The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-04-17

"a FAR ns The cons,itutIona laws can 'rrc. 70
The first arc'i"n Of Inc os""riaIly Invited, opens
rt,n u Gnion mf cit!zcnshp-nnt on,y e. ~ tho
ship OF the United Sia,' wan a nreyi"sly found IN
sn.i,,ntion nor had my attempt heen in.ue 10
define it ar of Conrre ~. IL ro n y the cxcct-
."n ., anu I'm the public journals. IL
I'D Icrm said Try circuit Judges tl no ihln va VI;
,, n ,r ~ nun Of hr states composing the Union.
| those. therefore, who had been born ahu re-
In The Territories. though within me t", .sa
| Gi,tns were not citizens. Whether this
proposition was sound or not bad never :crn llal,
cialiy decided. But It had been held by TINS court
| I'm The celebrated bred Scnt case, only rev ears
rforc the outbreak of The civil war, that man OF
African descent, whether slave or not: was not ana
could not he Il citizen of State or OF the Uniteh
| states This decision, while IL met the cnndemna-
ton nf some of the abcs statesmen and CONSTITUTE
tiona LAWYERS of the country, had never been over
ruled: and If T. was Ia bc accented AZ conslitti,
rlol nitltion Of the -ht OF citizenship tncii All
the negro who had recently been n'"'c lrcelhch
| were sin not only not citizens. but even incIpaDic
of becoming SO uyaayIhing short of an amendment
| TO the Constitution.
TO remove this difficulty primarily. and to estlh-
fish a clear aud comprehensive dcGnition of cltl-
| zcnslIip. which shonld declare what should consii-
Tut. citizenship Of the United States and also citi-
zenship fla State, tho first clause OF the rs' sccsoh
can persons born or naturalizcd in the United
States and subject 10 The jurisdiction thcrc"i. are
citizens Of the United States and OF the STATE W'cre
| in they reside" ,,
The l,st observation we have to make on this claus
Is that IL puts nj rest both the questions which We
sl:,tc to have been the subject Of differences Of
opinion. Ii declares that persons may he cltlZchS ni
me Tilted states without rfEar1 TO ,r the bred
Scott decision by making all persons born WIND
the United Staes and subject r to rs sin n"r
pose 10 establish the citizenship oil the ilfeLo
can admit of no doubt. The person si''1cc' 10 us
was ,ntendch - cS"le and czcns
subjects Of foreign States born "ithih the .h'co
StLtcs.
CITIZENSHIP OF TIE UNITED STATES AND OF
| STATE.
| The next observation Is more import INT. In view
OF the arguments Of cunsrl IN The pise,ii cas-.
Is that the distinction between citizenship OF lc
recnguizcn and continued Not only may man he
citizen of The United States without hrlne clthn
OF state. but an important element Is nc'c.sIas H.
convert the former into the latter. lie mus, Its.ur
within the state to make him citizen of it: but IL Is
only necessary that he should be born or naturhn W.
In the Uhiled States to he citizen nl me 'hui'
| II is quit. clear. then. that there is en-,
z"nslip Of the Uniici states and Il cllH,n,i'p vt
State; Which are d.tinct from ell n.l a.; air.
| which depend unon different characttrisll's ~ sii
| cnln>ttnrcs in the Individual We ihink is ~,
tihction and It's explicit recognition In iIis ae.
men Of great weigh: in This argument. n'cSe , me
next paragraph Of this same section, which Is me
one muy relied on by The plaintiff Ill error seahs
only Of privilege, ana nln,tirs9 , r e1o M
To citizens of the several states me i, tun''n ~
however in favor Of plaintiffs rS c w sn , y" the the
| privileges aud nmunitcs guaranteeh ny '"c '''"Se
| are the same. "a m
tor, any laNS which shall abridgc tue privileges or
| immunlirs of ctiz"ns nj the United states II i
little remarkable. If this clause was infenu".l a. Il
protection to the citizen OF i State against w
legislative power of his own State. that Inc WORDS
cliizcns otthe State" should be left out when IL Is so
carefully used and used in contradlstinc'ion to GU
Gems of the CnitcI states IN the very sentence which
prcccdcs it. 1t too clear for arSulncnt tii ihe
| change in l,hrascnlo@y was adopted i!i1rfnifi'i!
| 4 I In br pirI- md
the United States and Of The privileges anu i'''lu
mites al the citizen of the State. aud what llcI re-.
| >pccivcly are. will presently consider: hl we
wish Ia State here that II Is only the former when
are placed by this clause under the protection 81 inc
Federal Constitution: aud tllr ihr E'llrr Ml;rHeT
they may he are not intended Ia li;'r any a''Il,iti
protection Jay ti par graph OF lin. aiIlcdnc"i H.
thea there i, difference between the !riilirSt- ;!n
iumintirS belonging ID Il cit zen OF III" ! nilcu
Starcs AS such AID tloc belonging to The citizen OF
State such! the latter must rest for their security
and protection where they have heretofore rested.
