The Washington union., 1857-06-04

oouH carry the latter with MN, then IN IenlsyiVana
ar citizens would enjoy class of privileges, and
those coming from the thirty other States would en-
;ov those brought with them from said States That
od Commonwealth would present the extraordinary
.nscace of having thrty-one different sets of priyi
,ages and immunites in operation at the same time.
Those from slave States might insist upon the privi
,sge enjoyed at home of owning and controlling
sl,yes Such construction of the clause in ques-
linn would destroy her sovereignty, and place it at
,be mercy Of other States. 1t would put independ-
ont State sovereigntes at the mercy of those who
might choose to import the privileges and immuni-
Ties elsewhere permitted. Such construction would
end in confusion and anarchy, exactly what the
sttution designed to avoid The construction
tended for would place the circuit courts where their
iusdicton depends up citizenship at the control of
The several States instead of the constitution and laws
Of the United States. If Congress should define who
are citizens of the United States and entitled to
i; the circuit court and declare that only white per-
sons could be such, this construction would defeat
such law and permit even slaves to sue therein The
institutions Of the United States not thus at the
mercy of the States.
red by this provision, then it can only be done by
States and not by Congress- or Territory. 1t fol-
lows that it could not have been done by the Com,
promise act il that act had in terms conferred cit
zenship upon free blacks instead of being silent
upon that subject If the argument used in this
is sound it would not constitute Scott citizen of
State. because neither Illinois, Missouri, nor any
boo ola 10 bo
citizens Becoming "citizen of Territory" did not
bring him within this provision; but if it did, it has
been repeatedly held that neither citizen of Ter
tory nor Of this District could in circuit court
when the jurisdiction depended upon citizenship.
The decision of the court rests upon broad grounds
while those who question its correctness do upon
principles which not i'm fact, involved; but, if
they were, would destroy the confederacy. The mi
norty Of the court construe the provision in question
with reference to circumstances which now exist in
a limited number of States, wholly regardless Of
those which led to its introduction into the consttu
tioh. They seek to gveit a meaning that was never
intended and never attributed to it until recent
w. when the necessities of politicians perverted it, 1t
is conceded that the several States have the exclu
sye control of every interest within their limits which
is not committed to the federal government by the
constitution or controlled by those principles Of right
which are the common law Of the world, and sane
toned by those laws of God which all authorities re-
spect
But the powers and authority of the States have
their limits in the principles of right and wrong, or
in the federal constitution. They cannot force into
the courts of the United States those whom they
may choose to denomnate citizens, but who are not
in fact 'ctzens of the United States, nor prevent
citizens Of the United States within their limits from
doing SO by Withholding any action Of theirs.
Jndge Curtis assumes that there is difference be-
tween the powers of State in cases where person
is born within or without its limits, and asserts that
she may make citizen of the former, although she
cannot of the latter No such rule is found in the
constitution of the United States nor in that of
State. State cannot naturaze aliens so as to make
'citizens of the United States, but it has precisely
the same power over all within her limits to make
them State citizens to confer withhold from them
privileges and immunities. He says that State can
not stake persons born the soil ofanother State,
contrary to the laws and policy Of the State where
they were born make them its citizens, and citizens
of the United States Certainly it cannot make
such ncomers or any else, citizens of the United
States because no such power is conferred upon any
State. But it degrades State to assume that
it cannot make State citizen out of man
born out as well as if born within it's limits. No
authority for such distinction is found in the
federal constitution; and if it really exists, it must
emanae from the institutions of the State. He
says whatever powers the States may exer-
else to confer privilege of citizenship on per-
not born on their soil, the constitution Of the
United States does not recognise such citizens No
where in the constitution is any such distinction
found which is without any foundation in any act of
Congress- and wholly inapplicable under our peculiar
Institutions; but the contrary, no State can con-
fer United States citizenship upon any one wherever
born or residing. To escape papable absurdities,
theory has been urged upon the courts which has no
foundation in our constitution. But, according to the
judges own reasoning, his conclusions are wrong,
because Scott was neither born in Illinois in the
Territory Of Wisconsin and therefore neither the State
nor Territory could make him citizen, there being
no law in either by which manumission would make
him one New theories adopted to secure particular
conclusions and consequences always end in ultimate
disappointment. Those originating in plain common
sense views sanctioned by long years Of intelligent,
patriotic, and universal practice far likely to
beripht ond laad 70 raaulfo iudiciaI