citizens, is it not clear, that the jurisdiction to enforce the obligations of the Constitution, in such cases, ought to be confided to the national tribunals? These cases are not purely imaginary. They have actually occurred; and may again occur, under peculiar circumstances, in the course. of State legislation. What was the fact under the Confederation? Each State was obliged to acquiesce in the degree of justice, which another State might choose to yield to its citizens. There was not only danger of animosities growing up from this source; but, in point of fact, there did grow up retaliatory legislation, to meet such real or imagined grievances.

§ 343. Nothing can conduce more to general harmony and confidence among all the States, than a consciousness, that controversies are not exclusively to be decided by the State tribunals; but may, at the election of the party, be brought before the National tribunals. Besides; it cannot escape observation, that the judges in different States hold their offices by a very different tenure. Some hold during good behavior; some for a term of years; some for a single year; some are irremovable, except upon impeachment; and others may be removed upon address of the Legislature. Under such circumstances, it cannot but be presumed, that there may arise a course of State policy, or State legislation, exceedingly injurious to the interests of the citizens of other States, both as to real and to personal property. It would require an uncommon exercise of candor or credulity to affirm, that, in cases of this sort, all the State tribunals would be wholly without State prejudice, or State feelings; or, that they would be as earnest in resisting the encroachments of State authority upon the just rights, and interests of the citizens of other States, as a tribunal differently constituted, and wholly independent of State authority. And, if justice should be as fairly and as firmly administered in the former, as in the latter, still the mischiefs would be most serious, if the public opinion did not indulge such a belief. Justice, in cases of this sort, should not only be above all reproach, but above all suspicion. The sources of State irritations and State jealousies are sufficiently

numerous, without leaving open one so copious and constant, as the belief, or the dread, of wrong in the administration of State justice. Besides; if the public confidence should continue to follow the State tribunals, (as in many cases it doubtless will,) the provision will become inert and harmless; for, as the party will have his election of the forum, he will not be inclined to desert the State courts, unless for some sound reason, founded either in the nature of his cause, or in the influence of State prejudices. On the other hand, there can be no real danger of injustice to the other side in the decisions of the National tribunals; because the cause must still be decided upon the true principles of the local law, and not by any foreign jurisprudence. There is another circumstance of no small importance, as a matter of policy; and that is, the tendency of such a power to increase the confidence and credit between the commercial and agricultural States. No man can be insensible to the value, in promoting credit, of the belief of there being a prompt, efficient, and impartial administration of justice in enforcing contracts.

§ 344. The next inquiry, growing out of this part of the clause, is, who are to be deemed citizens of different States, within the meaning of it. Are all persons born within a State to be always deemed citizens of that State, notwithstanding any change of domicil? Or does their citizenship change with their change of domicil? The answer to this inquiry is equally plain and satisfactory. The Constitution having declared, that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, every person, who is a citizen of one State, and removes into another, with the intention of taking up his residence and inhabitancy there, becomes ipso facto a citizen of the State, where he resides; and he then ceases to be a citizen of the State, from which he has removed his residence. Of course, when he gives up his new residence, or domicil, and returns to his native, or other State residence or domicil, he reacquires the character of the latter. What cir

cumstances shall constitute such a change of residence or domicil, is an inquiry, more properly belonging to a trea

tise upon public or municipal law, than to commentaries upon constitutional law. In general, however, it may be said, that a removal from one State into another, with an intention of residence, or with a design of becoming an inhabitant, constitutes a change of domicil, and of course a change of citizenship. But a person, who is a native citizen of one State, never ceases to be a citizen thereof, until he has acquired a new citizenship elswhere. Residence in a foreign country has no operation upon his character, as a citizen, although it may, for purposes of trade and commerce, impress him with the character of the country. To change allegiance is one thing; to change inhabitancy is quite another thing. The right and the power are not coextensive in each case. Every citizen of a State is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.

