372 



SCIENCE. 



[X. S. Vol. XXI. No. 532. 



the citizens of each state shall enjoy the 

 privileges and immunities of citizens in 

 the several states. 



The purpose of this section, however, is 

 to prevent discrimination by one state 

 against the citizens of another. Can it be 

 said that a statute makes such a discrimi- 

 nation if it leave them entitled to the same 

 privileges and immunities as those pos- 

 sessed by the citizens of the state making 

 the enactment? The citizens of that state 

 being required to pay a succession tax, 

 can the citizens of another state, coming 

 there to receive an inheritance or bequest, 

 complain if they are subjected to the same 

 burden, even if those of a third state may 

 not be?* Is not the discrimination which 

 the constitution prohibits one in favor of 

 residents against non-residents, rather than 

 one between non-residents who are citizens 

 of different states'? 



The supreme court of the United States 

 in 1831 had before it a cause which showed 

 the complications as to state sovereignty 

 over dead men 's estates existing even under 

 the established principles of private in- 

 ternational law. A citizen of Virginia 

 died in Pennsylvania, leaving personal 

 property in the District of Columbia. A 

 local administrator was appointed in Wash- 

 ington, and the question was whether the 

 local law there or the law of Virginia 

 should govern the distribution of the 

 Washington assets. The court held that 

 as the District of Columbia had the fund in 

 its power, its law must control its disposi- 

 tion. "Whether," it added in its opinion, 

 "it would or would not be politic to es- 

 tablish a different rule by a convention of 

 the states, under constitutional sanction, is 

 not a question for our consideration. But 

 such an arrangement could only be carried 

 into effect by a reciprocal relinquishment 



* Paul V. Virginia, 8 Wallace's Reports 168, 

 180; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. Reports, 239, 

 248, 257. 



of the right of granting administration to 

 the country of the domicil of the deceased 

 exclusively, and the mutual concession of 

 the right to the administrator so consti- 

 tuted to prosecute suits everywhere in 

 virtue of the power so locally granted him ; 

 both of Avhich concessions would most ma- 

 terially interfere with the exercise of sov- 

 ereign right, as at present generally as- 

 serted and exercised."* 



The convention here suggested, no doubt, 

 was one to be called by Congress, under 

 Article V. of the constitution of the United 

 States, to propose amendments to it. There 

 had then been but one instance of the eon- 

 vocation of any other kind of convention 

 of representatives of states since 1789. 

 That was the Hartford Convention of 1814, 

 of delegates from three states, and it had 

 been generally and unsparingly denounced 

 as an unconstitutional assemblage for 

 illegal purposes. t 



Since that time, however, another of a 

 more imposing character, and equally polit- 

 ical in its objects, has been held at Wash- 

 ington—the peace convention of 1861— in 

 which twenty-one states participated, and 

 which was officially recognized by the presi- 

 dent of the United States. The public 

 were satisfied that this body accomplished 

 a useful work in bridging over the passage 

 of power from one party to another at a 

 time when every day of continued peace 

 was of the highest national importance, and 

 although its right to act or indeed to exist 

 was vigorously denied upon the floor by 

 some of its own members,! the verdict of 

 history must be in its favor. 



Since then, besides many confei'ences or 

 conventions from time to time of represen- 

 tatives of states under executive appoint- 



* Smith, Adm'r v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 

 5 Peters' Reports, 518, 526. 



t Adams, ' New England Federalism,' 245, 256. 



X ' Debates and Proceedings of the Peace Con- 

 vention of 1861,' 129, 134, 415. 



