent We
have shown that it was not derived from the power
to make needful regulations concerning our revolu
tionary territory. If il is derived from the necessities
of ownership, which there is much reason TO be-
leve, it is not constitutional power. If drawn from
necessity, il must be limited to that necessity Its
exercise must then, be confined TO what is actually
necessary to preserve protect and render available
the acquisition. II must go no step beyond. That
it is not matter of necessity to exclude certain kinds
OF property from acquired territory, where it would be
useful to those who would take it there, is too plain
to need elucdation illustration The necessities of
the purchase cannot clothe the purchaser with the
power to exclude or oreitproperty lawfully held and
used in many sovereign States and which has been in
all. Necessity will permit police laws, and those
which protect property and punish crime, and facii
tate the sale of lands, but not those which deprive
men Of their legal property or just rights. If the
power to acquire property draws after it the power
necessary to control and protect 1T cannot authorize
its destruction forfeiture II follows that the Mis-
contemporaries act has constitutional or legal
ground to sustain it, and it rghtfully held to be
null and void for want of power in Congress- to en-
act it.
The next question is, the plaintiff citizen of
circuit court2
Neither the constitution the laws Of Congress
define citizenship, and probably State law con-
stitution does So The term 'ctizen" must mean
precisely what it did when the constitution was
framed. That instrument speaks of "natural-born
citizens and those who were "chizens of the United
States at the time of the adoption Of the constitution
and authorizes Congress sto establish uniform rule
of naturalization The two first are alone egi
bic to the presidency, while no person be
ator until he has been nine, or representative until
he has been seven, years "a citizen of the United
States. 1t is clear, then that there is class of
persons who are under the constitution, citizens of
the United States portion of whom are natural
born,'' and the other adopted or 'naturalaed.
Wherever the word Citizen in acts of Con-
gress it most clearly refers to one OF these
classes Mr.. Writ so held, and authoritative
tribunal has determined otherwise. When the
ASNSA~N
risdiction in cases "between citizens Of different
States it clearly means between citizens Of the Uni
ted States domiciled in different States; and when
Congress- acting under this provision conferred this
jurisdiction upon the circuit court it had citizens of
the United States in view. That court has jurisdic
ton under the Judiciary act where 'the suit is
between citizen of the State where the suit
is brought and citizen Of another State" or,
in other words where the parties citizens Of the
United States, the one residing where the suit is
brought and the other in different State. Where
ever the constitution speaks Of citizen, it unques
tionably means citizen Of the United States either
natural-born or naturalized. When Congress in leg
slaton the expression unless the contrary clearly
appears it cannot be denied that it bears the same
import The trainers of the constitution attached some
definite meaning to the word They would have been
astounded if told it might afterwards have as many
as there might be States and perhaps quite contra
dctory and each subject to change with the caprice
of legislatures.
In Athens the children of Athenians only were cit
izens, and in Rome only those Romans who were
enrolled in the t,rty-fve tribes and We're capable
of the highest dignites
Bouvier in his Law Dictionary, says that lin
more extended sense under the word citizen are in
cluded all rrhite persons born IN the Uaaed States and
naturalired persons born out Of the who have not
lost their right as such This includes men, women,
and children" Mr. Writ held that none but free
white persons were citizens of the United States
Such was unquestionably the understanding of the
trainers of the constitution and until it's recent read
ing by "colored lights such the understanding
of the American people. Kent says: "The better
opinion, should think, was, that the negroes or
other slaves born within and under the allegiance of
the United States are natural born subjects, but not
citizens" Chief Justice Daggett, of Connecticut
truly said in Crandalls It would be perver-
sion of terms and the well-known rule of construc-
ton to say slaves free blacks, Indians citi
zens within the meaning Of that term used in the
constitution"
Chief Justice Gibson one of Pennsylvanias most
eminent ursts in delivering the opinion of the court
in Hobbs Us. Fogg laid down the same rule. BY the
constitution Of Pennsylvania reemen alone were en-
titled to vote. Fogg was free negro; and, on the
Judges of election refusing his vote, he prosecuted
them. On the case going to the supreme court, it
there determined that negro whether bond or
free was not freeman within the meaning of the
constitution The Chief Justice said
But In addition to the INTERPRETATION from ueaco