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 ma

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, aud 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

bunal, to which they may have resort upon all occasions, when it may be necessary to ascertain, or enforce their rights. Besides; it is not wholly immaterial, that the law, to be administered in cases of foreigners, is often very distinct from the mere.municipal code of a State, and dependent upon the law merchant, or the more enlarged consideration of international rights and duties, in a case of conflict of the foreign and domestic laws. And it may

fairly be presumed, that the National tribunals will, from the nature of their ordinary functions, become better acquainted with the general principles, which regulate subjects of this nature, than other courts, however enlightened, which are rarely required to discuss them.

§ 350. In regard to controversies between an American state and a foreign state, it is obvious, that the suit must, on one side at least, be wholly voluntary. No foreign state can be compelled to become a party, plaintiff or defendant, in any of our tribunals. If, therefore, it chooses to consent to the institution of any suit, it is its consent alone, which can give effect to the jurisdiction of the court. It is certainly desirable, to furnish some peaceable mode of appeal in cases, where any controversy may exist between an American state and a foreign state, sufficiently important to require the grievance to be redressed by any other mode, than through the instrumentality of negotiations.

§ 351. The inquiry may here be made, who are to be deemed aliens, entitled to sue in the courts of the United States. The general answer is, any person, who is not a citizen of the United States. A foreigner, who is naturalized, is no longer entitled to the character of an alien. And when an alien is the substantial party, it matters not, whether he is a suitor in his own right; or whether he acts, as a trustee, or a personal representative; or whether he is compellable, by the local law, to sue through some official organ. A foreign corporation, established in a foreign country, all of whose members are aliens, is entitled to sue in the same manner, that an alien may personally sue in the courts of the Union. It is not suffi

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