The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-12-01

United States, and subject to the iurisdItio1
Thereof, are cit zens of he United States, and OF
the state wherein they res de"
In the Slaughter House Cases, the Suprema
Court ofthe United States say, this is a DECLARE
United States without regard TO their ci'tzen.
snip OF a particular state, and 10 Overturns The
DftH SCOT qe islon, by making all persons born
wlhln the United states, and subject to it's iurfs-
dietion, citizens OF the UniIed States That its
nam purpose was TO establish the citizenship of
the negro can admit OF no doubt. The phrase.
subject to its iurisdiction, was intend d to ex-
cohsuis, ana citizens or subjects OF foreign states
born within The Unite Stales.p II recognizes
and establishes a distinction between citizen
ship of the United States and citizenship OF a
state. Not only may q man Se a
citizen of the United States without
Dmannss + cI nscen OIL a state, but an important ele-
the latter. he must reside within the state TO
make him a citizen of IL, but 1t is only necessary
United States TO be a citizen ofthe Union. IL is
quite clear then, that there is a citizenship Of
which are distinct from each other. and which
depend upon different characteristics and cir
Gums ances In the individual" Hence "A negro
my be a citizen of the United states and reside
without its territorial limits, or within some one
OF the terfltorleSi out he can not be a citizen OF a
state.
Second. "No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or i'm
munities of citizens of the United States"
cituse uoeS not refer 10 citizens of the
states. IL embraces only citizens of the limited
states: IL leaves out the words ~"citizen of the
state, which Is so carefully used, and used in
contradistinciion TO citizens of the United States
IN the preceding sentence; 1t places the privi-
leges and immunities OF citizens of the United
States. under the protection OF The
federal con %titution, and leaves the
privileges and immunities of citizens
OF a state under the protection of the state con-
stltution. This Is fully shown by the recent
States in the Slaughter House cases, I6 Wallace,
81. ~
Mr.. Justice Miller, in delivering the opinion
| OF tie court and in SnPaKlnUi in raHQrancaf To tho
clause under examination, says:
at is a little remarkable, If this clause was in
against the lRegisiative pow seS Of Sf' his own W a state ssa.e
That the word 'itizen of the state should be left
out when II is so carefully used, and used in
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES to citizenso the United States,
10 the very sentence which prscedes it. II is too
clear Tor argument that the change in phrase
Ology was adopted understandingly and with a
purpose
citizen of the United States, and OF the privi-
leges and immunitles of the citizen of the state,
anu what they respectively are, we will pres
emily consider; but we wish to state here that ii
IS only the former which are placed by this
clause under the protection of the federal con-
sutution, and that the latter, whatever they
may be, are not intended to have any addi-
tlonal protection by this paragraph of the
amendment"
'.If, then, there is a difference between the
privileges and immunities belonging 10 a CT izen
OF the United states as such, and those belonging
must rest for their security and protection whore
they have heretofore rested for they are not
ment."
The same learned judge in the further examin-
alton of the second clause says:
"It would be the vainest show of learning to
attempt TO prove by citations of authority that
up TO the adoption OF the recent amendments,
no claim or pretense was set up that those
rights depended on The federal government for
their existence or protection, beyond the very
lew express Limitations which the federal con-
stitution imposed upon the states-such, for in
stance, as the prohibition against ex-post facto
laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the
Obligations OF CONTRACTS. But with the exception
Of these and a few other restrictions, the entire
domain of the privileges and immunities of citi-
zens of the states, as above defined, lay within
the constitutional and legislative power of the
states, and without that of the federal govern
ment. Was 1t the purpose of the fourteenth
amendment, by the simple declaration that no
stateshould make or enforce any law which shall
abrldge the privileges and immunities of citi-
zens of the United States, to transfer the
security and protection of all the civil rights
which We ha e mentioned, from the states to the
federal government? And when it is declared
that Congress shall have the power to enfore that
aracie, was IL Intended TO bring within the
rights heretofore belonging exclusively 10 the
states?
IAN this and more must follow, if the posi-
ton of the plaintiffs in error be sound. For not
only are these rights subject to the control of
Congress whenever, in its discretion, any of
them are supposed to be Abridged by state
legislation, but that body may also pass laws
In advance, limiting and restricting the exer
else of legislative power by the states, in the
most ordinary and useful functions, as in its
Judgment it may think proper on all such sub
ODAot w "
lowed By the reversal of the judgments of the
Supreme Court of Louisiana in these cases"
grant, by the Legislature of louisiana of an ex-
elusive right guarded by certain limitations as
to price, etc., to a corporation created by it, for
twenty five years TO build and maintain slaueh-
ter houses, &C., and prohibited the right to all
others, within a certain locality. would con-
stltute this court a perpetual censor upon all
legislation Of the states, on the civil rights of
their own ciuzeDs, with authority 10 nulliiy
such as IT did not approve as consistent with
those rights, as they existed at the time of the
adoption of this amendment.
"Ihe argument, we admit, is not always the
most conclusive which is drawn from the con
sequences urged against the adoption of a par
ticular construction of an instrument. But
when, as in the case before us. these conse-
QuenceS are so serious, so far-reaching and per-
vading, so great a departure from the str cture
ana spirit OF our Institutions; when the effect
is 10 ietter and degrade the state governments
by subjecting them 10 the control of Congress,
conceded to them Of the most ordinary and
fundamental character; when in fact it rad
1cally changes the whole theory of the relation
Of the state and federal governments to eacn
other and of both these governments TO the
people. the argument has a force that is irresis-
tible, in the absence oflanguage which expresses
such a purpose too clearly TO admit of dOubt. We
are convinced that no such results were 10
amendments, nor by the legislatures of the
states which ratified them"
Third: "Nor shall any state deprive any per-
process of law"
This clause is the same contained in the fifth
amendment to the constitution of the United
States, but there applied to the action of the
federal governments, and here placed as a check
upon the states. But the constitution OF our
state, and perhaps of all the states, contain just
such a provision, so that it expresses no new
principle, but is the old rule in force since the
foundation Of the state governments. 1t prohib-
its the states from depriving any person of life,
liberty or property except lin the due course of
legal proceedings, according to those rules and
forms which have been established" by the
state, "for the protection OF private rights"
Cooley on Const. Linn. $50, $50; Westerveltv VS..
Gregg, II n. Y, 209.
Fourth. "Nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
In regard to this clause the Supreme Court of
this state, in The State VS.. Gibson, SO Ind, $50.
say, it 'fseems to have been added in the album
dance of caution, for il provides in express
terms what was the fair, logical, and just inn
plication from what had preceded il, and that
was, that the persons made citizens by the
amendment should be protected by the laws In
the same manner. and tn the same pyfanf that /