§ 345. And a person, who is a naturalized citizen of the United States, by a like residence in any State in the Union, becomes ipso facto a citizen of that State. So a citizen of a Territory of the Union, by a like residence, acquires the character of the State, where he resides. But a naturalized citizen of the United States, or a citizen of a Territory, is not a citizen of a State, entitled to sue in the courts of the United States, in virtue of that character, while he resides in any such Territory, nor until he has acquired a residence or domicil in the particular State.

§ 346. A corporation, as such, is not a citizen of a State, in the sense of the Constitution. But, if all the members of the corporation are citizens, their character will confer jurisdiction; for then it is substantially a suit by citizens, suing in their corporate name. And a citizen of a State is entitled to sue, as such, notwithstanding he is a trustee for others, or sues in autre droit, as it is technically called, that is, as representative of another. Thus, a citizen may sue, who is a trustee at law, for the benefit of the person entitled to the trust. And an administrator, and an executor, may sue for the benefit of the estate, which they represent; for, in each of these cases, it is their personal suit. But if citizens, who are parties to a suit, are merely nominally so; as, for instance, if magistrates are officially required to allow suits to be brought

in their names for the use or benefit of a citizen or alien, the latter are deemed the substantial parties entitled to

sue.

§ 347. Next: "Controversies between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States." This clause was not in the first draft of the Constitution, but was added without any known objection to its propriety. It is the only instance, in which the Constitution directly contemplates the cognizance of disputes between citizens of the same State; but certainly not the only one, in which they may indirectly, upon Constitutional questions, have the benefit of the judicial power of the Union. It has been already remarked, that the reasonableness of the agency of the National courts, in cases in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial, speaks for itself. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause, in respect to which he has the least interest or bias. This principle has no inconsiderable weight in designating the National courts, as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different States and their citizens. And it ought to have the same operation, in regard to some cases between citizens of the same State. Claims to land under grants of different States, founded upon adverse pretensions of boundary, are of this description. The courts of neither of the granting States could be expected to be unbiassed. The laws may even have prejudged the question, and tied the courts down to decisions in favor of the grants of the State, to which they belonged. Where this has not been done, it would be natural, that the judges, as men, should feel a strong predilection for the claims of their own government. And, at all events, the providing of a tribunal, having no possible interest on the one side, more than the other, would have a most salutary tendency in quieting the jealousies, and disarming the resentments of the State, whose grant should be held invalid. This jurisdiction attaches not only to grants made by different States, which were never united; but also to grants made by different States, which were originally united under one jurisdiction, if made since the

separation, although the origin of the title may be traced back to an antecedent period.

§ 348. Next: "Controversies between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects." This provision has been vindicated in the following brief, but powerful manner. The peace of the whole ought not to be left at the disposal of a part. The Union will undoubtedly be answerable to foreign powers for the conduct of its members. And the responsibility for an injury ought ever to be accompanied with the faculty of preventing it. As the denial or perversion of justice, by the sentences of courts, is with reason classed among the just causes of war, it will follow, that the National Judiciary ought to have cognizance of all causes, in which the citizens of other countries are concerned. This is not less essential to the preservation of the public faith, than to the security of the public tranquillity. A distinction may perhaps be imagined between cases arising upon treaties and the laws of nations, and those, which may stand merely on the footing of the municipal law. The former kind may be supposed proper for the National jurisdiction; the latter for that of the States. But it is at least problematical, whether an unjust sentence against a foreigner, where the subject of controversy was wholly relative to the lex loci, as it is called, that is, to the local law, would not, if unredressed, be an aggression upon his sovereign, as well as one, which violated the stipulations of a treaty, or the general law of nations. And a still greater objection to the distinction would result from the immense difficulty, if not impossibility, of a practical discrimination between the cases of one complexion, and those of the other. So great a proportion of the controversies, in which foreigners are parties, involve national questions, that it is by far the most safe, and most expedient, to refer all those, in which they are concerned, to the National tribunals.

§ 349. In addition to these suggestions, it may be remarked, that it is of great national importance to advance public, as well as private credit, in our intercourse with foreign nations and their subjects. Nothing can be more beneficial in this respect, than to create an impartial tri