UNITED STATES. 



753 



of the first section of the fourteenth amend- 

 ment. The court was therefore called upon 

 to give construction to these amendments to 

 the Constitution. Mr. Justice Miller, who de- 

 livered the opinion of the court, alter a suc- 

 cinct history of the events which led to the 

 adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth 

 una-ndments, and an exhaustive examination 

 of the principles involved, reached conclusions 

 which may be summarized as follows: that 

 the term " servitude " in the thirteenth amend- 

 ment, means a pertonal servitude. On this 

 point Judge Miller says : 



The word " servitude " is of larger meaning than 

 slaver}-, as the latter is popularly understood in this 

 country, und the obvious purpose was to forbid all 

 shades and conditions of African slavery. It was 

 very well understood that in the form of apprentice- 

 ship for lone terms, as it had been practised in the 

 West India Islands on the abolition of slavery by 

 the English Government, or by reducing the slave's 

 to the condition of serfs attached to the plantation, 

 tho purpose of the article might have been evaded 

 if only the word " slavery " had been used. The 

 case of the apprentice slave, held under a law of 

 Maryland, liberated by Chief-Justice Chase on a 

 writ of habeas eorput under this article, illustrates 

 thin course of observation. " Matter of Turner," 1 

 Abb. (U. S.) 84. And it is all that we deem neces- 

 sary to gay on the application of that article to the 

 statute of Louisiana, now under consideration. 



As to the fourteenth amendment, the court 

 held that it clearly recognized and established 

 a distinction between a citizen of the United 

 States and a citizen of a State ; that not only 

 may a man be a citizen of the United States 

 without being a citizen of a State, but that to 

 convert the former into the latter the impor- 

 tant element of residence within the Slate is 

 I'ial. or, in other words, "that there is a 

 citizenship of the I'nited States and a citizen- 

 ship of a State, which are distinct from each 

 other, and which depend upon different charac- 

 teristics, or circumstances, in the individual." 

 It follows logically that tlie provision of the 

 fourteenth amendment, that "no State shall 

 make or enforce any law which shall abridge 

 the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 

 United States." only places the privileges and 

 immunities of citizens of the United States 

 under the protection of the Federal Constitu- 

 tion, while the citizens of the State have no 

 additional protection by this paragraph of the 

 amendment. 



Having reached this conclusion, the court 

 proceeded to define the privileges and immuni- 

 ties of citizens of a State, which may be briefly 

 summed up as follows: "Protection by the 

 rnment, with the right to acquire and 

 possess property, and to pursue and obtain 

 happiness and safety, subject to such restraints 

 as the Government may prescribe for the gen- 

 eral good of the whole." As to the privileges 

 and immunities of the citizens of the United 

 States, Mr. Justice Miller says: 



Having shown that the privileges and immunities 



relied on in the argument are those which belong to 



i'it'i7.Tm of the States as such, and that they are left 



to the State governments for security and protection, 



VOL. xin. 48 A 



and not by this article placed under the special care 

 of the Federal Government, we may hold ourselves 

 excused from defining the privileges and immunities 

 of citizens of the United States which no State can 

 abridge, until some case involving those privileges 

 may make it necessary to do so. But lest it should 

 be said that no such privileges and immunities are 

 to be found, if those we have been considering are 

 excluded, we venture to suggest some which owe 

 their existence to the Federal Government, its na- 

 tional character, its Constitution, or its laws. One of 

 these is well described in the ease of CrandalH's. Ne- 

 vada, 6 Wall. 36. It is said to be the right of the 

 citizen of this great country, protected by implied 

 guarantees of its Constitution, " to come to the seat 

 of government to assert any claim he may have- upon 

 that Government, to transact any business he may 

 have with it, to seek its protection, to share its of- 

 fices, to engage in administering its functions. He 

 has the right of free access to its seaports, through 

 which all operations of foreign commerce are con- 

 ductedj to the sub-treasuries, land-offices, and courts 

 of justice in the several States." And quoting from 

 the language of Chief-Justice Taney, in another 

 case, it is said " that for all the great purposes for 

 which the Federal Government was established, we 

 are one people, with one common country, we are all 

 citizens of the United States / " and it is as such citi- 

 zens that their rights are supported in this court in 

 Crandall 111. Nevada. 



Another privilege of a citizen of the United States 

 is to demand the care and protection of the Federal 

 Government over his life, liberty, and property, 

 when on the high-seas, or within the jurisdiction or 

 a foreign government. Of this there can be no 

 doubt, nor that the right depends upon his charac- 

 ter as a citizen of the United States. The right to 

 peaceably assemble and petition for redress of griev- 

 ances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, are 

 rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Con- 

 stitution. The right to use the navigable waters of 

 the United States, however they may penetrate the 

 territory of the several States, all rights secured to 

 our citizens by treaties with foreign nations, ore de- 

 pendent upon citizenship of the United States, and 

 not citizenship of a State. One of these privileges 

 is conferred by the very article under consideration. 

 It is, that a citizen of the United States can, of his 

 own volition, become a citizen of any State of the 

 Union by a bona-fide residence therein, with the same 

 rights as other citizens of that State. To these may 

 bcT added the rights secured by the thirteenth and 

 fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other 

 Clause of the fourteenth, next to be considered. 



The " other clause " reads : " Nor shall any 

 State deprive any person of life, liberty, or 

 property, without due process of law ; nor 

 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the 

 equal protection of its laws." Without any 

 elaborate discussion, the court held that the 

 act of the Louisiana Legislatare in question 

 was not a deprivation of property, nor a denial 

 of the equal protection of the laws, within the 

 meaning of the language of the amendment. 



As to the general scope and purpose of these 

 amendments, the court said : 



On the most casual examination of the language 

 of these amendments, no one can fail to be im- 

 pressed with the one pervading purpose found in 

 them all, lying nt the foundation of each, and with- 

 out which 'none of them would have been even sug- 

 gested ; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the 

 security and firm establishment of that freedom, and 

 the protection of the ncwly-mnde freeman and citi- 

 zen from the oppressions of those who had former- 

 ly exercised unlimited dominion over him. It is 

 true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, 