$, far as This Paragraph is concerned. for they re-
ceivc no additional ala from H.
That is, LET Us say. with the Legislatures
and courts of the several States.
In other words. Negroes rights as citl-
zen of Virginia cannot be determined in Il
Federal court nor by Congress.
The court goes on to define the privileges |
and immunitics Of citizens, and quotes |
with appreciation an old opinion of Mr. Jus.
ticc WASHINGTON, as follows:
What are the privileges and immuuitics of citi- |
Zrns of the several States: We feel no hesitation
in c"Hiining these eXprcsson>.to those privileges
and umtlmiti.s which INSTRUMENTATION be-
long Of right 10 tie citizens al all free governments
aud which have at all times been enjoyed by cli-
Zls of The several States which cnnpO-" this Union
from the time al their becoming free independent.
ana sovereign. What these fundamental principles
are il would DC more tedious than difficult ocnun.-
rate.
They may AL. however, he Comprchcnd,d under
ihc following general hcads: Protection by tue
properly Of every kind and 10 pursue and obtain
htppinc>s and safety. subject. nevertheless, 10 slch
restraints III" Government may prescribe Tor the
Throughout his :'shin-ton'>l opinion they are
spoken o: rs ri"Ets belonging IL the Individual as
citizen uf Il state. They spoke "t IN the con,
>ti.tolaI provision Which H.. vas co'ISlruil:. INA
they have always been held /" be the class OF rights
which :hc state Governments were directed 10
I'm the ease Of Paul against Virginia Is Walacc,
1901 The Court. in expanding tins clause OF inc
Constitutions says that 1.-The privileges 'tilu lmnnnl
Tics secured - citizens of each state in the several
States by the provision In question are those priv
zcns In the latter States, under their ,"n,'ii rs
and laws. by virtue OF their being CITIZENS. Inc
constitutional nroyiSH In re i i,r mri 10 m an and
immunit:eS OF citizens OF the Stttcs' II Threw
around them IN that clause no security Tor inc GU
zen of the State where exercised nor dd II pretend
To curtail the power Of the States over them: lis
>olc purpose was TO declare to the several states
that whatever those rights are as you grant or eStab-
fish them oras You limit crafty them. or impose
re strictinns their exercise The same no more nor
less shall be the mcas urr OF INC rights OF citizens q
| other States within your inri stction.
| II would bc the vainc>t show of learning to at
tempt to prove by sclcc ions of authority that up
to the adoption OF the recent amendments no claim
| or urcirc was set up that those rights depended
on the Federal Government for their cNistcLcc or
protection hcyotd The very few cypress limitations
| >tac>-such, for instance, as tie prohibition
against post ttdo laws. bills 3f atlaiuder ana
| laws iupairns the obligation OF contracts tut
with th. Sc and few other restrictions tine entire
domain OF The privileges and immInitirs Of ci,i-
u.s of the States. rs above defined lay within The
c,.nstjtutouai and legislative power oi' the states
and without that of tie Federal Government.
Wa, 1t the purpose ofthc fr liners OF the fourteenth
shalt make enforce any laws which si!l abi1,Se
| the privileges and ilnmunitic' Of citizens III the
lion of ali the ri,il rights which WE have mentioned
| from the States To the Federal Government? Ana
where 1t is declared that Congress shall have power
TO ruforcc that article, WAS II INTENDED 10 oIlnI
within the power al Conwrc,S the cGIirc domain OF
civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to tie
States? .
ali this and more must follow II this propositions;
Of plaintiffs In error he sound fornot only are these
rights subject 10 the control OF Congress- whenever
abridged by State legislation. but that body NAV also
PASS laws in advance Il hitting aud resisting the eN-
erclSe e" @ pITHr p e it, nr
or discretion II may think proper on all such sjccts
| And still further, such CONSTRUCTION. followed
by The reversal of the judgments OF the Supreme
Court Of Loul.ian in these eases. would cun,t ntr
This Court perpetual censor upon all lcgi-lati"n OF
the states ON the civil rights CT its cwnrit with
authority 10 nuiy such rs IL did not approve
sstcnt with those rights Is they existed ii the lime ut
theaIioption Of till, smcI!dinent The arguincn,w We
admit, Is not always the most cone usiNe where
IL draws from the consequences urged against the
adoption OF particular construction of an lnStru-
net. But whcn us In the case before U.S. these con-
sequences so SERIOUS STD iar-reaclng, and per-
vadng, ST. great departure from the structure and