rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class. And when we find the States guarding themselves from the indiscreet or improper admission by other States of emigrants from other countries, by giving the power exclusively to Congress, we cannot fail to see that they could never have left with the States a much [418] more important power-that is, the power of transforming into citizens a numerous class of persons, who in that character would be much more dangerous to the peace and safety of a large portion of the Union, than the few foreigners one of the States might improperly naturalize. The Constitution, upon its adoption, obviously took from the States all power by any subsequent legislation to introduce as a citizen into the political family of the United States any one, no matter where he was born, or what might be his character or condition; and it gave to Congress the power to confer this character upon those only who were born outside of the dominions of the United States. And no law of a State, therefore, passed since the Constitution was adopted, can give any right of citizenship outside of its own territory."

The Chief Justice then refers to the language of the Articles of Confederation as indicating this discrimination among the inhabitants' of the States. He declares that it is "very clear" that "free inhabitants" in the Article means only free white inhabitants, and argues, also, that the change of words in the Constitution indicates that citizen is more than "free inhabitant," even if that applied to free negroes.

Judge Taney afterwards (19 How., 419-421) refers to the

In this argument naturalization is supposed to have in the Constitution a different meaning from that which it has in the jurisprudence of England and continental Europe (ante, p. 275). The idea that it means making an alien a citizen in a higher sense than native-born subject is new, unless it may have been suggested by Judge Mills in the Kentucky case (ante, p. 16, n.) But, if this be admitted, it is mere assumption, or arguing in a circle, to say that the power to naturalize does not extend to negroes because they are, "by the laws of the country, of an inferior class;" for the very question here is-Are they of such an inferior class, in view of the Constitution, that they cannot be citizens of a State?

It is difficult to fix upon a term general enough to include the negro race, and also in harmony with the language of this opinion. Judge Taney will not allow that negroes of any status can be citizens, or free inhabitants, or people. He has designated them as still property after manumission or emancipation.

legislation of Congress in admitting only white aliens to naturalization, and the acts wherein the term citizen is used in connection with words distinguishing persons in respect to color, as confirming the view which limits the term citizen of the United States to whites.' These laws will hereinafter be noticed. The part of the opinion which then follows (19 How., 421-423) is more particularly applicable to the question considered in the next chapter, viz.: What are the privileges and immunities secured to citizens by this clause of the fourth Article? But it is here to be noticed as repudiating the idea that the term citizen may have different meanings in different connections.

Judge Taney here says:-"But it is said that a person may be a citizen, and entitled [422] to that character, although he does not possess all the rights which may belong to other citizens; as, for example, the right to vote, or to hold particular offices; and that yet, when he goes into another State, he is entitled to be recognized there as a citizen, although the State may mea

In the Chief Justice's argument citizenship is taken to mean a condition of civil privilege beyond the simple condition of domiciled inhabitant, native or naturalized, and the power of naturalization is taken to be the power of making a person a citizen in this enlarged sense. So the Judge argues in other places that the States cannot now determine who are citizens, because the power to naturalize has been given to Congress (19 How., 405). And he here speaks of naturalizing the native-born Indian, and denies all power in Congress to naturalize the Americanborn negro. The Judge says:-" Now, the Constitution does not limit the power of Congress in this respect to white persons. And they may, if they think proper, authorize the naturalization of any one, of any color, who was born under allegiance to another government. But the language of the law above quoted shows that citizenship at that time was perfectly understood to be confined to the white race; and that they alone constituted the sovereignty in the government.

Congress might, as we before said, have authorized the naturalization of Indians, because they were aliens and foreigners. But, in their then untutored and savage state, no one would have thought of admitting them as citizens in a civilized community. And, moreover, the atrocities they had but recently committed, when they were the allies of Great Britain in the Revolutionary war, were yet fresh in the recollection of the people of the United States, and they were even then guarding themselves against the threatened renewal of Indian hostilities. No one supposed, then, that any Indian would ask for, or was capable of enjoying, the privileges of an American citizen, and the word white was not used with any particular reference to them.

"Neither was it used with any reference to the African race imported into or born in this country; because Congress had no power to naturalize them, and therefore there was no necessity for using particular words to exclude them.

"It would seem to have been used merely because it followed out the line of division which the Constitution has drawn between the citizen race, who formed and held the Government, and the African race, which they held in subjection and slavery, and governed at their own pleasure." 19 How. 419, 420.

sure his rights by the rights which it allows to persons of a like character or class resident in the State, and refuse to him the full rights of citizenship.

"This argument overlooks the language of the provision in the Constitution of which we are speaking.

"Undoubtedly, a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who form the sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power, and is incapacitated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote; and when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary qualification cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens.

"So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the State, who is not a citizen even of the State itself. And in some of the States of the Union foreigners not naturalized are allowed to vote. And the State may give the right to free negroes and mulattoes, but that does not make them citizens of the State, and still less of the United States. And the provision in the Constitution giving privileges and immunities in other States does not apply to them.

"Neither does it apply to a person who, being the citizen of a State, migrates to another State. For then he becomes. subject to the laws of the State in which he lives, and he is no longer a citizen of the State from which he removed. And the State in which he resides may then, unquestionably, determine his status or condition, and place him among the class of persons who are not recognized as citizens, but belong to an inferior and subject race; and may deny him the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its citizens.

"But so far as mere rights of person are concerned, the provision in question is confined to citizens of a State who are temporarily in another State without taking up their residence. there. It gives them no political rights in the State, as to voting or holding office, or in any other respect. For a citizen of one State has no right to participate in the government of another. But if he ranks as a citizen in the State to which he belongs, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United

States, then, whenever he goes into another State, the Constitution clothes him, as to the rights of person, with all the privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the [423] State. And if persons of the African race are citizens of a State, and of the United States, they would be entitled to all of these privileges and immunities in every State, and the State could not restrict them; for they would hold these privileges and immunities under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and its courts would be bound to maintain and enforce them, the Constitution and laws of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. And if the States could limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this clause of the Constitution would be unmeaning, and could have no operation, and would give no rights to the citizen when in another State. He would have none but what the State itself chose to allow him. This is evidently not the construction or meaning of the clause in question. It guarantees rights to the citizen, and the State cannot withhold them. And these rights are of a character and would lead to consequences which make it absolutely certain that the African race were not included under the name of citizens of a State, and were not in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution, when these privileges and immunities were provided for the protection of the citizen in other States."

The case of Legrand v. Darnall, 2 Peters, 664, which had been referred to as a decision that the descendant of a slave may sue as a citizen in a court of the United States, is then examined (19 How. 423-425). Judge Taney then says:

"The only two provisions which point to them' and include them, treat them as property, and make it a duty of the government to protect it; no other power, in relation to this race, is to be found in the Constitution; and as it is a government [426] of special, delegated powers, no authority beyond these two provisions can be constitutionally exercised. The government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other

1It would appear that the antecedent is "the African race," mentioned in the close of the paragraph preceding the citation of Legrand v. Darnall, 19 How.

purpose but that of protecting the rights of the owner, leaving it altogether with the several States to deal with this race, whether emancipated or not, as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests and safety of society require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves.

"No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day. This court was not created by the Constitution for such purposes. Higher and graver trusts have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path of duty.

"What the construction was at that time, we think can hardly admit of doubt. We have the language of the Declaration of Independence and of the Articles of Confederation, in addition to the plain words of the Constitution itself; we have the legislation of the different States, before, about the time, and since, the Constitution was adopted; we have the legislation of Congress, from the time of its adoption to