Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-04-18


wish to b aye understcod,is that ID any fair
and just construction of any section or
phrase Of these amendments, it Ia necsssa-
~ TO look always TO the purpose which We
have said was the pervading spirit of them
all the evil which they were designed to
remedy, and the process of continual add
ton to the constitution, until that purpose
was supposed to be accomplished as far as
constitutional laws can accomplish it.
The first section of the Fourteenth Arti-
ccle, TO which our attention Is more spec
tally invited, opens with a definition OF
citizenship-not only citizenship of the
United States, but citizenship of the States;
no such definition was previously found In
the Constitution, nor had any attempt been
made to define it by Act Of Congress. 1t
had been the occasion of much discussion
in the courts, by the Executive depart
INNS, and In the public journals. 1t had
been said by Circuit Judges that no man
was citizen of the United States, except
as be was citizen Of one ofthe States COM
posing the Union. Those, therefore, who
had been born and resided always in I'll Q
District of Columbia or in the Territories,
though within the United States,
were not citizens. Whether this PROPOSE
ton was sound or not, had never been ju-
diciaIly decided. But it had been held by
this Court in the celebrated bred Scott
case only few years before the outbreak
of the civil war, that man of African de-
scent, whether slave or not, was not and
could not be citizen of q State or Of the
United State. This decision, while it met
the condemnation of some of the ablest
statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the
country, had never been overruled, and if
it was TO be accepted as a constitutional
limitation of the right Of citizenship, then
all the negro race who had recently been
made freemen were still not only not citi-
zens, but even incapable of becoming so by
anything short of an amendment to the
Constitution.
To remove this difficulty primarily, and
to establish clear and comprehensive de-
finit:on of citizenship, which should declare
what should constitute citizenship of the
United States and also citizenship Of
State, the first clause of the first section
was framed:
"An persons born or naturslized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdic-
ton thereof, are CT liens of the United and
of the State wherein they reside"
The first observation we have to make
on this clause is, that it puts at rest both
the questions which we stated to have been
the subject of ff-rences of opinion. 1t
declares hat persons may be citizens ofthe
United States without regard to the citizen
ship of particular State; and it oVerturDs
the bred Scott Edecision by making all per
sons born within the United States, and SUBJ
ject to its jurisdiction, citizens OF the United
States. That its main purpose was to es-
tablish the citizenship of the negro can ad-
NIT of no doubt. The person ''subject to
its Jurisdiction" was intended to exclude
from its operations children of ministers,
consuIs, and citizens or subjects of foreign
States, born within the United States.
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES AND
OF A STATE.
The next observation is more important,
10 view of the arguments Of counsel in the
present case. Is is that the dstinction be-
tween citizenship of the United States and
citizenship of State is clearly recognized
and continued. Not only may man be
citizen of the United States without being
citizen of "a State, but an important ele-
ment is necessary TO convert the former in
TO the latter. He must reside within the
State to make him citizen of it; but it is
only necessary that ne should De Dorm or
naturalized in the United States to be citi-
zen Of the Union. 1t is quite clear, then,
that there is citizenship of the
United States and citizenship
of State, which are distinct from each
other, and which depend upon different
chars cteristics or circumstances in the ipdi
vidual. We think this distinction and its
explicit recognition in this amendment of
great weight in this argument, because the
next paragraph of this same section, which
is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs
in error, speaks oply of privileges aud i'm
munities of citizens of the United States,
and does not speak of those belonging to
citizens of the several States. The argu-
ment, however, in favor of plaintiffs rests
wholly on the assumption that the citizen
ship is the same and the privileges and i'm
munities guaranteed by the clause are the
same.
CONCLUDED TOMORROW