Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
If22U.S.C.212appliedonlytocitizensoftheUnitedStates,thenthesection wouldhavebeenchangedbackwhenTitle22wasbeingcompiled,tobeconsistent with22U.S.C211(a).However,thiswasnotdone.Whichmeans22U.S.C.212does notapplytoonlycitizensoftheUnitedStates. ThereasonthisissoisbecausetherearetwocitizensinthenationoftheUnited StateswhichoweallegiancetotheUnitedStates;thefirst,isacitizenoftheUnited States,underSection1oftheFourteenthAmendment,andthesecond,isacitizenof theseveralStates(united),underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution. AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionofthe UnitedStatesofAmerica,sincetheratificationoftheFourteenthAmendment, cannotassuchacitizenobtainapassportunder22U.S.C.212.Thisisbecausea citizenofaState,owesallegiancetoaparticularState[Footnote2],[Footnote3]. However,acitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1ofthe Constitution,isentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheseveral States,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution[Footnote5],andas suchisnowalsoacitizenoftheseveralStates,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1 oftheConstitution.[Footnote6] AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,isa citizenoftheseveralStates(united),onthehighseas[Footnote7].Assuch,a citizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,isacitizen oftheseveralStatesunitedunderinternationallaw,orthelawofnations. [Footnote8] AcitizenoftheUnitedStates,beforetheFourteenthAmendment,wasthesameas acitizenoftheseveralStatesunited[Footnote10]. IntheSlaughterhouseCases,theSupremeCourtsplitacitizenoftheUnited States/acitizenoftheseveralStatesunitedintotwoseparateanddistinctcitizens;a 2
citizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenoftheseveralStates[Footnote12]. Thereafter,therewasacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenoftheseveralStates (united): Itisquiteclear,then,thatthereisacitizenshipoftheUnitedStates,anda citizenshipofastate,whicharedistinctfromeachother,andwhichdependupon differentcharacteristicsorcircumstancesintheindividual. WethinkthisdistinctionanditsexplicitrecognitioninthisAmendmentofgreat weightinthisargument,becausethenextparagraphofthissamesection(first section,secondclause),whichistheonemainlyreliedonbytheplaintiffsinerror, speaksonlyofprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,and doesnotspeakofthoseofcitizensoftheseveralstates.Theargument,however,in favoroftheplaintiffs,restswhollyontheassumptionthatthecitizenshipisthesame andtheprivilegesandimmunitiesguaranteedbytheclausearethesame. SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.36,74(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false
SincetheFourteenthAmendmentandtheSlaughterhouseCases,thereisacitizen oftheUnitedStates,whoisnotacitizenoftheseveralStates(united)andacitizen oftheseveralStates(united)whoisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates.[Footnote 13] AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesowesallegiancetotheUnitedStates,andifresident inaStateoftheUnion,owesallegiancealsototheparticularState.[Footnote14] AcitizenoftheseveralStates(united)owesallegiancetotheseveralStates united;thatis,theUnitedStates.[Footnote15] Thus,acitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution, can,asacitizenoftheseveralStates,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1ofthe Constitution,obtainapassportunder22U.S.C.212.Thisisbecauseacitizenofa State,asacitizenoftheseveralStates(united)owesallegiancetotheseveralStates united;thatis,theUnitedStates. ________________________ Footnotes: 1.Inparticular,onJune14,1902,CongresspassedAnActToamendsectionsfour thousandandseventysix,fourthousandandseventyeight,andfourthousandand 3
2.Onthetrialinthecourtbelowthevalidityofthediscriminatingprovisionsofthe statuteofVirginiabetweenherowncorporationsandcorporationsofotherStates wasassailed.Itwascontendedthatthestatuteinthisparticularwasinconflictwith thatclauseoftheConstitutionwhichdeclaresthatthecitizensofeachStateshall beentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates, andtheclausewhichdeclaresthatCongressshallhavepowertoregulatecommerce withforeignnationsandamongtheseveralStates.Thesamegroundsareurgedin thiscourtforthereversalofthejudgment. Theanswerwhichreadilyoccurstotheobjectionfoundeduponthefirstclause consistsinthefactthatcorporationsarenotcitizenswithinitsmeaning.Theterm citizensasthereusedappliesonlytonaturalpersons,membersofthebody politic,owingallegiancetotheState,nottoartificialpersonscreatedbythe legislaturehasprescribed.Itistruethatithasbeenheldthatwherecontractsor rightsofpropertyaretobeenforcedbyoragainstcorporations,thecourtsofthe UnitedStateswill,forthepurposeofmaintainingjurisdiction,considerthe corporationasrepresentingcitizensoftheStateunderthelawsofwhichitis created,andtothisextentwilltreatacorporationasacitizenwithintheclauseof theConstitutionextendingthejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatestocontroversies betweencitizensofdifferentStates.Paulv.StateofVirginia:75U.S.(Wall.8)168, at177thru178(1869). http://books.google.com/books?id= bwGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false 3.IntheSlaughterhouseCases,theSupremeCourtheldthatacitizenofaStatewas separateanddistinctfromacitizenoftheUnitedStates: OftheprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheUnitedStates,andof theprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenoftheState,andwhattheyrespective are,wewillpresentlyconsider;butwewishtostateherethatitisonlytheformer whichareplacedbythisclause(Section1,Clause2oftheFourteenthAmendment) undertheprotectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthatthelatter,whateverthey 4
