not citizens. Whether this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided, but it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the Civil War, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and, if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

"To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'

"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign states. born within the United States.

"The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a

State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter.

"He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

"We think this distinction and its explicit recognization in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiff in error, spoke only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

"The language is, 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.'

"It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizens of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the words 'Citizens of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to 'Citizens of the United States' in the very sentences which precede it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.

"Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment.

"If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and

in.munities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such. and those belonging to the citizens of the State as such, the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment."

The rights of citizens of the United States are limited in number and are of a political nature." The rights and privileges of the citizens of States are more numerous and include all those rights which are in their nature fundamental, and which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments.

Citizenship of a territory or colony of the United States does not necessarily confer United States citizenship. In the admission of a State a collective naturalization may be effected in accordance with the intention of Congress and the people applying for admission. The admission of a State on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, involves the adoption as citizens of the United States of those whom Congress makes members of the political community, and who are recognized as such in the formation of the new State with the consent of Congress,73

The status of inhabitants in the colonies of the United States will be treated in the next chapter.

$277. The Fifteenth amendment. The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by Congress on February 27, 1869, and was d clared to have been ratified by a sufficient number of States and to have been adopted by a proclamation issued by the Secretary of the State on March 30, 1870.

The text of this amendment is as follows:

"Sec. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servi

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The fifteenth amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. It prohibits the State or the United States, however, from giving preference in this particular to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. This amendment invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude, which Congress may enforce by 'appropriate legislation." The limitation contained in this amendment is the only restriction upon the power of the States to regulate the suffrage within its limits. This amendment had the effect, in law, to remove from a State Constitution, or render inoperative, a provision restraining the right of suffrage to the white race.75

74 United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214.

5 Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370. See also United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542.

CHAPTER XIV.

ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF TERRITORY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES.

§ 278. The acquisition of new territory.-The United States has full and complete power to acquire new territory either by conquest, purchase, cession, discovery, settlement or any other way known and recognized by International Law. This power is a necessary attribute attached to the sovereignty of every independent country. "The power to acquire territory other than the territory northwest of the Ohio River (which belonged to the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) is derived from the treaty-making power and the power to declare and carry on war. The incidents of these powers are those of national sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments."1 "Power to acquire territory either by conquest or treaty is vested by the Constitution in the United States. Conquered territory, however, is usually held, as a mere military occupation until the fate of the nation from which it is conquered is determined, but if the nation is entirely subdued, or in case it be destroyed and ceases to exist, the right of occupation becomes permanent and the title vests absolutely in the conquerer."

92

"The Constitution confers absolutely upon the government of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties. consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. The usage of the

1 Mormon Church V. United States, 136 U. S. 1.

2 United States v. Huckabee, 16 Wallace, 414; Hogsheads of Sugar

v. Boyle, 9 Cranch, 195; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Peters, 245; United States v. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, 254; Johnson V. McIntosh, 8 Wheaton, 543.