ties," or "liberties and immunities" or "rights, immunities and privileges" or "privileges and immunities" of free and natural-born subjects of England, as if they were born within the realm of England." § 242. Same-Declaration of rights of 1774.-In the declaration of rights of 1774, promulgated by the continental congress on behalf of the colonies they declare: "That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England;" and that by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy. And after declaring their right to representation in legislation affecting them "in all cases of taxation and internal polity," and their right to the common law of England and such English statutes, existing at the time of colonization, as were suited to their local circumstances, they further declared that they were "likewise entitled to all the immunities and privileges granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws." 50 § 243. Same-Provision of the articles of confederation.— The first section of the fourth article of the articles of confederation declared that: "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, imposts and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively; provided that such re 49 Story, Comm. Const. §§ 42, 63, 71, 87, 122, 129, 143. The colonial charter of North and South Carolina declared that "the inhabitants and their children, born in the province, should be denizens of England, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of British born subjects." (Story, Comm. Const. § 129). 50 Pitk. Hist. 235-344. strictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also, that no imposition, duties or restriction, shall be laid by any state on the property of the United States, or either of them.'' 51 § 244. Privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states under the constitution.-The constitution as originally adopted declares that: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." 52 This provision secures valuable rights to the citizens of the several states, and is in effect, a limitation upon the states; it inhibits each state from denying to the citizens of the several other states the privileges and immunities possessed and enjoyed by its own citizens.53 § 245. Same-Defined by Justice Washington. This provision of the constitution was first brought under judicial construction in a case in the circuit court in which Mr. Justice Washington, answering the question, what are the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several states, said: "We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this union from the time of their becoming free, independent and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are, it would perhaps be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass through or to reside in any other state for the purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; 511 U. S. Stat. at L. 4. 52 U. S. Const. Art. IV, sec. 2, cl. 1. 53 Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (19:357); Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 130 (21:394); to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the state, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may be added the elective franchise as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised. These and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each state in every other state was manifestly calculated (to use the expression of the preamble to the corresponding provision in the old articles of confederation,) the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states of the union." 54 § 246. Same-Defined by Justice Field.-Mr. Justice Field, construing this constitutional provision, said: "It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each state upon the same footing with citizens of other states, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those states is concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other states; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other states; it gives them the right of free ingress into other states and egress from them; it insures to them in other states the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those states in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in the other states the equal protection of the laws. It has been justly said that no provision in the constitution has tended so strongly to constitute the citizens of the United States one people as this. Indeed, without some such provision of the kind removing from the citizens of each state the disabilities of alienage in the other states, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those states, the republic would have constituted little more than a league of states; it would not have constituted the union which now exists.'' 55 54 Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. (C. C.) 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230. 55 Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (19:357). § 247. Same-Defined by Justice Miller.-Mr. Justice Miller. after quoting with approval the definition of Mr. Justice Washington, said: "The description, when taken to include others not named, but which are of the same general character, embraces nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted. The constitutional provision there alluded to did not create those rights, which it called privileges and immunities of citizens of the states. It threw around them in that clause no security for the citizen of the state in which they were claimed. or exercised. Nor did it profess to control the power of the state governments over the rights of its own citizens. Its sole purpose was to declare to the several states, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restriction on their exercise, the same, neither more nor less, shall be the measure of the rights of citizens of other states within your jurisdiction." 56 § 248. Same-Commercial equality.-One of the objects of the constitution was to secure commercial equality in each of the states among the citizens of the several states, and, comprehensive as the power of the states is to levy and collect taxes, yet that power cannot be exercised to any extent in a manner forbidden by the constitution; and, inasmuch as the constitution provides that citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, it follows that the citizens of each state may lawfully sell and expose for sale in the several other states any goods which the citizens thereof, respectively, could sell and expose for sale in their respective states without being subjected to any higher tax than that exacted by law of the citizens of the several other states, respectively. And a state statute which prohibits persons not permanent residents in the state from selling, offering for sale, or exposing for sale, within a certain specified district within the state, any goods whatever, other than agricultural products and articles manufactured in the state, without first obtaining from the state and paying therefor a license so to do, is in conflict with the first clause of the second section of the fourth article of the constitution, and, therefore, null and void.57 56 Slaughter-House Cases, Wall. 36, 130 (21:395). 16 57 Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418, 433 (20:449). § 249. Same-Equality of right in assets of insolvent debtor. -When the general property and assets of insolvent individuals, or of a private corporation lawfully doing business in a state, are in course of administration by the courts of such state, creditors who are citizens of other states are entitled, under the constitution of the United States, to stand upon the same plane with creditors of like class who are citizens of such state, and cannot be denied equality of right simply because they do not reside in that state, but are citizens residing in other states of the union; and a state statute denying such equality of right to citizens of other states is in conflict with the first clause of the second section of the fourth article of the constitution, and is, therefore, null and void.58 § 250. Same-Protection of personal liberty.-Protection of personal liberty by the state government is one of the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, which is secured by the constitution to the citizens of each state in the states in which they reside and also in the several other states; and liberty, in its broadest sense, as understood in this country, means the right not only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment, or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation, subject only to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole political community. There can be no liberty, protected by government, that is not regulated by such laws as will preserve the right of each citizen to pursue his own advancement and happiness in his own way, subject only to the restraints necessary to secure the same rights to all others. The fundamental principle upon which liberty is based, in free and enlightened government, is liberty under the law of the land. It has accordingly been everywhere held that liberty, as that term is used. 58 Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 269 (43:432); Sully v. American National Bank, 178 U. S. 289, 304 (44:1072). "It is an established rule in equity that when a corporation becomes insolvent it is so far civilly dead that its property may be administered as a trust fund for the benefit of its stockholders and creditors-not simply of stockholders and creditors residing in a particular state, but all stockholders and creditors of whatever state they may be citizens." Blake v. McClung, supra. |