maybe,arenotintendedtohaveanyadditionalprotectionbythisparagraphofthe amendment.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false
Inaddition: IntheSlaughterhousecases,16Wall.36,thesubjectoftheprivilegesor immunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,asdistinguishedfromthoseofa particularState,wastreatedbyMr.JusticeMillerindeliveringtheopinionofthe court.Hestated...thatitwasonlyprivilegesandimmunitiesofthecitizenof theUnitedStatesthatwereplacedbythe[Fourteenth]amendmentunderthe protectionoftheFederalConstitution,andthattheprivilegesandimmunitiesof acitizenofaState,whatevertheymightbe,werenotintendedtohaveany additionalprotectionbytheparagraphinquestion,buttheymustrestfortheir securityandprotectionwheretheyhaveheretoforerested.Maxwellv.Dow:176 U.S.581,at587(1900).
http://books.google.com/books?id=8toGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA587#v=onepage&q&f=false
And: ...Itis,then,totheFourteenthAmendmentthattheadvocatesofthe congressionalactmustresorttofindauthorityforitsenactment,andtothefirst sectionofthatamendment,whichisasfollows:Allpersonsbornornaturalizedin theUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnited States,andoftheStatewhereintheyreside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylaw whichshallabridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,nor shallanyStatedepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocess oflaw,nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthe laws. Inthefirstclauseofthissection,declaringwhoarecitizensoftheUnitedStates, thereisnothingwhichtouchesthesubjectunderconsideration.Thesecondclause, declaringthatnoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichwillabridgethe privilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates,islimited,accordingto thedecisionofthiscourtinSlaughterHouseCases,tosuchprivilegesand immunitiesasbelongtocitizensoftheUnitedStates,asdistinguishedfrom thoseofcitizensoftheState.Nealv.StateofDelaware:103U.S.370,at406 (1880).[SeeFootnote4]
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y7wGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA406#v=onepage&q&f=false
SonowthereisacitizenofaStateandthereisacitizenoftheUnitedStates: WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNewYork SunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateofDelaware. Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil,forhe testifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHavenPalladium was,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogobackand forth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffectachange ofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceinanew domicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbemade, exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappearedthathewasacitizenofthe UnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationoftheFourteenth 6
Amendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateofDelaware.Anderson v.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delawarebeingthelegaldomicilof Edwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizenofanotherState,District, orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenofDelawareoracitizen orsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies,theCircuitCourt wouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelightofthetestimony, wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwardswasaresidentof theStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonablyconstrued,mustbe interpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenoftheStateofDelaware. Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze,8Wall.342.Sun Printing&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381thru383(1904).
http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false
7.AcitizenofaState,underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,isa citizenoftheseveralStates,onthehighseas: IftheUnitedStatesmaycontroltheconductofitscitizensuponthehighseas, weseenoreasonwhytheStateofFloridamaynotlikewisegoverntheconductof itscitizensuponthehighseaswithrespecttomattersinwhichtheStatehasa legitimateinterestandwherethereisnoconflictwithactsofCongress.Savefor thepowerscommittedbytheConstitutiontotheUnion,theStateofFloridahas retainedthestatusofaSOVEREIGN..... ...Whenitsactiondoesnotconflictwithfederallegislation,thesovereign authorityoftheStateovertheconductofitscitizensuponthehighseasisanalogous tothesovereignauthorityoftheUnitedStatesoveritscitizensinlike 8
circumstances.Skiriotesv.StateofFlorida:313U.S.69,at77,78thru79(1941).
