STUDIES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
A TREATISE ON AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
by
JOHN S. WISE
EDWARD THOMPSON COMPANY
NORTHPORT, LONG ISLAND, N.Y.
1906
(scanner OCR may have spelling errors)
Rights, Privileges, and Immunities Granted or
Guaranteed to the Citizen by the United States
These may be classified as follows:
1. Rights granted or guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States as originally framed, or by the first
twelve amendments thereto.
2. Rights granted or guaranteed by the XIII, XIV, and XV
Amendments.
First, then, the rights, privileges, or immunities granted
or guaranteed to the citizen by the Constitution of the United
States as originally framed, or by the first twelve amendments
thereto, are, in the order of their enumeration, or by necessary
implication, as follows:
1. A right. That citizens of the States composing the
Union, having the qualifications requisite for electors
of the most numerous branch of the State legislature,
shall possess the right and privilege of electors for
members of the House of Representatives of the United
States chosen every second year by the people of the
United States. (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 1) (12)
2. A privilege. That such citizens shall be eligible to
membership of the House of Representatives, if they
possess certain qualifications of age, length of
citizenship, and are inhabitants of the State from
which they are chosen. (Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 2)
3. A right. That representatives and direct taxes shall
be apportioned, among the several States, according to
their respective numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole number of free persons, including
those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other
persons. This clause is, however, amended, in respect
to apportionment of representation, by the XIV
Amendment, Sec. 2. (13)
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 1 of 23
4. A right. To have an enumeration or census, every ten
years, according to law, to determine the basis of
representation, but with a proviso that representatives
shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but that each
State shall have at least one representative. (Art. I,
Sec. 2, Cl. 3, Par. 2) (14)
5. A privilege. That citizens possessing defined
qualifications of age, length of residence, and
habitation, shall be eligible as United States
senators. (Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 3)
6. An immunity. Against the trial of impeachments by any
other body than the Senate, or conviction without a
concurrence of two-thirds of the members present; and
against any judgment in such case extending further
than to removal from office and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit
under the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6) (15)
7. An immunity. From arrest, except for treason, felony,
or breach of the peace, while attending Congress as a
member or going to or returning from the same; and
from being questioned for any speech or debate in
either House. (Art. I, Sec. 6, Cl. 1) (16)
8. A right. That all bills for raising revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives. (Art. I,
Sec. 7, Cl. 1) (17)
9. A right. To have the executive sanction of all laws
before they become effective, unless they be passed
over the President's veto. (Art. I, Sec. 7, Cl. 2)
(18)
10. A right. That all duties, imposts, and excises imposed
by Congress shall be uniform throughout the United
States. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1) (19)
11. An immunity. From any laws passed by any State, or
other authority than Congress, regulating commerce with
foreign nations and among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes. (Art. I. Sec. 8, Cl. 3) (20)
12. A right. To uniform Federal laws of naturalization and
bankruptcy throughout the United States. (Art. I, Sec.
8, Cl. 4) (21)
13. A right. To a Federal coinage and standard of weights
and measures. (Art. I, See. 8. Cl. 5) (22)
14. A right. To an established Federal postal system and
post roads. (Art. I, See. 8, Cl. 6) (23)
15. A right. To a Federal system of patent rights and
copyrights. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8) (24)
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 2 of 23
16. A right. To a supreme court and a system of federal
courts inferior to the supreme court. (Art. I, Secs. 1
and 2; Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 9) (25)
17. A right. To Federal protection against piracies and
felonies committed on the high seas and offenses
against the law of nations. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 10)
(26)
18. An immunity. Against any declaration of war or the
granting of letters of marque and reprisal except by
the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 11) (27)
19. An immunity. Against any appropriations for war
purposes by Congress, under its power to raise and
support armies, for a longer term than two years.
(Art. I, See. 8, Cl. 12) (28)
20. A right. To the creation and maintenance of a navy by
the Federal government (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 13) (29)
21. A right. To the use of the militia under the call of
the Federal government, for executing the laws of the
Union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling
invasions. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 15) (30)
22. A right. To exclusive Federal legislation by Congress
over a territory not exceeding ten miles square as a
seat of government, and like authority over all places
purchased for forts, magazines, arsenals, and
dockyards. (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17.) (31)
23. A right. To the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, save when it may be suspended for public
safety, in time of rebellion or invasion. (Art. I,
Sec. 9, Cl. 2) (32)
24. An immunity. Against any bill of attainder or ex post
facto law. (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3) (33)
25. An immunity. Against any capitation or other direct
tax except in proportion to the census above provided
for. (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4) (34)
26. An immunity. Against any tax or duty on articles
exported from any State. (Art, I, Sec. 9, Cl. 5) (35)
27. An immunity. Against any preference to the ports of
one State over those of another; and against the
entrance, clearance, or payment of duties by vessels
bound to or from the ports of one State to or from the
ports of another State. (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 5) (36)
28. An immunity. Against the granting of any titles of
nobility by the United States. (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 7)
(37)
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 3 of 23
29. Immunities. Against any treaty, alliance, or
confederation entered into by any State, and the
granting of letters of marque or reprisal by any State,
and against the coinage of money or emission of bills
of credit by any State and the making of anything but
gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts by
any State; and the passage of any bill of attainder or
ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts, or grant of any title of nobility by any
State. (Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 1) (38)
30. An immunity. From the laying of any impost or duties
on imports or exports by any State, without the consent
of Congress. (Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 2) (39)
31. Immunities. From any duty of tonnage laid by any State
without the consent of Congress, or the keeping of
troops or ships of war in time of peace by any State,
or the entering into an agreement or compact with
another State or a foreign power, or engaging in war
unless actually invaded or in such immediate danger as
will not admit of delay. (Art. I, Sec. 10, Cl. 3) (40)
32. A privilege. Of being presidential and vice
presidential elector in the manner provided by the
legislature of the State. (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 1 and
2) (41)
33. A privilege. Of being President provided the citizen
possesses the requisite qualifications of birth, age,
and residence. (Art II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5) (42)
34. A privilege. Of being Vice-President subject to the
same qualifications as last named. (Art. II, Sec. 1,
Cl. 5)
35. A privilege. Of suing in the federal courts, on the
terms and subject to the conditions of jurisdiction set
forth in the Constitution and laws. (Art. III, Sec. 1)
36. A right. To trial by jury in the State where the crime
is charged to have been committed in any trial for
crime in a federal court, except in case of
impeachment, and when the crime is not committed within
any State the trial to be at such place or places as
Congress directs. (Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3) (43)
37. An immunity. From the charge of treason against the
United States, except for levying war against them, or
for adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort (Art III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1. See Of Treason, supra,
pp. 74 et seq.)
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 4 of 23
38. A right. To demand, in cases of trial for treason, the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or a
confession in open court, as the only basis, of
conviction. (Art. III, Sec. 3, Cl. 1.) (44)
39. An immunity. Against any attainder of treason working
corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the
life of the person attainted. (Art. III, Sec. 3, Cl.
2) (45)
40. A right. To demand that each State shall give full
faith and credit to the public acts, records, etc., and
judicial proceedings of every other State. (Art. IV,
Sec. 1) (46)
41. A right. In the citizens of each State to enjoy all
the Privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States. (Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 1) (47)
42. A right. To demand from any State the extradition and
removal of any person who shall flee thereto, who is
charged, in another State, with treason, felony, or
other crane. (Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 2) (48)
43. A right. To demand the delivery, on claim of the party
entitled, of any person held to service or labor, in
one State, who has escaped to another State. (Art. IV,
Sec. 2, Cl. 3) (49)
44. A right. To the performance of the guarantee of the
United States that every State in the Union shall have
a republican form of government, and that the United
States will protect each of them from invasion and
against domestic violence. (Art. IV, Sec. 4) (50)
45. A right. In each State to equal suffrage in the
Senate. (Art. V)
These being the only rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution itself, the following
additional appear in the first twelve amendments to the
Constitution: (51)
46. An immunity. Against any law of Congress respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or
of the press. (Art. I) (52)
47. A right. Of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
(Art. I) (53)
48. A right. Of the people to keep and bear arms. A right
not to be infringed. (Art. II) (54)
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 5 of 23
49. An immunity. From the quartering of troops in any
house in time of peace without the consent of the
owner, or in time of war, except in a manner to be
prescribed by law. (Art. III)
50. An immunity. Against unreasonable searches or
seizures. (Art. IV) (55)
51. A right. To demand that search warrants shall not
issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the person or things to be seized. (Art.
IV) (56)
52. A right. That no citizen be held to answer to the
Federal government for a capital or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia, when in actual service.
(Art. V) (57)
53. An immunity. From being twice put in jeopardy of life
or Limb for the same offense. (Art. V) (58)
54. An immunity. From being a witness against himself.
(Art. V) (59)
55. A right. To due process of law before being deprived
of life, liberty, or property. (Art. V) (60)
56. A right. To just compensation for any property taken
for public use. (Art. V) (61)
57. A right. To speedy and public trial in all cases of
criminal prosecutions by an impartial jury of the
district wherein any crime is charged to have been
committed, the district to have been previously
ascertained by law; to be informed of the nature and,
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense. (Art. VI) (62)
58. A right. In suits at common law, involving a value
exceeding twenty dollars, to a trial by jury. (Art.
VII) (63)
59. An immunity. From having any fact tried by a jury re-
examined in any court of the United States, otherwise
than according to the rules of common law. (Art. VII)
(64)
60. An immunity. Against the requirement of excessive
bail, against the imposition of excessive fines, and
against the infliction of cruel and unusual
punishments. (Art. VIII) (65)
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 6 of 23
61. A declaration. That the enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
(Art. IX) (66)
62. A guarantee. That the powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people. (Art. X) (67)
Footnotes:
(12) Ex parte Yarbrough. (1884) 110 U.S. 651; In re Green,
(1890) 134 U.S. 377; McPherson v. Blacker, (1892) 146 U.S.
1; Wiley v. Sinkler, (1900) 179 U.S. 58; Swaford v.
Templeton,. (1902) 185 U.S. 487.
"The right to vote for members of the Congress of the
United States is not derived merely from the constitution
and laws of the State in which they are chosen, but has its
foundation in the Constitution of the United States." Wiley
v. Sinkler (1900) 179 U.S. 58, approving Ex parte Yarbrough,
(1884) 110 U.S. 651.
(13) Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. U.S. 393; Veazie
Bank v. Fenno, (1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 533; Scholey v. Rew,
(1874) 23 Wall. U.S. 331; De Treville v. Smalls, (1878) 98
U.S. 517; Gibbons v. District of Columbia, (1886) 116 U.S.
404; Pollock v. Farmers' L & T. Co., (1895) 157 U.S. 429;
Pollock v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 158 U.S. 601; Thomas v.
U.S, (1904) 192 U.S. 363. See infra note 9, P. 114.
"The men who framed and adopted that instrument [the
Constitution] had just emerged from the struggle for
independence, whose rallying cry had been that `taxation and
representation go together'.... The States were about, for
all national purposes embraced in the Constitution, to
become one, united under the same laws. But as they still
retained their jurisdiction over all persons and things
within their territorial limits, except where surrendered to
the general government or restrained by the Constitution,
they were careful to see to it that taxation and
representation should go together, so that the sovereignty
reserved should not be impaired, and that when Congress, and
especially the House of Representatives, where it was
specifically provided that all revenue bills must originate,
voted a tax upon property, it should be with the
consciousness, and under the responsibility, that in so
doing the tax so voted would proportionately upon the
immediate constituents of those who imposed it." Pollock v.
Farmers' L.& T.Co., (1895) 157 U.S. 429.
(14) "The direct and declared object of this census is, to
furnish a standard by which `representatives, and direct
taxes, may be apportioned among the several States which may
be included within this Union.'" Loughborough v. Blake,
(1820) 5 Wheat. U.S. 317.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 7 of 23
(15) "The House of Representatives has the sole right to impeach
officers of the government. and the Senate to try him."
Kilbourn v. Thompson, (1880) 103 U.S. 190.
(16) Anderson v.Dunn, (1821) 6 Wheat. U.S. 204; Coxe v.
MClenachan, (1798) 3 Dall. U.S. 478; Kilbourn v. Thompson,
(1880) 103 U.S. 168.
(17) Field v.Clark, (1802) 143 U.S. 649; Twin City Bank v.
Nebeker (1897) 167 U.S. 196.
"The construction of this limitation is practically well
settled by the uniform action of Congress. According to that
construction, it has been confined to bills to levy taxes in
the strict sense of the words, and has not been understood
to extend to bills for other purposes which incidentally
create revenue.'" U.S. v. Norton, (1875) 1 U.S. 569; Twin
City Bank v. Nebeker, (1897) 167 U.S. 202.
(18) Field v. Clark (1892) 143 U.S. 649; U.S. v. Ballin (1892)
144 U.S. 1; Twin City Bank v. Nebeker (1897) 167 U.S. 196;
La Abra Silver Min. Co. v. U.S., (1899) 176 U.S. 423;
Wilkes County v. Coler, (1901) 180 U.S. 506; Fourteen
Diamond Rings v. U.S. (1901) 183 U.S. 176.
"The purpose of the Constitution is to secure to the people
of this country the best legislation by the simplest means.
Its framers being mindful of the errors and oversights which
are bred in the heat and strife and divided responsibility
of legislative assemblies, and which they had repeatedly
beheld in State legislatures, determined to secure to the
people the benefits of revision. and to unite with the power
of revision the check of undivided responsibility, and to
place the power in the hands of the person in whom the
nation reposed, for the time being. the most confidence"
U.S. v. Well, (1894) 29 Ct. Cl. 540.
(19) Hylton v. U.S. (1796) 3 Dall. U.S. 171; M'Culloch v.
Maryland, (1819) 4 Wbeat. U.S. 316; Loughborough v. Blake,
(1820) 5 Wheat. U.S. 317; Obborn v. U.S. Bank (1824) 9
Wheat. U.S. 738; Weston w. Charleston, (1829) 2 Pet. U.S.
449; Dobbins v. Erie County, (1842) 16 Pet. U.S. 435;
Thurlow v. Massachusetts, (1947) 5 How. U.S. 504; Cooley v.
Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. U.S. 299; McGuire v.
Massachusetts, (1865) 3 Wall. U.S. 387; Van Allen v.
Assessors, (1865) 3 Wall. U.S. 573; Bradley v. People,
(1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 459; License Tax Cases (1866) 5 Wall.
U.S. 462; Pervear w. Massachusetts. (1866) 5 Wall. U.S.
475; Woodruff v. Patham, (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 123; Hinson
v. Lott, (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 148; Veazie Bank v. Fenno,
(1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 633; Collector v. Day, (1870) 11 Wall.
U.S. 113; U.S. v. Singer, (1872) 15 Wall. U.S. 111; State
Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, (1872) 15 Wall. U.S. 300; U.S.
v. Baltimre, etc., R. Co., (1872) 17 Wall U.S. 322; Union
Pac. R. Co. v. Peniston, (1873) 18 Wall. U.S. 5; Scholey v.
Row, (1874) 23 Wall. U.S. 331; Merchants Nat. Bank v. U.S.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 8 of 23
(1879) 101 U.S. 1; Springer v. U.S. (1881) 102 U.S. 592;
Legal Tender Cases, (1884) 110 U.S. 421; Head Money Cases
(1884) 112 U.S. 680; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee 117 U.S.
151; Field w. Clark, (1892) 143 U.S. 649. New York, etc.,
R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, (1894) 153 U.S. 628; Pollack v.
Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1895) 157 U.S. 429; U.S. v. Realty
Co., (1896) 163 U.S. 427; In re Kollock, (1807) 165 U.S.
526; Nicol v. Ames, (1899) 173 U.S. 509; Knowlton v.
Moore, (1900) 178 U.S. 41; Delima v. Bidwell, (1901) 182
U.S. 1; Dooley v. U.S. (1901) 182 U.S. 222; Fourteen
Diamond Rings v. U.S. (1901) 183 U.S. 176; Felsenbeld v.
U.S., (1902) 186 U.S. 126; Thomas v. U.S. (1904) 192 U.S.
363. See supra, note 3, p. 112.
(20) Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824) 9 Wheat. U.S. 1; Brown v. Maryland
(1827) 12 Wheat U.S. 419; Willson w. Black Bird Creek Marsh
Co., (1829) 2 Pet. U.S. 245; Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) 6
Pet. U.S. 515; New York v. Miln, (1837) 11 Pet. U.S. 102;
U.S. v. Coombs, (1838) 12 Pet. U.S. 72; Holmes v. Jennison,
(1840) 14 Pet. U.S. 640; Thurlow v. Massachusetta, (1847) 5
How. U.S. 604; Smith v. Turner, (1849) 7 How. U.S. 283;
Nathan v. Louisiana (1850) 8 How. U.S. 73; Mager v. Grima
(1850) 8 How. U.S. 490; U.S. v. Marigold. (1850) 9 How.
U.S. 560; Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. U.S.
299; The Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, (1851) 12
How. U.S. 443; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co.,
(1851) 13 How. U.S. 518; Veazie v. Moore, (1862) 14 How.
U.S. 568; Smith v. Maryland, (1855) 18 How. U.S. 71;
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling. etc., Bridge Co., (1853) 18 How.
U.S. 421; Sinnot v. Davenport (1859) 22 How. U.S. 227;
Foster v. Davenport. (1859) 22 How. U.S. 244; Conway v.
Taylor(1861) 1 Black U.S. 603; U.S. v. Holliday, (1865) 3
Wall. U.S. 407; Gilman v. Philadelphia (1865) 3 Wall. U.S.
713; The Passaic Bridges, 3 Wall. U.S. 782; Southern
Steamship Co. v. Port Wardens (1867) 6 Wall. U.S. 31;
Crandall v. Nevada, (1867) 6 Wall. U.S. 35; White's Bank v.
Smith (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 646; Waring v. Mobile (1868) 8
Wall. U.S. 110; Paul v. Virginia (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 168;
Thomson v. Pacific R. Co. (1869) 9 Wall.U.S. 579; Downham
v. Alexandria (1869) 10 Wall. U.S. 173; Clinton Bridge
(1870) 10 Wall. U.S. 454; The Daniel Ball (1870) 10 Wall
U.S.557; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts (1870) 10 Wall
U.S. 566; The Montello (1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 411; Ex parte
McNiel (1871) 13 Wall U.S. 236; State Freight Tax Case
(1872) 15 Wall. U.S. 232; State Tax on Railway Gross
Receipts (1872) 15Wall. U.S. 284; Osborne v. Mobile (1872)
16 Wall. U.S. 479; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fuller (1873)
17Wall. U.S.560; Bartemeyer v. Iowa (1873) 18 Wall. U.S.
129; Delaware Railroad Tax (1873) 18 Wall. U.S. 206; Peete
v. Morgan (1873) 19 Wall. U.S. 581; Dubuque, etc., R. Co.
v. Richmond (1873) 19 Wall. U.S. 584; Baltimore, etc., R.
Co. v. Maryland (1874) Wall. U.S. 456; The Lottawanna,
(1874) 21 Wall. U.S. 558; Waltan v. Missouri, (1875) 91
U.S. 275; Henderson v. New York. (1876) 92 U. & 259; Chy
Long v. Freedman. (1875) 92 U.S. 275; South Carolina v.
Georgia, (1876) 93 U.S. 4; Sherlock v. Alling, (1876) 93
U.S. 99; U.S. v. 43 Gallons of Whisky, (1876) 93 U.S. 188;
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 9 of 23
Foster v. New Orleans (1876) 94 U.S. 246; MaCready v.
Virginia, (1876) 94 U.S. 391; @niW, Hannibal Etc., R. Co.
v. Husen, (1877) 95 U.S. 465; Pound v. Turck, (1877) 95
U.S. 459; Hall v. De Cuir, (1877) 95 U.S. 485; Pensacola
Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., (1877) 96 U.S. 1;
Boston Beer co. v. Massachusetts (1877) 97 U.S. 25; Cook v.
Pennsylvania (1878) 97 U.S. 566; Wheeling, etc., Transp.
Co. v. Wheeling (1878) 99 U.S. 273; Northwestern Union
Packet Co. v. St.Louis (1879) 100 U.S. 423; Guy v.
Baltimore (1879) 100 U.S. 434; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss (1879)
100 U.S. 491; Howe Mach. Co. v. Gage, (1879) 100 U.S. 676;
Trade-mark Cases (1879) 100 U.S. 82; Wilson v. McNamee,
(1881) 102 U.S. 572; Tiernan v. Rinker, (1880) 102 U.S.
123; Lord v. Goodall, etc., Steamship Co., (1881) 102 U.S.
641; Mobile County v. Kimball, (1881) 102 U.S. 691;
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, (1881) 105 U.S. 460;
Newport, etc., Bridge Co. v. U.S., (1881) 105 U.S. 470;
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, (1882) 107 U.S. 365;
Turuer v. Maryland, (1882) 107 U.S. 38; Escanaba etc.,
Transp. Co. v. Chicago, (1892) 107 U.S. 678; Miller v. New
York, (1883) 169 U.S. 383; Moran v. New Orleans. (1884)
112 U.S. 69; Foster v. Kansas, (1884) 112 U.S. 201; Head
Money Cases. (1884) 112 U.S. 680; Cardwell v. American
Bridge Co., (1885) 113 U.S. 205; Cooper Mfg. Co. v.
Ferguson, (1885) 113 U.S. 727; Gloucester Ferry Co. v.
Pennsylvania. (1885) 114 U.S. 196; Brown v. Houston.
(1895) 114 U.S. 622; Railroad Commission Cases (1886) 116
U.S. 307, 347, 352; Walling v. Michigan, (1886) 116 U.S.
446; Coe v. Errol, (1886) 116 U.S. 517; Pickard v. Pullman
Southern Car. Co., (1886) 117 U.S. 34; Tennessee v.Pullman
Southern Car Co. (1886) 117 U.S. 51; Morgan's Steamship
Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health (1886) 118 U.S. 455;
Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois (1886) 118 U.S. 557; U.S.
v. Kagama (1886) 118 U.S. 375; Philadelphia Fire Assoc v.
New York (1886) 119 U.S. 110; Johson v. Chicago, etc.,
Elevator Co. (1886) 119 U.S. 388; Robbins v. Shelby County
Taxing Dist. (1887) 120 U.S. 489; Corson v. Maryland,
(1887) 120 U.S. 502; Fargo v. Michigan, (1887) 121 U.S.
230; Philadelphia.. etc., Steamship Co., v. Pennsylvania.
(1887) 122 U.S. 322; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton
(1887) 122 U.S. 347; Sands v. Manitee River Imp. Co..
(1887) 123 U.S. 288; Smith v. Alabama (1888) 124 U.S. 465;
Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch (1888) 125 U.S. 1;
Pembina Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania
(1888) 126 U.S. 181; Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. co.
(1888) 125 U.S. 406; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atty.-Gen.
(1888) 125. U.S. 630; California v. Central Pac. R. Co.,
(1889) 127 U.S. 1; Ratterman v. Western Union Tel. Co.
(1888) 127 U.S. 411; Leloup v. Mobile, (1888) 127 U.S. 640;
Kidd v. Pearsaon, (1888) 128 U.S. 1; Asher v. Texas (1888)
128 U.S. 129; Nashville, etc., R. co. v. Alabama, (1888)
128 U.S. 96, Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, (1889) 129 U.S. 141;
Kimmish v. Ball, (1889) 129 U.S. 217; Western Union Tel.
Co. v. Alabama State Board of Assessment, (1889) 132 U.S.
472; Fritts v. Palmer, (1889) 132 U.S. 282; Louisville,
etc. R. Co. v. Mississippi, (1890) 133 U.S. 587; Leisy v.
Hardin (1890) 135 U.S. 100; Cherokee Nation v. Southern
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 10 of 33
Kansas R. Co. (1890) 135 U.S. 641; McCall v. California,
(1890) 136 U.S. 104; Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania,
(1890) 136 U.S. 114; Minnesota v. Barber, (1890) 136 U.S.
318, Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., (1890) 137
U.S. 48; Brimmer v. Rebman, (1891) 138 U.S. 78; Manchester
v. Massachusetts (1891) 139 U.S. 240; In re Rahrer, (1891)
140 U.S. 646; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Pennsylvania,
(1891) 141 U.S. 18; Massachusetts v. Western Union Tel.
Co.. (1891) 141 U.S. 40; Crutcher v. Kentucky, (1891) 141
U.S. 47; Voight v. Wright (1891) 141 U.S. 62; Henderson
Bridge Co. v. Henderson (1891) 141 U.S. 679; In re Garnett
(1891) 141 U.S. 1; Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., (1881) 142
U.S. 217; Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S. (1892) 142 U.S. 651;
Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, (1802) 142 U.S. 339; Horn
Silver Min. Co. v. New York, (1892) 143 U.S. 305; Field v.
Clark. (1892) 143 U.S. 849; O'Neil v. Vermont. (1892) 144
U.S. 323; Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing Dist. (1892) 145
U.S. 1; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania. (1892) 145
U.S. 102; Harman v. Chicago, (1893) 147 U.S. 396;
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. U.S. (1893) 148 U.S. 312; Brennan
v. Titusville, (1894) 153 U.S. 289; Brass v. North Dakota.
(1894) 163 U.S. 391; Ashley v. Ryan. (1894) 153 U.S. 436;
Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. (1894) 153 U.S. 525;
Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Charleston (1894) 153 U.S. 692;
Covington, etc.. Bridge Co. v. Kentucky (1894) 154 U.S. 204;
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson (1894) 154 U.S.
447; Plumley v. Massachusetts(1894) 155 U.S. 461; Texas,
etc. R. Co. v. Interstate Transp. Co., (1895) 155U.S. 585;
Hooper v. California (1895) 155 U.S. 648; Postal Tel.-Cable
Co. v. Adams (1895) 155 U.S. 688; U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co.,
(1895) 156 U.S. 1; Emert v. Missouri (1895) 156 U.S. 296;
Pittsburg, etc., Coal Co. v. Louisiana (1895) 156 U.S. 590;
Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hefley (1895) 158 U.S. 98; New York,
etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania (1895) 158 U.S. 431; In re
Debs (1895) 158 U.S. 564; Greer v. Connecticut (1896) 161
U.S. 519; Western Union Tel. Co. v. James, (1896) 162 U.S.
650; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart, (1896) 163 U.S. 1;
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Illinois, (1896) 163 U.S. 142;
Hennington v. Georgia (1896) 163 U.S. 299; Osborne v.
Florida, (1897) 164 U.S. 650; Scott v. Donald, (1897) 165
U.S. 58; Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor (1897) 165
U.S. 194; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio (1897) 165
U.S.365; New York, etc., R.Co.v.New York (1897) 165 U.S.
628; Gladson v. Minnesota (1897) 166 U.S. 427; Henderson
Bridge Co.v. Kentucky (1897) 166 U.S. 150; St. Anthony
Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Com'rs (1897) 168
U.S. 349; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Solan (1898) 169 U.S.
133; Missourti, Etc., R. Co. v. Haber (1898) 169 U.S. 613;
Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co.,
(1898) 169 U.S. 311; Rhodes v. Iowa (1898) 170 U.S. 412;
Vance v. W.A. Vandercook Co., (1898) 170U.S. 438;
Schollenberger v. Pennsylvania (1898) 171 U.S. 1; Collins
v. New hampshire (1898) 171 U.S. 30; Patapaco Guano Co. v.
North Carolina Board of Agriculture (1898) 171 U.S. 345;
New York v. Roberts (1898) 171 U.S. 658; Hopkins v. U.S.
(1898) 171 U.S. 578; Anderson v. U.S. (1898) 171 U.S. 604;
Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Col, (1898) 172
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 11 of 33
U.S. 58; lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio (1899) 173 U.S.
285; Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson (1899) 173U.S. 592;
Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McCann (1899) 174 U.S. 580;
Addyston Pipe, etc., Co. v. U.S. (1899) 175 U.S.
211;Louisiana v. Texas (1900) 176 U.S. 1; U.S. v.
Bellingham Bay Boom Co. (1900) 176 U.S. 211; Lindsay,
etc., Co. v. Mullen (1900) 176 U.S. 126; Water-Pierce Oil
Co. v. Texas (1900) 177 U.S. 28 New York L. Ins.Co. v.
Cravens (1900) 178 U.S. 389; Scranton v. Wheeler (1900) 179
U.S. 141; Williams v. Fears (1900) 179 U.S. 270; Wisconsin
etc., R. Co. v. Jacobson (1900) 179 U.S. 287; Chesapeake,
etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky (1900) 179 U.S. 388; Reymann
Brewing Co. v. Brister (1900) 179 U.S. 445; W. W. Cargill
Co. v. Minnesota (1900) 180 U.S. 452; Rasmussen v. Idaho
(1901) 181 U.S. 198; Smith v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.
(1901) 181 U.S. 248; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1902)
183 U.S. 238; Louisville, etc., R. Co. V Kentucky (1902)
183 U.S.503; Nutting v. Massachusetts (1902) 183 U.S. 553;
McChord v. Louisville, etc., R. Co.(1902) 183 U.S. 483;
Louisville, Etc., R. Co. v. Eubank (1902) 184 U.S. 27;
Stockard v. Morgan (1902) 185 U.S. 27; Minneapolis, etc.,
R. Co. v. Minnesota (1902) 186 U.S. 257; Reid v. Colorado
(1902) 187 U.S. 137; Western Union Tel. Co. v. New Hope
(1903) 187 U.S. 419; Diamond Glue Co. v. U.S. Glue Co.
(1903) 187 U.S. 611; Lousiville, etc., Ferry Co. v.
Kentucky (1902) 188 U.S. 385; U.S. v. Lynah (1903) 188U.S.
445; Cummings v. Chicago (1903) 188 U.S. 410; The Roanoke
(1903) 189 U.S. 185; Montgomery v. Portland (1903) 190 U.S.
89; Petterson v. Bark Eudora (1903) 190 U.S. 169; Allen v.
Pullman's Palace Car Co., (1903) 191 U.S. 171; New York v.
Knight (1904) 192 U.S. 21; Postal Tel.-Cable Co. v. Taylor
(1904) 192 U.S. 64; Crossman v. Lurman (1904) 192 U.S. 189;
St. ClairCounty v. Interstate Sand Co., etc., (1904) 192
U.S. 189; Buttfield v. Stranahan (1904) 192U.S. 470;
American Steel, etc., Co. v. Speed (1904) 192 U.S. 500;
Northern Securities Co. v. U.S. (1904) 193 U.S. 197.
(21) Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 122; M'Millan
v. M'Neill (1819) 4Wheat. U.S. 131; Ogden v. Saunders
(1827) 12 Wheat. U.S. 213; Boylev. Zacharie (1832) 6 Pet.
U.S. 348; Gassies v. Ballon (1832) 6 Pet. U.S. 761; Beers
v. haughton (1835) 9Pet. U.S. 329; Suydam v. Broadmax
(1840) 14 Pet. U.S. 67; Cook v. Moffat (1847) 5 How. U.S.
295; Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) 19 How. U.S. 393;
Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S. (1892) 142 U.S. 651; Hanover Nat.
Bank v. Moyses(1902) 186 U.S. 181.
The power of Congress to pass bankrupt laws is not
exclusive, but that power may be exercised by the States
except when it is actually exercised by Congress and the
State laws conflict with the Federal law. It is not the mere
existence of the power to enact such laws, but its exercise
by Congress, which is incompatible with the exercise of the
same power by the State. Otherwise with the power to pass
uniform Federal laws of naturalization. "The citizens of any
one state being entitled by the Constitution to enjoy the
rights of citizenship in every other state, that fact
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 12 of 33
creates an interest in this particular in each other's acts,
which does not exist with regard to their bankrupt laws;
since State acts of naturalization would thus be extra-
territorial in their operation, and have an influence on the
most vital interest of other States. On these grounds, State
laws of naturalization may be brought under one of the four
heads or classes of powers precluded to the States, to wit,
that of incompatibility." Ogden v. Saunders (1827) 12 Wheat
U.S. 277. See also Pierce v. New Hampshire (1847) 5 How.
U.S. 585; Dred Scott v. Sandford (18560 19 How. U.S. 405;
Gilman v. Lockwood (1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 410; Brown v. Smart
(1892) 145 U.S. 457.
(22) Briscoe v. Kentucky Com. Bank (1837)11 Pet. U.S. 267; Fox
v. Ohio (1847)5 How. U.S. 410; U.S. v. Marigold (1850) 9
How. U.S. 560; Legal Tender Cases (1870) 12 Wall. U.S. 545;
The Miantinomi (1855) 3 Wall. Jr. (C.C.) 46,17 Fed. Cases
No. 9,521.
"The Constitution was intended to frame a government as
distinguished from a league or compact, a government supreme
in some particulars over States and people. It was designed
to provide the same currency, having a uniform legal value
in all the States. It was for this reason the power to coin
money and regulate its value was conferred upon the Federal
Government, while the same power as well as the power to
emit bills of credit was withdrawn from the States. The
States can no longer declare what shall be money, or
regulate its value. Whatever power there is over the
currency is vested in Congress." Legal Tender Cases (1870)
12 Wall. U.S. 545.
(23) Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1855) 18 How.
U.S. 421; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.,
(1877) 94 U.S. 1; Ex parte Jackson (1877) 96 U.S. 727; In
re Rapier, (1892) 143 U.S. 110; Horner v. U.S. (1892) 143
U.S. 207; In re Debs (1895) 158 U.S. 564; Illinois Cent.
R. R. Co. v. Illinois (1896) 163 U.S. 142; Gladson v.
Minnesota, (1897) 166 U.S. 427.
"Post-offices and post-roads are established to facilitate
the transmission of intelligence. Both commerce and the
postal service are place with in the power of Congress,
because, being national in their operation, they should be
under the protecting care of the national government.... As
they were entrusted to the general government for the good
of the nation, it is not only the right, but the duty, of
Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and
the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or
unnecessarily encumbered by State regulation." Pensacoal
Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1877) 96 U.S. 1.
"The States before the Union was formed could establish post
offices and post-roads, and in doing so could bring into
play the police power in the protection of their citizens
from the use of the means so provided for purposes supposed
to exert a demoralizing influence on the people. When the
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 13 of 33
power to establish post offices and post-roads was
surrendered to the Congress it was as a complete power, and
the grant carried with it the right to exercise all the
powers which made that power effective." In re Rapier (1892)
143 U.S. 134.
(24) Grant v. Raymond, (1832) 6 Pet. U.S. 218; Wheaton v. Peters
(1834) 8 Pet. U.S. 501; Trade-Mark Cases (1879) 100 U.S.
82; Burrow-Giles Lith.Co. v. Sarony (1884) 111 U.S. 53;
U.S. v. Duell (1899) 172 U.S. 576;
"No State can limit, control, or even exercise the power.
Woolen v. Banker (1877) 2 Flipp. U.S. 33,30 Fed. Cases No.
18,030.
(25) Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) 2 Dall. U.S. 419; Stuart v.
Laird (1803) 1Cranch. U.S. 299; U.S. v. Peters (1809) 5
Cranch U.S. 115; Cohen v. Virginia (1821) 6 Wheat. U.S.
264; Martin v. Hunter (1816) 1 Wheat. U.S. 304; Osborn v.
U.S. Bank (1824) 9 Wheat. U.S. 738; Benner v. Porter (1850)
9 How. U.S. 235; U.S. v. Ritchie (1854) 17 How. U.S. 525;
Murray v. HobokenLand, etc., Co. (1855) 18 How. U.S. 272;
Ex parte Vallandigham (1863) 1 Wall. U.S. 243; Pennoyer v.
Neff (1877) 95 U.S. 714; U.S. v. Union Pac. R. Co. (1878)
98 U.S. 560; Mitchell v. Clark (1884) 110 U.S. 633; Ames
v. Kansas (1884) 111 U.S. 449; In re Loney (1890) 134 U.S.
373; In re Green (1890) 134 U.S. 377; McAllister v. U.S.
(1891) 141 U.S. 174; Robertson v. Baldwin (1897) 165 U.S.
275; Hanover Nat.Bank v. Moyses (1902) 186 U.S. 181.
It is manifest that the Constitution requires a supreme
court to be established. But Congress is also bound "to
create some inferior courts, in which to vest all that
jurisdiction which, under the Constitution, is exclusively
vested in the United States, and of which the Supreme Court
cannot take original cognizance. They might establish one
ore more inferior courts; they might parcel out the
jurisdiction among such courts, from time to time, at their
own pleasure. But the whole judicial power of the United
States should be, at all time, vested either in an original
or appellate form, in some courts created under its
authority." Per Story, J., in Martin v. Hunter (1816) 1
Wheat. U.S. 331.
(26) U.S. v. Palmer (1818) 3 Wheat U.S. 610; U.S. v.
Wiltberger(1820) 5 Wheat U.S. 76; U.S. v. Smith (1820)
5Wheat U.S. 153; U.S. v. Furlong (1820) 5 Wheat. U.S. 184;
U.S. v. Arjona (1887) 120 U.S. 479.
The power of the United States to punish an act constituting
an offense against the law of nations does not prevent a
State from providing for the punishment of the same thing,
where the act is an offense against the authority of the
State as well as that of the United States. U.S. v. Arjona
(1887) 120 U.S. 479.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 14 of 33
(27) Brown v. U.S. (1814) 8 Cranch U.S. 110; American Ins. Co.
v. 356 Bales Cotton (1828) 1 Pet. U.S. 511; Mrs.
Alexander's Cotton (1864) 2 Wall U.S. 404; Miller v. U.S.
(1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 268; Tyler v. Defrees (1870) 11 Wall.
U.S. 331; Stewart v. Kahn (1870) 11 Wall U.S. 493;
hamiltonv. Dillin (1874) 21 Wall U.S. 73; Lamar v. Browne
(1875) 92 U.S. 187; Mayfield v. Richards (1885) 115 U.S.
137; Chinese Exclusion Case (1889) 130 U.S. 581; Church of
Jesus Christ v. U.S. (1890) 136 U.S. 1; Nishimura Ekiu v.
U.S. 142 U.S. 651.
"The Federal power has a right to declare and prosecute
wars, and, as a necessary incident, to raise and transport
troops through and over the territory of any State of the
Union. If this right is dependent in any sense, however
limited, upon the pleasure of the State, the government
itself may be overthrown by an obstruction to its exercise."
Crandall v. Nevada (1807) 6 Wall. U.S. 44.
(28) Crandall v. Nevada (1867) 6 Wall. U.S. 35; Nishimura Ekiu
v. U.S. (1892) 142 U.S. 651.
"The legislation of the United States will be obliged, by
this provision, once at least in every two years, to
deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on
foot; to come to a new resolution on this point; and to
declare their sense of the matter by a formal vote in the
face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest
in the executive department permanent funds for the support
of an army, if they were even uncautious enough to be
willing to repose in it so improper a confidence."
Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. XXVI.
"Among the powers assigned to the national government, is
the power to raise and support armies' and the power `to
provide for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces.' The execution of these powers falls within
the line of its duties; and its control over the subject is
plenary and exclusive.... No interference with the
execution of this power of the national government in the
formation, organization, and government of its armies by any
State officials could be permitted without greatly impairing
the efficiency of, if it did not utterly destroy, this
branch of the public service." Tarble's Case (1871) 13 Wall.
U.S. 408.
(29) U.S. v. Bevans (1818) 3 Wheat. U.S. 336; Dynes v. Hoover
(1857) 20 How. U.S. 85.
"The authority to build and equip vessels of war is,
doubtless, implied in the power to declare war, but the same
authority is more directly conferred by the power to
`provide and maintain a navy.'" U.S. v. Burlington, etc.,
Ferry Co. (1884) 1 Abb.U.S. 28, 27 Fed. Cases No. 16,151.
(30) Houston v. Moore (1820) 5 Wheat. U.S. 1; Martin v. Mott
(1827) 12 Wheat. U.S. 19; Luther v. Borden (1849) 7 How.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 15 of 33
U.S. 1; Crandall v. Nevada (1867) 6 Wall U.S. 35; Texas v.
White (1868)7 Wall U.S. 700; Presser v. Illinois (1886) 116
U.S. 252.
"So long as the militia are acting under the military
jurisdiction of the State to which they belong, the powers
of legislation over them are concurrent in the general and
State government. Congress has power to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining them; and this power
being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering
and training them, according to the discipline to be
prescribed by Congress, it may be exercised to any extent
that may be deemed necessary by Congress. But as State
militia, the power of the State governments to legislate on
the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of
the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that
instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate
nevertheless to the paramount law of the general government,
operating upon the same subject." Houston v. Moore (1820) 5
Wheat. U.S. 16.
(31) Hepburn v. Ellzey (1804) 2 Cranch U.S. 445; Loughborough v.
Blake (1820) 5 Wheat. U.S. 317; Cohen v. Virginia (1821) 6
Wheat. U.S. 264; American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of
Cotton(1828) 1 Pet. U.S. 511; Kendall v. U.S. (1838) 12
Pet. U.S. 524; U.S. v. Dewitt (1869) 9 Wall. U.S. 41;
Dunphy v. Kleinsmith (1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 610; Willard v.
Presbury (1871) 14 Wall U.S. 676; Kohl v. U.S. (1875) 91
U.S. 367; Phillips v. Payne (1875) 92 U.S. 130; U.S. v.
Fox (1876) 94 U.S. 315; Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe
(1885) 114 U.S. 525; Gibbons v. District of Columbia (1886)
116 U.S. 404; Van Brocklin v. Tennessee (1886) 117 U.S.
151; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick (1889) 129U.S. 141; Geofroy
v. Riggs(1890) 133 U.S. 258; Benson v. U.S. (1892) 146
U.S. 325; Shoemaker v. U.S. (1893) 147 U.S. 282; Chappell
v. U.S. (1896) 160 U.S. 499; Ohio v. Thomas (1899) 173
U.S. 276; wightv. Davidson (1901) 181 U.S. 371.
"When the title is acquired by purchase by consent of the
legislatures of the States, the Federal jurisdiction is
exclusive of all State authority. This follows from the
declaration of the Constitution that Congress shall have
`like authority' over such places as it has over the
district which is the seat of government; that is, the
power of `exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.'
Broader or clearer language could not be used to exclude all
other authority than that of Congress." Ft. Leavenworth R.
Co. v. Lowe (1885) 114 U.S. 532.
(32) U.S. v. Hamilton, (1795) 3 Dall. U.S. 17; Hepburn v.
Eltzey, (1804) 2 Cranch U.S. 446; Ex parte Bollman, (1807)
4 Cranch U.S. 76; Ex parte Kearney, (1822) 7 Wheat. U.S.
38; Ex parte Watkins, (1830) 3 Pet. U.S. 193; Ex parte
Milburn, (1636) 9 Pet. U.S. 704; Holmes v. Jennison,
(1840) 14 Pet. U.S. 640; Ex parte Dorr (1845) 3 How. U.S.
103; Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 How. U.S. 1; Ableman v.
Booth, (1858) 21 How. U.S. 506; Ex parte Vallandigham,
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 16 of 33
(1863) 1 Wall. U.S. 243; Ex parte Milligan, (1868) 4 Wall.
U.S. 2; Ex parte McCardle, (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 508; Ex
parte Yerger, (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 85; Tarble's Case, (1871)
13 Wall. U.S. 307; Ex parte Lange, (1873) 18 Wall. U.S.
163; Ex parte Parks, (1876) 93 U.S. 18; Ex parte
Karstendick, (1876) 93 U.S. 396; Ex parte Virginia, (1879)
100 U.S. 339; In re Neagle (1890) 135 U.S. 1; In re
Frederich (1893) 149 U.S. 70.
"The Constitution also declares that the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in
cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require
it. No express power is given to Congress to secure this
invaluable right in the non-enumerated cases, or to suspend
the writ in cases of rebellion or invasion. And yet it would
be difficult to say, since this great writ of liberty is
usually provided for by the ordinary functions of
legislation, and can be effectually provided for only in
this way, that it ought not to be deemed by necessary
implication within the scope of the legislative power of
Congress." Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) 16Pet. U.S. 619.
(33) Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 6 Cranch U.S. 87; Ogden v. Saunders
(1827) 12 Wheat.U.S. 213; Watson v. Mercer (1834) 9 Pet.
U.S. 88; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania (1854) 17 How. U.S. 456;
Locke v. New Orleans (1866) 4 Wall U.S. 172; Cummings v.
Missouri (1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 277; Ex parte Garland (1866) 4
Wall. (C.S.) 333; Drehman v. Tittle (1869) 8 Wall. U.S.
595; Klinger v. Missouri (1871) 13 Wall. U.S. 257; Pierce
v. Carskadon (1872) 16 Wall.U.S. 234; Hopt v. Utah (1884)
110 U.S. 574; Cook v. U.S. (1891) 138 U.S. 157; Neely v.
Henkel (1901) 180 U.S. 109; Southwestern coal Co. v.
McBride (1902) 185 U.S. 499.
(34) License Tax Cases (1866) 5 Wall. U.S. 462; Springer v. U.S.
(1881) 102 U.S. 586; Nicol v. Ames (1899) 173 U.S. 509.
"If Congress sees fit to impose a capitation, or other
direct tax, it must be laid in proportion to the census; if
Congress determines to impose duties, imposts, and excesses,
they must be uniform throughout the United States. These are
not strictly limitations of power. They are rules
prescribing the mode in which it shall be exercised." Veazie
Bank v. Fenno (1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 541.
(35) Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851) 12 How. U.S. 299; Pace v.
Burgess (1875) 92 U.S. 372; Turpin v. Burgess (1886) 117
U.S. 504; Pittsburg, Etc., Coal Co. v. Bates (1895) 156
U.S. 577; Nicol v. Ames (1899) 173 U.S. 509; Williams v.
Fears (1900) 179 U.S. 270; De Lima v. Bidwell (1901) 182
U.S. 151; Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U.S. (1901) 183 U.S.
176; Cornell v. Coyne (1904) 192 U.S. 418.
"The purpose of the restriction is that exportation, all
exportation, shall be free from national burden." Fairbank
v. U.S. (1901) 181 U.S. 292.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 17 of 33
(36) Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851) 12 How. U.S. 299;
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling,Etc., Bridge Co. (1855) 18 How.
U.S. 421; Munn v. Illinois (1876) 94 U.S. 113;
Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis (1879) 100 U.S.
423; Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg (1881)
105 U.S. 559; Spraigue v. Thompson (1886) 118 U.S. 90;
Morgan's Steamship co. v. Louisiana Board of Health (1886)
118 U.S. 455; Johnson v. Chicago, etc., Elevator Co.
(1886) 119 U.S. 388.
This clause "is a limitation upon the power of Congress to
regulate commerce, for the purpose of producing entire
commercial equality within the United States, and also a
prohibition upon the State to destroy such equality by any
legislation prescribing a condition upon which vessels bound
from one State shall enter the ports of another State." Per
Mr. Justice Wayne, in Norris v. Boston (1849) 7 How. U.S.
414. See also Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co.
(1855) 18 How. U.S. 433; Williams v. The Lizzie Henderson
(1880) 20 Fed. Cases No. 17,726a.
"This provision operates only as a limitation of the powers
of Congress, and in no respect affects the States in the
regulation of their domestic affairs." Munn v. Illinois
(1876) 94 U.S. 135.
(37) "A State is forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance, or
confederation. If these compacts are with foreign nations,
they interfere with the treaty-making power which is
conferred entirely on the general government; if with each
other, for political purposes, they can scarcely fail to
interfere with the general purpose and intent of the
Constitution. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, would
lead directly to war; the power of declaring which is
expressly given to Congress." Per Mr. Chief Justice
Marshall, in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) 7 Pet. U.S. 249.
(38) Decisions relating to making anything but gold and silver
coin a tender in payment of debts. Craig v. Missouri (1830)
4 Pet. U.S. 410;Byrne v. Missourti (1834) 8 Pet. U.S. 40;
Briscoe v. Kentucky Com. Bank (1837) 11 Pet. U.S. 257;
Darrington v. Branch Bank (1851) 13 How. U.S. 12.
Decisions relating to ex post facto law. Calder v. Bull
(1798) 3 Dall. U.S. 386; Watson v. Mercer (1834) 8 Pet.
U.S. 88; Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, (1854) 17 How. U.S.
466; Locke v. New Orleans, (1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 172; Ex
parte Garland (1866) 4 Wall U.S. 333; Gut v. Minnesota,
(1869) 9 Wall. U.S. 35; Kring v. Missouri, (1882) 107 U.S.
221; Jaehne v. New York (1888) 128 U.S. 189; Medley,
Petitioner, (1890) 134 U.S. 160; Holden v. Minnesota (1890)
137 U.S. 483; Hawker v. New York (1898) 170 U.S. 189;
Thompson v. Missouri, (1898) 171 U.S. 380; McDonald v.
Massachusetts, (1901) 180 U.S. 311; Mallett v. North
Carolina (1901) 181 U.S. 589; Reetz v. Michigan, (1903) 188
U.S. 505.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 18 of 33
Decisions relating to laws impairing the obligation of
contracts. Fletcher v. Peck, (1810) 6 Cranch U.S. 87; New
Jersey v. Wilson, (1812) 7 Cranch U.S. 164; Sturges v.
Crowninshield. (1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 122; M'Millan v.
M'Neill, (1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 209; Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, (1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 518; Owings v. Speed, (1820)
5 Wheat. U.S. 420; Farment etc., Bank v. Smith, (1821) 6
Wheat. U.S. 131; Green v. Biddle. (1823) 8 Wheat. U.S. 1,
Ogden v. Saunders (1827) 12 Wheat. U.S. 213; Mason v.
Raile, (1827) 12 Wheat. U.S. 370; Sauterlee v. Matthewson.
(1829) 2 Pet. U.S. 380; Jackson v. Lamphire (1830) 3 Pet.
U.S. 280; Providence Bank v. Billings (183O) 4 Pet. U.S.
514; Mumma v. Potomac Co., (1834) 8 Pet. U.S. 281; Beers
v. Houghton. (1835) 9 Pet. U.S. 329; Charles River Bridge
v. Warren Bridge, (1837) 11 Pet. U.S. 420; Armstrong v.
Treasurer, (1842) 16 Pet. U.S. 281; Bronson v. Kinzie.
(1843) 1 How. U.S. 311; McCracken v. Hayward (1844) 2 How.
U.S. 608; Gordon v. Appeal Tax Ct., (1845) 3 How. U.S. 133;
Maryland v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1845) 3 How. U.S. 534;
Neil v. Ohio, (1845) 3 How. U.S. 720; Cook v. Moffat,
(1847) 5 How. U.S. 295; Planters' Bank v. Sharp (1848) 6
How. U.S. 301; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix (1848) 6 How.
U.S. 507; Crawford v. Branch Bank, (1849) 7 How. U.S. 279;
Woodruff v. Trapnall, (1850) 10 How. U.S. 190; Paup v. Drew
(1850) 10 How. U.S. 218; Baltimore. etc., R. Co. v. Nesbit,
(1650) 10 How. U.S. 395; Butler v. Pennsylvania, (1850) 10
How. U.S. 402; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Louisa R. Co.,
(1851) 13 How. U.S. 71; Vincennes University v. Indiana,
(1852) 14 How. U.S. 268; Curran v. Arkanue. (1853) 15 How.
U.S. 304; Piqua Branch of State Bank v. Knoop, (1853) 16
How. U.S. 369; Dodge v. Woolsey, (1855) 18 How. U.S. 331;
Beers v. Arkansas, (1857) 20 How. U.S. 527; Aspinwall v.
Daviess County, (1859) 22 How. U.S. 364; Christ Church v.
Philadelphia County, (1860) 24 How. U.S. 300; Howard v.
Bugbee (1860) 24 How. U.S. 461; Jefferson Branch Bank v.
Skelly, (1861) 1 Black U.S. 436; Franklin Branch Bank v.
Ohio. (1861) 1 Black U.S. 474; Wabash, etc., Canal Co. v.
Beers, (1862) 2 Black U.S. 448; Gilman v. Sheboygan, (1862)
2 Black U.S. 510; Passaic River, etc.. Bridge v. Hoboken
Land etc. Co., (1863) 1 Wall. U.S. 116; Hawthorne v. Calef,
(1864) 2 Wall. U.S. 10; Binghampton Bridge, (1865) 3 Wall.
U.S. 51; Washington, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Maryland, (1865)
3 Wall. U.S. 210; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Rock, (1866) 4
Wall. U.S. 177; Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall. U.S.
177; Von Hoffman v. Quincy, (1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 536;
Mulligan v. Corbins, (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 487; Furman v.
Nichol, (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 44; Home of Friendless v.
Rouse, (1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 430; Washingion University v.
Rouse. (1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 439; Butz v. Muscatine (1869) 6
Wall. U.S. 675; Drehman v. Stille, (1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 605;
Hepburn v. Griswold, (1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 603; Ohio, etc.,
R. Co. v. McClure, (1870) 10 Wall. U.S. 511; Legal Tender
Cases, (1870) 12 Wall. U.S. 457; Curtis v. Whitney, (1871)
13 Wall. U.S. 68; Penniiylvania College Cases (1871) 13
Wall. U.S. 190; Wilmington etc., R. Co. v. Reid (1871) 13
Wall. U.S. 264, East Saginaw Salt Mfg. Co. v. East Saginaw,
(1871) 13 Wall. U.S. 373; Whits v. Hart, (1871) 13 Wall.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 19 of 33
U.S. 646; Osborn v. Nicholson, (1871) 13 Wall. U.S. 854;
Norwich, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson. (1872) 15 Wall. U.S. 195;
State Tax on Foreign-held Bunds; (1872) 16 Wall. U.S. 300;
Tomlinson v. Jessup, (1872) 15 Wall. U.S. 464; Tomlinson v.
Branch. (1872) 15 Wall. U.S. 460; Miller v. New York
(1872) 15 Wall. U.S. 478; Holyoke Water-Power Co. v. Lyman
(1872) 16 Wall. U.S. 500; Gunn v. Barry (1872) 16 Wall.
U.S. 610; Humphrey v. Pegues (1872) 16 Wall. U.S. 244;
Walker v. Whitehead, (1872) 16 Wall. U.S. 314; Sohn v.
Waterson (1873) 17 Wall. U.S. 596; Barings v. Dabney.
(1873) 19 Wall. U.S. 1; Head v. Missouri University (1873)
19 Wall. U.S. 526; Pacific R. Co. v. Maguire (1873) 20
Wall. U.S. 36; Garrison v. New York, (1874) 21 Wall. U.S.
196; Ochiltree v. Iowa R. Contracting Co., (1874) 21 Wall.
(U.S.) 249; Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. King. (1875) 91
U.S. 3; Moultire County v. Rockingham Ten-Cent Sav.-Bank
(1875) 92 U.S. 631; Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta (1876) 93 U.S.
118; West Wisconsin R. Co. v. Trempealeau County, (1876) 93
U.S. 596; New Jersey v. Yard (1877) 95 U.S. 104; Cairo,
etc., R. Co. v. Hecht (1877) 95 U.S. 168; Terry v. Anderson
(1877) 95 U.S. 628; Farrington v. Tennessee (1877) 95 U.S.
679; Blount v. Windley, (1877) 95 U.S. 173; Murray v.
Charleston, (1877) 96 U.S. 432; Edwards v. Kearzey. (1877)
96 U.S. 595; Tennessee v. Sneed (1877) 96 U.S. 69;
Williams v. Bruffy (1877) 96 U.S. 176; Richmond, etc., R
Co. v.Richmond (1877) 96 U.S. 521; Boston Beer Co. v.
Massachusetts (1877) 97 U.S. 25; Northwestern Fertilizer
Co. v. Hyde Park (1878) 97 U.S. 659; Memphis, etc., R. Co.
v. Gaines. (1878) 97 U.S. 697; U.S. v. Memphis (1877) 97
U.S. 284; Keith v. Clark (1878) 107 U.S. 454; Atlantic,
etc., R. Co. v. Georgia, (1878) 98 U.S. 359; Northwestern
University v. People, (1878) 99 U.S. 309; Newton v.
Mahoning County, (1879) 100 U.S. 548; Memphis, etc., R. Co.
v. Tennessee (1879) 101 U.S. 337; Wright v. Nagle, (1879)
101 U.S. 791; Stone v. Mississippi (1879) 101 U.S.814;
South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Alabama, (1879) 101 U.S. 832;
Louisiana v. New Orleans (1880) 102 U.S. 203; Hall v.
Wisconsin (1880) 103 U.S. 5; Penniman's Case. (1880) 103
U.S. 714; Wolff v. New Orleans (1860) 103 U.S. 358;
Koshkonong v. Burton, (1882) 104 U.S. 668; New Haven, etc.,
R. Co. v. Hamersley (1881) 104 U.S. 1; Clay County v.
Savings Soc. (1882) 104 U.S. 579; New York Guaranty, etc.,
Co. v. Board of Liquidation, (1881) 105 U.S. 622; Greenwood
v. Union Freight R. Co. (1881) 103 U.S. 13; St. Anna's
Asylum v. New Orleans, (1881) 105 U.S. 362; Louisiana v.
Pilsbury (1881) 105 U.S. 278; New Orleans v. Morris (1881)
105 U.S. 278; Close v. Glenwood Cemetery, (1882) 107 U.S.
466; Antoni v. Greenhow, (1882) 107 U.S. 769; Vance v.
Vance, (1883) 108 U.S. 514; Memphis Gas Light Co. v. Shelby
County Taxing Dist., (Itib3) 109 U.S. 398; Canada Southern
R. Co. v. Gebhard (1883) 109 U.S. 527; Louisiana v. New
Orleans, (1883) 109 U.S. 285; Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co.,
(1883) 109 U.S. 401; Spring Valley Water Works v.
Schottler, (1884) 110 U.S. 347; Butchers' Uulon Slaughter-
House, etc., Co. v. Crescent City Live Stock Landing, etc,
Co., (1884) 111 U.S. 746; Nelson v. Police Jury. (1884)
111 U.S. 716; Marye v. Parsons, (1884) 114 U.S. 325;
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 20 of 33
Poindexter v. Greenhow, (1884) 114 U.S. 270; Amy v. Shelby
County Taxing Dist., (1885) 114 U.S. 387; Allen v.
Baltimore, etc., R. Co., (1884) 114 U.S. 311; Effinger v.
Kenney, (1885) 115 U.S. 566; New Orleans Gas Co. v.
Lousiana Light Co., (1885) 115 U.S. 650; Louisville Gas Co.
v. Citizens Gas Co., (1885) 115 U.S. 693. New Orleans Water-
Works Co. v. Rivers, (1885) 115 U.S. 674; Fisk v. Jefferson
Police Jury, (1885) 166 U.S. 131; Mobile v. Watson (1886)
116 U.S. 289; New Orleans v. Houston, (1896) 119 U.S. 265,
St. Tammany Water-Works v. New Orleans Water-Works, (1887)
120 U.S. 64; Church v. Kelsey (1887) 121 U.S. 282; Lehigh
Water Co. v. Easton, (1897) 121 U.S. 388; Seibert v. Lewis,
(1887) 122 U.S. 284; New Orleans Water-Works Co. v.
Louisiana Sugar Refining Co. (1888) 125 U.S. 18; Maynard
v. Hill, (1888) 125 U.S. 190; Denny v. Bennett (1888) 128
U.S. 489; Williamson v. New Jersey (1889) 130 U.S. 189;
Freeland v. Williams, (1889) 131 U.S. 405; Campbell v.
Wade. (1889) 132 U.S. 34; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller,
(1889) 132 U.S. 75; Pennie v. Reis, (1889) 132 U.S. 464;
Hans v. Louisiana, (1890) 134 U.S. 1; Crenshaw v. U.S.,
(1890) 134 U.S. 99; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Minnesota,
(1890) 134 U.S. 418; Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v.
Minnesota, (1890) 134 U.S. 467; Hill v. Merchants' Mut.
Ins. Co., (1890) 134 U.S. 515; McGahey v. Virginia. (1890)
135 U.S. 662; U.S. v. North Carolina (189O) 136 U.S. 211;
Wheeler v. Jackson, (1890) 137 U.S. 245; Sioux City St. R.
Co. v. Sioux City, (1891) 138 U.S. 98; Wheeling, etc.,
Bridge Co. v. Wheeling bridge Co., (1891) 138 U.S. 287;
Pennoyer v. McConnaughy (1891) 140 U.S. 1; Scotland County
Ct. v. U.S., (Idol) 140 U.S. 41; Essex Public Road Board v.
Skinkle, (1891) 140 U.S. 334; Stein v. Bienville Water
Supply Co., (1891) 141 U.S. 67; New Orleans v. New Orleans
Water Works Co., (1891) 142 U.S. 79; New Orleans City,
etc., R. Co. v. New Orleans (1892) 143 U.S. 199; Louisville
Water Co. v. Clark (1892) 143 U.S. 1; New York v. Squire,
(1892) 145 U.S. 175; Baker v. Kilgore, (1892) 145 U.S. 487;
Morley v. Lake Shore R. Co. (1892) 146 U.S. 102; Hamilton
Gas Light, etc. Co. v. Hamilton, (1892) 146 U.S. 258;
Wilmington, etc.. R. Co. v. Alsbrook, (18021 146 U.S. 279;
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387;
Bier v. McGehee, (1893) 148 U.S. 137; People v. Cook,
(1893) 148 U.S. 397; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Bristol,
(1894) 151 U.S. 656; Bryan v. Board of Education (1894) 151
U.S. 639; Duncan v. Missouri (1894) 152, U.S. 377; New
Orleans v. Benjuiuln, (1894) 153 U.S. 411; Eagle Ins. Co.
v. Ohio, (1804) 163 U.S. 440; New York, etc., R. Co. v.
Pennsylvania (1894) 153 U.S. 828; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v.
Tennessee, (1894) 153 U.S. 486; U.S. v. Thoman, (1895) 156
U.S. 353; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Gill, (1895) 156 U.S.
649; New Orleans City, etc., R. Co. v. Louisiana (1895) 157
U.S. 210; Bank of Commerce v. Tenneessee (1895) 161 U.S.
134; Baltzer v. North Carolina (1896) 161 U.S. 240;
Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co., (1896) 161 U.S. 646;
Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, (1896) 101 U.S. 677;
Woodruff v. Mississippi, (1896) 162 U.S. 201; Gibson v.
Missiissippi (1896) 162 U.S. 605; Barnitz v. Beverly,
(1896) 163 U.S. 119; Hanford v. Davies, (1896) 163 U.S.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 21 of 33
273; Covington, etc., Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, (1896)
164 U.S. 578; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Mathews, (1897)
165 U.S. 1; Grand Lodge, etc. v. New Orleans (1897) 166
U.S. 143; Baltimore v. Baltimore Trust, etc., Co., (1897)
168 U.S. 673; City R. Co. v. Citizens St. R. Co., (1897)
166 U.S. 657; Wabash R. Co. v. Defiance, (1897) 167 U.S.
88; Shapleigh v. San Angelo, (1897) 167 U.S. 646; St.
Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Com'rs
(1897) 168 U.S. 340; Douglas v. Kentucky, (1897) 168 U.S.
488; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas (1898) 170 U.S. 226;
Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas (1898) 170 U.S. 243;
Williams v. Eggleston (1898) 170 U.S. 304; Chicago, etc.,
R. Co. v. Nebraska, (1898) 170 U.S. 57; Missouri v. Murphy
(1898) 170 U.S. 78; Louisville Water Co. v. Kentucky,
(1898) 170 U.S. 127; Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co,
(1898) 172 U.S. 1; McCullough v. Virginia (1898) 172 U.S.
102; Connecticut Mut L. Co. v. Spratley, (1899) 172 U.S.
602; Citizens Sav. Bank v. OwensLoro (1899) 173 U.S. 636;
Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, (1899) 173 U.S. 684;
Covington v. Kentucky, (1899) 173 U.S. 231; Henderson
Bridge Co. v. Henderson (1899) 173 U.S. 592; Walsh v.
Columbus, etc., R. Co., (1900) 176 U.S. 469; Adirondack R.
Co. v. New York, (1900) 176 U.S. 335; New York L. Ins. Co.
v. Cravens (1900) 178 U.S. 389; Looker v. Maynard, (1900)
179 U.S. 46; Stearns v. Minnesota. (1900) 179 U.S. 223;
lllinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, (1901) 180 U.S. 28; St.
Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, (1901) 181 U.S. 142; Red
River Valley Nat. Bank v. Craig, (1901) 181 U.S. 548;
Bedford v. Eastern Bldg. etc., Assoc. (1901) 161 U.S. 227;
Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, (1901) 183 U.S. 13; Orr v.
Gilman, (1902) 183 U.S. 278; Wilson v. Iseminger, (1902)
185 U.S. 55; Vicksburg Water-Works Co. v. Vicksburg, (1902)
185 U.S. 65; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses (1902) 188 U.S.
181; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Maryland, (1902) 187 U.S.
256; Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. Oshkosh (1903) 187 U.S. 437;
Diamond Glue Co. v. U.S. Glue Co. (1903) 187 U.S. 611;
Weber v. Rogan, (1903) 188 U.S. 10; Blackstone v. Miller,
(1903) 188 U.S. 189; Waggoner v. Flack, (1903) 188 U.S.
595; Owensboro v. Owensboro Waterworks Co., (1903) 191 U.S.
358; Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, (1903) 191 U.S.
319; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, (1903) 191 U.S. 499;
Citizens' Bank v. Parker, (1904) 192 U.S. 73; Stanislaus
County v. San Joaquin, etc., Canal, etc., Co., (1904) 192
U.S. 201.
(39) McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 316; Gibbons v.
Ogden (1824) 9 Wheat. U.S. 1; Brown v. Maryland, (1827) 12
Wheat. U.S. 419; Mager v. Grima (1850) 8 How. U.S. 490;
Cooley v. Board of Wardens, (1851) 12 How. U.S. 209; Almy
v. California. (1860) 24 How. U.S. 169; License Tax Cases
(1866) 5 Wall. U.S. 462; Crandall v. Nevada. (1867) 6
Wall. U.S. 35; Waring v. Mobile, (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 110,
Woodruff v. Parham, (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 123; Hinson v. Lott
(1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 148; State Tonnage Tax Cases (1870) 12
Wall.U.S. 204; State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts (1872)
15 Wall. U.S. 284; Inman Steamship Co. v. Tinker (1876) 94
U.S. 238 Cook v. Pennsylvania (1878) 97 U.S. 566; Keokuk
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 22 of 33
Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, (1877) 95 U.S. 80;
People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, (1882) 107
U.S. 69; Turner v. Maryland, (1882) 107 U.S. 38; Brown v.
Houston, (1885) 114 U.S. 622; Coe. v. Errol (1886) 116 U.S.
517; Turpin v. Burgess, (1886) 117 U.S. 504; Pittsburg,
etc., Coal Co. v. Bates (1895) 156 U.S. 677; Pittsburg,
etc., Coal Co. v. Louisiana, (1895) 156 U.S. 500; Scott v.
Donald, (1897) 165 U.S. 58; Patapsco Guano Co. v. North
Carolina Board of Agriculture, (1898) 171 U.S. 345; May v.
New Orleans (1900) 178 U.S. 406; Dooley v. U.S., (1901) 193
U.S. 161; Cornell v. Coyne, (1904) 192 U.S. 418; American
Steel etc., Co. v. Speed, (1904) 192 U.S. 600.
"Prior to the adoption of the Constitution the States
attempted to regulate commerce, and they also levied duties
on imports and exports and duties of tonnage, and it was the
embarrassments growing out of such regulations and
conflicting obligations which mainly led to the abandonment
of the confederation and to the more perfect union under the
present Constitution." State Tonnage Tax Cases (1870) 12
Wall. U.S. 214. See also Brown v. Maryland (1827) 12 Wheat.
U.S. 439.
(40) Green v. Biddle, (1823) 8 Wheat. U.S. 1; Poole v. Fleeger
(1837) 11 Pet. U.S. 185; Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1851)
12 How. U.S. 299; Peete v. Morgan, (1873) 19 Wall. U.S.
591; Cannon v. New Orleans, (1874) 20 Wall. U.S. 577;
lnman Steamship Co. v. Tinker, (1876) 94 U.S. 238;
Wheeling. etc., Transp. Co. v. Wheeling. (1878) 99 U.S.
273; Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. St. Louis (1870) 100
U.S. 423; Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co. v. Keokuk, (1877)
95 U.S. 80; Vicksburg v. Tobin, (1870) 100 U.S. 410;
Cincinnati, etc., Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg (1881) 105 U.S.
659; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis (1882) 107 U.S.
365; Parkersburg. etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg. (1882)
107 U.S. 691; Presser v. Illinois, (1886) 110 U.S. 252;
U.S. 465; Huse v. Glover. (1886) 119 U.S. 543; Quachita
Packet Co. v. Aiken. (1887) 121 U.S. 444; Indiana v.
Kentucky. (1890) 130 U.S. 479; Virginia v. Tennessee
(1893) 148 U.S. 503; Wharton v. Wise (1894) 153 U.S. 155;
St. Louis etc., R. Co. v. James (1896) 161 U.S. 545.
"Looking at the clause [in the Federal Constitution] in
which the terms `compact' or `agreement' appear, it is
evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of
any combination tending to the increase of political power
in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the
just supremacy of the United States." Virginia v. Tennessee
(1893) 148 U.S. 519.
(41) Field v. Clark (1892) 143 U.S. 649; Chisholm v. Georgia
(1793) 2 Dall. U.S. 419; Leitensdorfer v. Webb (1857) 20
How. U.S. 176; Ex parte Siebold, (1879) 100 U.S. 371; In
re Green, (1890) 134 U.S. 377; McPherson v. Blacker, (1892)
146 U.S. 1.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 23 of 33
"Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the
electors and the day on which they are to give their votes,
which is required to be the same day throughout the United
States, but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the
State is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as
to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain
persons, so framed that congressional and federal influence
might be excluded." McPherson v. Blacker,, (1892) 146 U.S.
35.
(42) Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, (1830) 3 Pet. U.S. 99.
(43) Hayburns Case (1792) 2 Dall. U.S. 410; Chisholm v. Georgia
(1793) 12 Dall. U.S. 410; Glass v. The Sloop Betsey (1794)
3 Dall. U.S. 6; U.S. v. La Vengeance (1796) 3 Dall. U.S.
297; Hollingsworth v. Virginia. (1798) 3 Dall. U.S. 379;
Moisman v. Higginson, (1800) 4 Dall. U.S. 12; Marbury v.
Madison, (1803) 1 Cranch U.S. 137; Hepburn v. Ellzey,
(1894) 2 Cranch U.S. 445; U.S. v. More, (1806) 3 Cranch
U.S. 159; Strawbridge v. Curtis (1806) 3 Cranch U.S. 267;
Ex parte Bollman (1807) 4 Cranch U.S. 75; Rose v. Himely,
(1808) 4 Cranch U.S. 241; Chappedelaine w. Dechenaux,
(1806) 4 Cranch U.S. 306; Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, (1800)
5 Cranch U.S. 57; U.S. Bank v. Deveaux, (1809) 5 Cranch
U.S. 61; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, (1809) 5 Cranch U.S. 303;
Owings v. Norwood, (1809) 5 Cranch U.S. 344; Dorousseau w.
U.S.p (1810) 6 Cranch U.S. 307; U.S. v. Hudson, (1812) 7
Cranch U.S. 32; Martin v. Hunter, (1816) 1 Wheat. U.S. 304;
Colson v. Lewis, (1817) 2 Wheat. U.S. 377; U.S. v. Bevans,
(1818) 3 Wheat. U.S. 336; Cohen v. Virginia, (1821) 6
Wheat. U.S. 264; Ex parte v. Kear- ney, (1822) 7 Wheat.
U.S. 38; Matthews v. Zane, (1822) 7 Wheat. U.S. 164, Osnorn
v. U.S. Bank, (1824) 9 Wheat. U.S. 738; U.S. v. Ortega
(1826) 11 Wheat. U.S. 467; American Ins. Co. v. 358 Bales
Cotton, (1828) 1 Pet. U.S. 511; Jackson v. Twentyman,
(1820) 2 Pet. U.S. 136; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831)
5 Pet. U.S. 1; New Jersey v. New York, (1831) 5 Pet. U.S.
284; Davis v. Packard, (1832) 6 Pet. U.S. 41, (1833) 7 Pet.
U.S. 270; U.S. v. Arredondo, (1832) 6 Pet. (U.iS.) 601;
Breedlove v. Nicolet, (1833) 7 Pet. U.S. 413; Brown v.
Keene. (1834) 8 Pet. U.S. 112; Davis v. Packard (1834) 8
Pet. U.S. 312; New Orleans v. De Armas (1835) 9. Pet. U.S.
224; Rhode lsland v. Massachusetts (1838) 12 Pet. U.S. 657;
Augusta Bank v. Earle, (1830) 13 Pet. U.S. 510; Commercial,
etc., Bank v. Slocomb, (1840) 14 Pet. U.S. 60; Suydam v.
Broadnax (1840) 14 Pet. U.S. 07; Prigg v. Pennsylvania,
(1842) 16 Pet. U.S. 539; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Letson, (1844) 2 How. U.S. 497; Cary v. Curtis, (1845) 3
How. U.S. 236; Waring v. Clarke, (1847) 5 How. U.S. 441;
Luther v. Borden, (1849) 7 How. U.S. 1; Sheldon v. Sill,
(1850) 8 How. U.S. 441; The Propeller Genesee Chief v.
Fitzhugh (1851) 12 How. U.S. 443; Fretz v. Bull, (1851) 12
How. U.S. 466; Neves v. Scott, (1851) 13 How. U.S. 208;
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., (1851) 13 How.
U.S. 518; Marshall v. baltimore etc., R. Co., (1853) 16
How. U.S. 314; U.S. v. Guthrie, (1854) 17 How. U.S. 284;
Smith v. Maryland, (1856) 18 How. U.S. 71; Jones v. League,
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 24 of 33
(1853) 18 How. U.S. 76; Murray v. Hoboken Land etc, Co.,
(1855) 18 How. U.S. 272; Hyde v. Stone, (1857) 20 How. U.S.
170; Irving v. Marshall. (1857) 20 How. U.S. 558; Fenn v.
Holms, (1858) 21 How. U.S. 481; Morewood v. Enequist (1859)
23 How. U.S. 491; Kentucky v. Dennison (1860) 24 How. U.S.
66; Ohio etc., R. Co. v. Wheeler (1861) 1 Black U.S. 286;
The Steamer St. Law. rence (1861) 1 Black U.S. 522; The
Propeller Commerce, (1861) 1 Black U.S. 574; Ex parte
Vallandigham, (1883) 1 Wall. U.S. 243; Ex parte Milligan,
(1868) 4 Wall. U.S. 2; The Moses Taylor (1866) 4 Wall. U.S.
411; Mississippi v. Johnson (1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 475; The
Hine v. Trevor, (1868) 4 Wall. U.S. 553,- Philadelphia v.
Collector (1866) 5 Wall. U.S. 720; Georgia v. Stanton,
(1867) 6 Wall. U.S. 50; Payne v. Hook, (1868) 7 Wall. U.S.
425; The Alicia, (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 571; Ex parte Yerger,
(1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 85; New England Mut. Marine Ins. Co. v.
Dunham, (1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 1; Virginia v. West Virginia
(1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 39; Susquehanna, etc., Valley R.,
etc., Co. v. Blatchford, (1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 172; Chicago,
etc., R. Co. v. Whitton, (1871) 13 Wall. U.S. 270; Tarble's
Case, (187l) 13 Wall. U.S. 397; Blyew v. U.S., (187l) 13
Wall. U.S. 581; Davis v. Gray, (1872) 16 Wall. U.S. 203;
Sewing Mach. Co.'s Case, (1873) 18 Wall. U.S. 553; Home
Ins. Co. v. Morse, (1874) 20 Wall. U.S. 445; Vannevar v.
Bryant, (1874) 21 Wall. U.S. 41; The Lottawanna, (1874) 21
Wall. U.S. 558; Gaines v. Fuentes (1875) 92 U.S. 10;
Claffin W. Houseman, (1876) 93 U.S. 130; Muller v. Dows,
(1876) 94 U.S. 444; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., (1876)
94 U.S. 535; U.S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., (1878) 98 U.S. 589;
Tennessee v. Davis, (1879) 100 U.S. 257; Ex parte Boyd,
(1881) 105 U.S. 647; Bush v. Kentucky, (1882) 107 U.S. 110;
Parkersburg, etc., Transp. Co. v. Parkersburg, (1882) 107
U.S. 691; Grads v. U.S. Mortgage Co., (1883) 108 U.S. 477;
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co, (1893) 108 U.S.
18; Louisiana v. New Orleans, (1883) 108 U.S. 568; Ellis
v. Davis, (1883) 109 U.S. 485; Carroll County v. Smith,
(1884) 111 U.S. 556; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. California,
(1888) 118 U.S. 109; Barron v. Burnside, (1887) 121 U.S.
186; Lincoln County v. Luning. (1890) 133 U.S. 529; Hans
v. Louisiana (1890) 134 U.S. 1; North Carolina v. Temple,
(1890) 134 U.S. 22; In re Neagle, (1890) 135 U.S. 1;
Nashua, etc., R. Corp. v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., (1890) 136
U.S. 356; Jones v. U.S., (1890) 137 U.S. 202; Cook County
v. Calumet, etc., Canal, etc, Co., (1891) 138 U.S. 635;
Manchester v. Massachusetts, (1891) 139 U.S. 240; In re
Garnett, (1891) 141 U.S. 1; U.S. v. Texas (1892) 143 U.S.
821; Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Denton, (1892) 146 U.S. 202;
Cooke v. Avery, (1893) 147 U.S. 375; Cates v. Allen, (1893)
149 U.S. 451; McNulty v. California. (1893) 149 U.S. 645;
In re Tyler. (1893) 149 U.S. 104; Newport Light Co. v.
Newport, (1894) 151 U.S. 527; New York, etc., R. Co. v.
Bristol, (1894) 151 U.S. 650; Isreal v. Arthur, (1894) 152
U.S. 355; Michigan v. Flint, etc., R Co., (1894) 152 U.S.
363; New Orleans v. Benjamin, (1894) 153 U.S. 411; Mobile,
etc., R. Co. v. Tennessee, (1894) 153 U.S. 486; Reagan v.
Farmers' L. & T. Co., (1894) 154 U.S. 362; Interstate
Commerce Commission v. Brimson. (1894) 154 U.S. 447;
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 25 of 33
Plumley v. Massachusetts (1894) 166 U.S. 461; Andrews v.
Swartz (1895) 156 U.S. 272; St. Louis etc., R. Co. v. Gill,
(1895) 156 U.S. 649; Stevens v. Nichol (1895) 157 U.S. 370;
In re Debs (1895) 158 U.S. 564; Central Land Co. v.
Laidley, (1895) 159 U.S. 103; Folsom v. Township Ninety-
Six, (1895) 159 U.S. 611; Laing v. Rigney, (1896) 160 U.S.
531; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. James, (1896) 161 U.S. 545;
Woodruff v. Mississippi (1896) 162 U.S. 291; Fallbrook
Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, (1896) 164 U.S. 112; Scott v.
Donalad (1897) 165 U.S. 107; Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897)
105 U.S. 275; Chicago etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, (1897) 168
U.S. 226; Forsyth v. Hammond (1897) 166 U.S. 506; Oxley
Stave Co. v. Butler County, (1897) 166 U.S. 648; In re
Lennon, (1897) 166 U.S. 548; City R. Co. v. Citizens' St.
R. Co., (1897) 166 U.S. 557; Douglas v. Kentucky, (1897)
168 U.S. 488; Miller v. Cornwall R. Co., (1897) 168 U.S.
131; Baker v. Grice, (1898) 169 U.S. 284; Smyth v. Ames
(1898) 169 U.S. 466; Backus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co..
(1898) 169 U.S. 557; Tinsley v. Anderson, (1898) 171 U.S.
101; Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., (1898) 172 U.S.
1; Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., (1898)
172 U.S. 58; Meyer v. Richmond (1898) 172 U.S. 82;
McCullough v. Virginia, (1898) 172 U.S. 102; Fitts u.
McGhee (1899) 172 U.S. 516; Dewey v. Des Moines (1899) 173
U.S. 193; Nicol v. Ames, (1899) 173 U.S. 500; Covington v.
Kentucky, (1899) 173 U.S. 231, La Abra Silver Min. Co. v.
U.S.. (1899) 175 U.S. 423; Louisiana v. Texas (1900) 176
U.S. 1; Whitman v. Oxford Nat. Bank, (1900) 176 U.S. 559;
Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, (1900) 176 U.S. 640; Carter v.
Texas (1900) 177 U.S. 442; Smith v. Reeves (I900) 178 U.S.
436; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co.. (1900)
178 U.S. 239; Wiley v. Sinkler, (1900) 170 U.S. 58;
Missouri v. Illinois (1901) 180 U.S. 208, Eastern Bldg.,
etc.. Assoc. v. Welling. (1901) 181 U.S. 47; Dooley v.
U.S., (1901) 182 U.S. 222; Tullock v. Mulvane (1902) 184
U.S. 497; Patton v. Brady. (1902) 184 U.S. 608; Kansas v.
Colorado, (1902) 185 U.S. 125; Swafford v. Templeton,
(1902) 185 U.S. 487; Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile. (1903)
187 U.S. 470; Andrews v. Andrews. (1903) 188 U.S. 14;
Hooker v. Los Angeles, (1903) 188 U.S. 314; Cummings v.
Chicago, (1903) 188 U.S. 410; Schaefer v. Werling. (1903)
188 U.S. 516; The Roanoke (1903) 189 U.S. 185; Detroit,
etc., R. Co. v. Osborn (1903) 189 U.S. 383; Patterson v.
barkEudora (1903) 190 U.S. 169; Howard v. Fleming, (1903)
191 U.S. 126; Arbuckle b. Blackburn, (1903) 191 U.S. 405;
Deposit Bank b. Frankfort (1903) 191 U.S. 499; Spencer v.
Duplan Silk Co. (1903) 191 U.S. 526; Wabash R. Co. v.
Pearce, (1904) 192 U.S. 179; Rogers v. Alabama (1904) 192
U.S. 226; South Dakota v. North Carolina (1904) 192 U.S.
286; Bankers Mut. Casualty Co. v. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co.
(1904) 192 U.S. 371; Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v.
McCIain (1904) 192 U.S. 397.
(44) U.S. v. Insurgents, (1795) 2 Dall. U.S. 335; U.S. v.
Mitchell (1795) 2 Dall. U.S. 348; Ex parte Bollman, (1807)
4 Cranch U.S. 75; Burr's Trial, 4 Cranch U.S. 469.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 26 of 33
"To prevent the possibility of those calamities which result
from the extension of treason to offenses of minor
importance, that great fundamental law which defines and
limits the various departments of our government has given a
rule on the subject both to the legislature and the courts
of America, which neither can be permitted to transcend.
`Treason against the United States shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies.
giving them aid and comfort.'" Per Mr. Chief Justice
Marshall, In Ex parte DoIlLnan, (1807) 4 Cranch U.S. 128.
See also U.S. v. Hoxie, (1808) I Paine U.S. 265.
"In the earlier periods of English history, the judges were
often the pliant tools of the king, and exercised the power
of punishing for constructive treasons, under circumstances
the most revolting and greatly to the oppression of innocent
persons. The wise and sagacious framers of our Constitution
have effectually guarded against such abuses of power, by
declaring there shall be no conviction for this high crime
on mere suspicion or on proof of any fact which is not an
overt act of treason established by two witnesses. Charge to
Grand Jury, (1861) 1 Bond U.S. 610.
(45) Bigelow v. Forrest, (1869) 9 Wall. U.S. 330; Day v. Micou,
(1873) 18 Wall. U.S. 156; Ex parte Lange, (1873) 18 Wall.
U.S. 163; Wallach v. Van Riswick, (1876) 92 U.S. 202; U.S.
v. Dunnington. (1892) 146 U.S. 338.
"What was intended by the constitutional provision is free
from doubt. In England, attainders of treason worked
corruption of blood and perpetual forfeiture of the estate
of the person attainted, to the disinheritance of his heirs,
or of those who would otherwise be his heirs. Thus innocent
children were made to suffer because of the offense of their
ancestor. When the Federal Constitution was framed, this was
felt to be a great hardship, and even rank injustice. For
this reason, it was ordained that no attainder of treason
should work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during
the life of the person attainted." Wallach v. Van Riswick,
(1875) 92 U.S. 210.
(46) Mills v. Duryee (1813) 7 Cranch U.S. 481; Hampton v.
M'Connel (1818) 3 Wheat. U.S. 234; Mayhew v. Thatcher
(1821) 6 Wheat U.S. 129; Darby v. Mayer, (1825) 10 Wheat.
U.S. 465; U.S. v. Amedy, (1826) 11 Wheat. U.S. 302;
Caldwell v. Carrington, (1835) 9 Pet. U.S. 86; M'Elmoyle v.
Cohen (1830) 13 Pet. U.S. 312, Augusta Bunk v. Earle, (1839)
13 Pet. U.S. 519; Alabama State Bank v. Dalton, (1850) 9
Huw. U.S. 622; D'Arey v. Ketchum (1850) 11 How. U.S. 165;
Christmas v. Russell, (1866) 5 Wall. U.S. 200; Green v. Van
Buskirk, (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 130; Paul v. Virginia, (1868)
8 Wall. U.S. 168; Board of Public Works v. Columbia Cullege
(1873) 17 Wall. U.S. 521; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18
Wall. U.S. 457; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 U.S. 714;
Bonaparte v. Appeal Tax Ct.. (1882) 104 U.S. 692;
Robertson v. Pickrell, (1883) 100 U.S. 608; Brown v.
Houston (1885) 114 U.S. 622; Hanley v. Donoghue, (1885) 116
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 27 of 33
U.S. 1; Renaud v. Abbott (1886) 116 U.S. 277; Chicago,
etc., R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., (1887) 119 U.S. 615;
Borer v. Chapman (1887) 110 U.S. 587; Cole v. Cunningham
(1890) 133 U.S. 107; Blount v. Walker (1890) 134 U.S. 607;
Simmons v. Saul (1891) 138 U.S. 439; Reynolds v. Stockton
(1891) 140 U.S. 254; Carpenter v. Strange (189l) 141 U.S.
87; Huntington v. Attrill, (1892) 146 U.S. 657; Glenn v.
Garth, (1893) 147 U.S. 360; Laing v. Rigney, (1896) 160
U.S. 531; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Sturm, (1890) 174 U.S.
710; Thormann v. Frame, (1900) 178 U.S. 350; Hancock Nat.
Bank v. Farnum, (1900) 176 U.S. 640; Clarke v. Clarke,
(1900) 178 U.S. 186; Wilkes County v. Coler, (1901) 180
U.S. 506; W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, (1901) 180 U.S.
452; Johnson v. New York L. Ins. Co., (1903) 187 U.S. 491;
Andrews v. Andrews, (1903) 188 U.S. 14; Blackstone v.
Miller, (1903) 188 U.S. 180; Finney v. Guy (1903) 189 U.S.
335; Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, (1904) 192 U.S. 29;
Germann Sav., etc., Soc. v. Dormitzer, (1904) 192 U.S. 125;
Wedding v. Meyer, (1904) 192 U.S. 573.
(47) U.S. Bank v. Deveaux, (1809) 5 Cranch U.S. 61; Gassies v.
Ballon, (1832) 6 Pet. U.S. 761; Rhode Island v.
Massachusettts (1838) 12 Pet. U.S. 657; Augusta Bank v.
Earle (1839) 13 Pet. U.S. 519; Moore v. Illinois, (1852) 14
How. U.S. 13; Conner v. Elliott, (1855) 18 How. U.S. 591;
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) 19 How. U.S. 393; Crandall v.
Nevada (1867) 6 Wall. U.S. 35; Woodruff v. Parham, (1868) 8
Wall. U.S. 123; Paul v. Virginia (1868) 8 Wall. U.S. 168;
Downham v. Alexandria (1869) 10 Wall. U.S. 173; Liverpool
Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts (1870) 10 Wall. U.S. 566; Ward v.
Maryland, (1870) 12 Wall. U.S. 418; Slaughter-House Cases
(1872) 16 Wall. U.S. 36; Bradwell v. State, (1872) 18 Wall.
U.S. 130; Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, (1876) 93 U.S. 72;
McCready v. Virginia, (1876) 104 U.S. 391; Philadelphia
Fire Assoc. v. New York, (1886) 119 U.S. 110; Pembina
Consol. Silver Min., etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania (1888) 125
U.S. 181; Kimmish v. Ball, (1889) 129 U.S. 217; Cole v.
Cunningham, (1890) 133 U.S. 107; Manchester v.
Massachusetts, (1891) 139 U.S. 240; Pittsburg, etc., Coal
Co. v. Bates, (1895) 156 U.S. 577; Vance v. W. A.
Vandercock Co., (1898) 170 U.S. 438; Blake v. McClung,
(1898) 172 U.S. 239; Williams v. Fears, (1900) 179 U.S.
270; Travellers, Ins. Co. v. Connecticut, (1902) 165 U.S.
364; Chadwick v. Kelley, (1903) 187 U.S. 540; Diamond Glue
Co. v. U.S. Glue Co., (1903) 187 U.S. 611; Blackstone v.
Miller, (1903) 188 U.S. 189; Anglo-American Provision Co.
v. Davis Provision Co., (1903) 191 U.S. 373.
"The Constitution of the United States declares that the
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
And although these privileges and immunities, for greater
safety, are placed under the guardianship of the general
government, still the States may by their laws and in their
tribunals protect and enforce them. They have not only the
power, but it is a duty enjoined upon them by this provision
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 28 of 33
in the Constitution." Per Mr. Justice Taney, in Prigg v.
Pennsylvania (1842) 16 Pet. U.S. 629.
(48) Holmes v. Jennison, (1840) 14 Pet. U.S. 540; Kentucky v.
Dennison, (1860) 24 How. U.S. 66; Taylor v. Taintor, (1872)
16 Wall. U.S. 366; Carroll County v. Smith (1884) 111 U.S.
556; Ex parte Reggel (1885) 114 U.S. 642; Mahon v. Justice
(1888) 127 U.S. 700; Lascelles v. Georgia, (1893) 148 U.S.
637; Utter v. Franklin. (1899) 172 U.S. 416.
(49) Prigg v. Pennsylvania, (1842) 16 Pet. U.S. 639; Jones v.
Van Zandt, (1847) 6 How. U.S. 215; Strader v. Graham (1850)
10 How. U.S. 82, Moore v. Illinois (1852) 14 How. U.S. 13;
Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1856) 19 How. U.S. 393; Ableman v.
Booth, (1858) 21 How. U.S. 506.,
"Every State has an undoubted right to determine the status,
or domestic and social condition, of the persons domiciled
within its territory; except insofar as the powers of the
States in this respect are restrained, or duties and
obligations imposed on them, by the Constitution of the
United States." Strader v. Graham, (1850) 10 How.U.S. 93.
(50) Luther v. Borden. (1840) 7 How. U.S. 1; Texas v. White.
(1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 700; In re Duncan (1891) 139 U.S. 449;
Taylor v. Beckham, (1900) 178 U.S. 548.
(51) "It was one of the objections most seriously urged against
the new constitution by those who opposed its ratification
by the States, that it contained no formal Bill of Rights.
(Federalist. No.lxxxiv.) And the State of Virginia
accompanied her ratification by the recommendation of an
amendment embodying such a bill. (3 Elliot's Debates, 661.)
The feeling on this subject led to the adoption of the first
ten amendments to that instrument at one time, shortly after
the government, was organized. These are all designed to
operate as restraints on the general government, and most of
them for the protection of private rights of persons aud
property. Notwithstanding this reproach, however, there are
many provisions in the original instrument of this latter
character." Kring v. Missouri (1882) 107 U.S. 226.
(52) Terrett v. Taylor, (1815) 9 Cranch U.S. 43; Vidal v.
Philadelphia, (1844) 2 How. U.S. 127; Ex parte Garland,
(1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 333; U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) 92 U.S.
542; Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) 98 U.S. 145; Spies v.
Illinois (1887) 123 U.S. 131; Davis v. Beason, (1890) 133
U.S. 333; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U.S.
31; Church of Jesus Christ v. U.S., (1890) 138 U.S. 1; In
re Rapier (1892) 143 U.S. 110; Horner v. U.S., (1892) 143
U.S. 207; Bradfield v. Roberts (1899) 175 U.S. 291.
(53) "The right of the people peaceably to assemble for this
purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances,
or for anything else connected with the powers or the duties
of the national government, is an attribute of national
citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 29 of 33
guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a
government, republican in form, implies a right on the part
of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in
respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of
grievances." U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) 92 U.S. 552.
(54) Presser v. Illinois (1886) 116 U.S. 252; Spies v. Illinois
(1887) 123 U.S. 131; Eilenbeeker v. Plymouth County, (1890)
134 U.S. 31.
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is
it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its
existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not
be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more
than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one
of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict
the powers of the national government, leaving the people to
look for their protection against any violation by their
fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is
called, in The City of New York v. Miln, (1837) 11 Pet. U.S.
139, the powers which relate to merely municipal
legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called
internal police,' `not surrendered or restrained' by the
Constitution of the United States." U.S. v. Cruikshank,
(1875) 92 U.S. 553.
(55) Smith v. Maryland, (1855) 18 How. U.S. 71; Murray v.
Hoboken Land, etc., Co., (1855) 18 How. U.S. 272; