, 1873-04-18


qualifications. Pending thte application she also tllei
ys - 10 hi That as s s9s n h
tlat State; TINT sho was now ozea Of the United
States, Hna bas bcen for many years PA, 1esident
with this affidavit she also filed paper claiming that
under the foregoing facts, she wna entitled to tho H.
Fourth xrtieis of tic Constitution Of ths United
etatea and Of the Fourteenth article Of amendment Of
ansea s The psr.5n % sa a' IL s ss
st:sv, ,.s ', soia@s9:s. sendsst t !, ds;sni
PARTLY concerned, in any court Of rocord within this
State either by using or subscribing his nno,
viously obtained icenso Tor f,at purpose from some
two Of tho Justices Of tho Supreme Court, which L.
onsy stss and S hi @
to apponr In all the courts Of record within t1 Htnte
% tee ~ nn
Supreme Court Court, denied . the application apparsnt,y
H. psrs @
taken that tho paintir asserted ler right 10
Of n ses s, hst so pssa
q Illinois, entitled e right granted to any c!ttzou
claims OF right, founded on tue caimR OF tho Federal
Constitution before referred TO- those proposittonamay
rs o ha b.
citizens ot each State sha bo cnied to all the pr!vi
leges and mnunes Of oitizena in the Heyeral sateH
tho platntH In her affidavit hns stated worry clearly
casa in which 1t ia inapplcable The protection do
sgnod y hnt clause, % has been repeatedly held has
NJ application to citizen Of tho btate whoro laws
complained Of. II plaintiff WAS citxon OF tito
] Btste Of Illinois that proyieion Of the Constitution
gave hor protection against its courta LegiHa-
ture. The plaintiff Reoils to hayo this difficulty,
and attempts to avid by stating TINT ao born
| In Vermont. Wilo she remained In Vermont TINT
circumstance made her citizen Of that ssae. hut
sho htates at tho salno t1ne that Be III now czon Of
the United States, and TINT rho ia and has been
for many yenrs past resident Of Chicago, In Tho
8tato Of Illinois,. Tho Fourteenth Amendment do
arc cttizons Of tie States within which they
reside, therefore printlH waa nt tho tilno Of
| making her application, citizen Of tho United
Btatea and citizen OF tho Etato Of Illinois, Wo do
not hore to Bay that there 1nny not 10 tempo-
Eary resIdenee in 8tato, with intent to return to
otler which will not create ctlzophp In tho former,
uut plaintiff staten nothing to take Aor cako out Of tho
donnition Of citizenship of Btas delned by tho
! hrat section Of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In regard to tie Fourteenth Amendment, counsel for
plaintiff IN this Court truly sass that thore arc cor
Of the United stataa such otherwise It would
he nonsenHe for tho Fourteenth Amendment to prn-
hilt State from nbridgng them; and l.o proceeds
| to argue that admission to tho bhr of Hlate of
| per4on who posscsaos tho requisite loarning aul
character IL OF those which State may nat deny,
III this ttter proposition hro not Abo to concur
with counsel. We agree With him that thsru nre prlvl-
le6es and innlunitiaa belonging to citlzenB Of tho
uaitea 8tates IN tat relation aud character hnh that
It ia these mud these alone which State is forbidden
to abr.lgo. but the right 10 admission to practice lgw
In tho Court Of State IL not OF them. Thia riaht
| Ia 20 seuss depends qa c4uz9pship u tue United