Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1863-04-01

State, and yet not b entitled 10 the rights
and privileges Of q citizen In. any Other !
State. For previous to the 1do0llon q
the Constitution of the United 6tates,
every State bad the sundopbted right to |
confer on MhomsoeveI It. pleaoed the |
charaefer of > citizen, AID . endow him |
With ~ its rights But thfs chszAceer of |
course was confined to The boundariss of |
the State, ard gave him no rights or |
privileges inother States beyond thoGe Be. |
cured to him by the law of nations and the |
comfy of States. Nor have the several |
States surrendered the power of confer |
ring these rights end privileges, by |
adopting the constitution Of the United |
States. Gach State may still confer them
upon An alien, or any ore it thinks proper,
or upon any class or description of per-
sons /; yet be would net be citlxer, in the
sense in which that " ord is used in the
consultation of tae United States, nor en-
titled to sue as such in one of its courts,
nor to the privileges and immanities of
citizen in the other Staass. The rights
which he would acquire would be restric-
ted to the state which gave them. The
Constitution has conferred On Congress,
the right to establish an uniform rule of
! naturalization, and this right is evidently
exclusive and has always been held by
this court to be 80. Consequently no
State since the adoption of the Oopstitu-
| ton, can by naturalizing an alien, invest
him with the rights and privileges secured
| to 3 citizen of state under the Federal
| Government, although so far as tie State
alone was concerned, he poaM undoubtedly
| be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and
| clothed Dith all the rights and inanunities,
sohich the Constitution and laos of tho
State attached to that character" 10Th
How. p. 400.
| The power of State to co nfer a right
of citizenship, so far as it alone is CON-
cerned, and which does not amount to q
| full citizenship of the United States, couLi
not be more plainly stated than it is in
the above extract. 1t is true, however,
that further on in the opinion, on page
| 422, the court says: =" So too a person
" may be entitled to vote by the law of
" State, who is not q citizen even of the
i" State itself. And in some of the States
6 of the Union foreigners not naturalized,
" are allowed to vote. And the State
may give the right to free negroes and
d" mulattoes, but that does not make them
" citizens of the State, and still less os the
2" United States"
Still what is here said does not detract
at all from the broad doctrine stated in the
former extract. 1t means no more than
this, that the State may confer the right
to vote without necessarily making those
on whom it is conferred, citizens of the
State even. This may possibly be true.
But the power of the State being conce-
ded, to confer the rights of citizenship,
within itself, upon whomsoever it pleases
the question whether it hes done 30 OF
not, is a mere question of intention, to be
determined by proper construction of its
own constitution and laws, and one also
which the supreme tribunal of each state
is to determine for itself.
This being 80. although it may be posi-
sible for State to confer the right o.
voting on certain persons without max
ing them citizens, yet l should think
! it would require very strong evil
dences of a contrary intention, te
overcome the inference of an intention
to create citizenship where the right o.
) suffrage is conferred. The remarks O
Justice Curtis, in his dissenting opinion il
the bred Scott case, 19 How. p 5ad, state
, the true effect which ought to be given te
, the existence Of this right. He says
, But further, though as shall presently
, more fully state, do not think the en-
"joyment of the elective franchise essen
+" tial to citizenship, there can be no doub
, sit is one of the chiefest attributes of citi
"zenship under the American Oonstitu
ton; and the just and constitutions
possession of this right is decisive evil
"dence of citizenship. The provisions
"made by constitution On this subject
"must therefore be looked to, as bearing
"directly upon the question what persons
are citizens under that constitution
,, And this position is entirely in harmony
with all the established definitions of the
word ''citizen." Indeed it is often used
, in general sense as meaning only per-
manent resident, That is one of the def.
nitions given by Webster. So in Field et
al cs. Andreon ct al, 7th Maryland 2O9 il
was held that resident alien, who had
+ not declared his intentions, and was en-
titled to no political rights under the laws
of the State, was still "citizen," within
the meaning of the attachment laws OF
that State against absconding citizens
Yet it Is true that in 6 political sense
the word citizen implies the possession of
political rights. But the rights of voting
and holding Office are always given as the
most complete and perfect attributes OF
citizenship. Thus Webster gives the fol-
lowing definition: " In the United States
person native or naturalized, who has
the privilege of exercising the elective
franchise, or the qualifications which ena-
BILE him to vote for rulers, and to purchase
end hold real estate" Bourier's defini-
ton is as follows: Zone who, under the
constitution and laws of the United States,
has right to vote for representatives in
Congress, and other public officers, and
who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of
the people" Burrll gives the same def
milton.
Bearing in mind then that the inquiry
relates only to such rights of citizenship
as this State could confer, with respect to
itself alone, how should it be determined
upon our constitution and laws with re-
spect to the class of persons to which the
petitioner in this case belongs2 The an
swer must be that there is no room for
|doubt that it was the intention to confer
upon such persons, as far as it was possible
for the State to do so the full rights OF
State citizenship. In the FIRST place, those
persons had an equal voice with any OH
er citizens in establishing the constitution