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9757650854292938204
...Everystatehasthepowertoenactlawswhichwillpersonallybindits citizenswhilesojourninginaforeignjurisdictionprovidedsuchlawsprofesstoso bindthem,andtodeclarethatmarriagescontractedbetweenitscitizensinforeign statesindisregardofthestatutesofthestateoftheirdomicilewillnotbe recognizedinthecourtsofthelatterstate,thoughvalidwherecelebrated.Rothv. Roth,104Ill.35,44AmRep.81.Thequestion,therefore,iswhetherthestatute quotedwasclearlyintendedtoapplytomarriagescontractedoutsidethestate,for, unlesstheintentionisclear,theoperationofthestatutemustbelimitedto marriageswithinthestate.... ...Thesecasessustaintheprinciplethat,whereastatehasenactedastatute lawfullyimposinguponitscitizensanincapacitytocontractmarriagebyreasonofa positivepolicyofthestatefortheprotectionofthemoralsandgoodorderofsociety againstserioussocialevils,amarriagecontractedindisregardoftheprohibitionof thestatute,wherevercelebrated,willbevoid.Wilsonv.Cook:100N.E.222,at222 thru223(1912).
http://books.google.com/books?id=3PwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA222#v=onepage&q&f=false
pleasureschooner,of17tonsburden,calledtheJ.Willey,dulylicensedunderthe lawsoftheUnitedStates,ofwhichW.L.Piersonwascaptain,andwasenrolledas masterthereof,andhadfullchargeofsaidvessel.Saidvesselproceededtoapoint onthehighseasaboutninemilesfromthenearestpointfromtheboundaryofthe stateandoftheUnitedStates.Thepartiesthenandthereagreed,inthepresenceof saidPierson,tobecomehusbandandwife,andthesaidPiersonperformedthe ceremonyofmarriage,and,amongotherthings,theypromisedinhispresenceto takeeachotherforhusbandandwife,andhepronouncedthemhusbandandwife. Neitherpartyhadtheconsentofthefatherormotherorguardianofdefendantto saidmarriage.... Appellantcontends(1)thatthemarriageisvalidbecauseperformeduponthe highseas;and(2)thatitwouldhavebeenvalidifperformedwithinthisstate, becausethereisnolawexpresslydeclaringittobevoid.Respondentpresentsthe caseupontwopropositions,claiming(1)thatnovalidmarriagecanbecontractedin thisstate,exceptincompliancewiththeprescribedformsofthelawsofthisstate, andcontractavalidmarriage. Sections4082,4290,722,Rev.St.U.S.,arecitedbyappellantasrecognizing marriagesatseaandbeforeforeignconsuls,andthatsection722declaresthe commonlawastomarriagetobeinforceonthehighseasonboardAmerican vessels.Wehavecarefullyexaminedthestatutesreferredto,anddonotfindthat theygivetheslightestsupporttoappellantsclaim.Thelawofthesea,asitmay relatetothemarriageofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesdomiciledinCalifornia, cannotbereferredtothecommonlawofEngland,anymorethanitcantothelawof FranceorSpain,oranyotherforeigncounty.Wecanfindnolawofcongress,and nonehasbeenpointedoutbyappellant,inwhichthegeneralgovernmenthas undertakenorassumedtolegislategenerallyuponthesubjectofmarriageon thesea.Nor,indeed,canwefindinthegrantofpowerstothegeneral governmentbytheseveralstates,asexpressedinthenationalconstitution,any provisionbywhichcongressisempoweredtodeclarewhatshallconstitutea validmarriagebetweencitizensoftheseveralstatesuponthesea,eitherwithin orwithouttheconventionalthreemilelimitoftheshoreofanystate;andclearly doesnosuchpowerrestincongresstoregulatemarriagesonland,exceptinthe DistrictofColumbiaandtheterritoriesoftheUnitedStates,orwhereispowerof exclusivejurisdiction.Wemustlookelsewherethantotheactsofcongressforthe lawgoverningthecaseinhand.Normanv.Norman:54Pac.Rep.143,143thru144 (1898).
http://books.google.com/books?id=QwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA143#v=onepage&q&f=false
AccordingtotheUnitedStatesNavy,onecanbeacitizenofaState,underArticle IV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution,withoutbeingacitizenoftheUnited 10
And,fromtheUnitedStatesNavalInstituteProceedings,Volume45,No.7,July 1919,atpage1790thru1791thereisthefollowing:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kEELP3wiHvAC&pg=PA1790#v=onepage&q&f=false
MerchantMarine... Thenationalityofthoseshippedasofficers(excludingmasters)andmen (countingrepeatedshipments)beforeUnitedStatesShippingCommissioners,as returnedtotheBureauofNavigation,DepartmentofCommerce,wasasfollowsfor 1914and1919: Nationality19141919 Others11,44238,811 ThoseclassedasothersaremainlyfromthecountriesofSouthAmerica, citizensoftheseveralstateswhichhavebeencreatedbythewar,andSwiss shippingasstewards.U.S.Bulletin,9/8. ThisreportoftheNationalityofCrewscanbeseenfortheyears1907through 1922,inclusive,attheselinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8y0pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=oC4pAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false
thecasescited,towhichheaddedBentonv.Burgot,10S.&R.240,thelearnedjudge inquired:What,then,istherightofastatetoexerciseauthorityoverthepersonsof thosewhobelongtoanotherjurisdiction,andwhohaveperhapsnotbeenoutofthe boundariesofit?(p.450)andquotedfromVattel,Burge,andfromMr.JusticeStory (ConflictofLaws,c.14,539),thatnosovereigntycanextenditsprocessbeyond itsownterritoriallimitstosubjectotherpersonsorpropertytoitsjudicial decisions.Everyexertionofauthoritybeyondtheselimitsisamerenullity,and incapableofbindingsuchpersonsorpropertyinothertribunals,andthus continued:Suchisthefamiliar,reasonable,andjustprincipleofthelawofnations; anditisscarcesupposablethattheframersoftheConstitutiondesignedtoabrogate itbetweenStateswhichweretoremainasindependentofeachother,forallbut nationalpurposes,astheywerebeforetherevolution.....(page296) Publicistsconcurthatdomicilegenerallydeterminestheparticularterritorial jurisprudencetowhicheveryindividualissubjected.AscorrectlysaidbyMr. Wharton,thenationalityofourcitizensisthatoftheUnitedStates(theseveral Statesunited)[Fn9],andbythelawsoftheUnitedStates(theseveralStates united)[Fn9]theyareboundinallmattersinwhichtheUnitedStates(the severalStatesunited)ARE[SeeFootnote9]sovereign;butinothermatters,their domicileisintheparticularState,andthatdeterminestheapplicatoryterritorial jurisprudence.Aforeignjudgmentisimpeachableforwantofpersonalservice withinthejurisdictionofthedefendant,thisbeinginternationallyessentialto jurisdictioninallcasesinwhichthedefendantisnotasubjectoftheStateentering judgment;anditiscompetentforadefendantinanactiononajudgmentofasister State,asinanactionofaforeignjudgment,tosetupasadefense,wantof jurisdiction,inthathewasnotaninhabitantoftheStaterenderingthejudgment andhadnotbeenservedwithprocessanddidnotenterhisappearance.Whart. ConflictLaws,32,654,660;StoryConflictLaws,539,540,586. JohnBengewasacitizenofMarylandwhenheexecutedthisobligation.The subjectmatterofthesuitagainsthiminPennsylvaniawasmerelythe determinationofhispersonalliability.Grover&BakerSewingMachineCompany v.Radcliffe:137U.S.287,at296,297thru298(1890).
http://books.google.com/books?id=htIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA296#v=onepage&q&f=false
severalStatesoftheUnion,asfree,independentandsovereignStates,coupledwith thefactthattheconstitutionwasacontinuationofthesameUnion(amoreperfect Union),andamererevisionorremodelingoftheconfederation,isabsolutely conclusivethat,bytheterm,theUnitedStatesismeanttheseveralStatesunited asindependentandsovereigncommunities;andbythewords,We,thepeopleof theUnitedStates,ismeantthepeopleoftheseveralStatesasdistinctandsovereign communities,andnotthepeopleofthewholeUnitedStatescollectivelyasanation. Stuntv.SteamboatOhio:4Am.Law.Reg.49,at95(1855),Dis.Ct.,HamiltonCounty, Ohio;and(samewording)PiquaBankv.Knoup,Treasurer:6Ohio261,at303thru 304(1856).
http://books.google.com/books?id=pWhKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=UfADAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303#v=onepage&q&f=false
10.TheactofCongressreferredtointhefirstsectionoftheactof11thApril,1799 isrepealedandsuppliedbyanactpassed14thApril,1802,whichisincorporatedin thisnoteforthepurposeofconnectingthewholelawonthesubject. Anacttoestablishanuniformruleofnaturalization,andtorepealtheacts heretoforepassedonthatsubject. Beinenacted,&c.Thatanyalienbeingafreewhiteperson,maybeadmittedto becomeacitizenoftheUnitedStates,oranyofthem[SeeFootnote11],onthe followingconditions,andnototherwise: First,Thatheshallhavedeclared,onoathoraffirmation,beforetheSupreme, Superior,DistrictorCircuitCourtofsomeoneofthestatesoroftheterritorial districtsoftheUnitedStates,oraCircuitorDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStates,three yearsatleastbeforehisadmission,thatitwas,bonafide,hisintentiontobecomea citizenoftheUnitedStates,andtorenounceforeverallallegianceandfidelitytoany foreignprince,potentate,stateorsovereigntywhereofsuchalienmay,atthetime, beacitizenorsubject. Secondly,Thatheshall,atthetimeofhisapplicationtobeadmitted,declareon 13
11.ThetermtheUnitedStates,asusedtherein,referstotheseveralStates united: Atthetimeoftheformationoftheconstitution,theStatesweremembersofthe confederacyunitedunderthestyleoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,anduponthe expressconditionthateachStateretainsitssovereignty,freedom,and independence.Andtheconsiderationthat,undertheconfederation,We,the peopleoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,indubitablysignifiedthepeopleofthe severalStatesoftheUnion,asfree,independentandsovereignStates,coupledwith thefactthattheconstitutionwasacontinuationofthesameUnion(amoreperfect Union),andamererevisionorremodelingoftheconfederation,isabsolutely conclusivethat,bytheterm,theUnitedStatesismeanttheseveralStatesunited asindependentandsovereigncommunities;andbythewords,We,thepeopleof theUnitedStates,ismeantthepeopleoftheseveralStatesasdistinctandsovereign communities,andnotthepeopleofthewholeUnitedStatescollectivelyasanation. Stuntv.SteamboatOhio:4Am.Law.Reg.49,at95(1855),Dis.Ct.,HamiltonCounty, Ohio;and(samewording)PiquaBankv.Knoup,Treasurer:6Ohio261,at303thru 304(1856).
http://books.google.com/books?id=pWhKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=UfADAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303#v=onepage&q&f=false
14
13.PrivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheseveralStatesarenotthesameas theprivilegesandimmunitiesofacitizenoftheUnitedStates: ...TheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesprotectedbythe fourteenthamendment,areprivilegesandimmunitiesarisingoutofthenatureand essentialcharacterofthefederalGovernment,andgrantedorsecuredbytheConstitution. Duncanv.Missouri(1904)152U.S.377,14Sup.Ct.570,38L.Ed.485;SlaughterHouse Cases,16Wall.36,21L.Ed.394. Theprovisionsofsection2,art.4,ofthefederalConstitution,thatcitizensofeachstate shallbeentitledtoprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralstates,areheldtobe synonymouswithrightsofthecitizens.Corfieldv.Coryell,supra.Thissectionisakintothe provisionofsection1ofthefourteenthamendment,asrespectsprivilegesandimmunities, buttheformerisheldnottomaketheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)enjoyedby citizensoftheseveralstatesthemeasureoftheprivilegesandimmunities(therights)tobe enjoyedasofright,byacitizenofanotherstate,underitsConstitutionandlaws.McKanev. Durston,153U.S.684,14Sup.Ct.913,38L.Ed.867.Thisrulenecessarilyclassifiescitizens intheirrightstotheextentthatacitizenofonestatewheninanotherstatemustbe governedbythesameruleswhichapplytothecitizensofthatstateastomatterswhichare ofthedomesticconcernofthestate.Colev.Cunningham,133U.S.107,10Sup.Ct.269,33L. Ed.538;Peoplev.Gallagher,93N.Y.438,45Am.Rep.232;ButchersUnionv.CrescentCity, Mo.,111U.S.746,4SupCt.652,28L.Ed.585;ExparteKinney,14Fed.Cas.602;Douglasv. Stephens,1Del.Ch.465.Strangev.BoardofCommission:91N.E.242,at246(1910).
http://books.google.com/books?id=T_QKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=&f=false
16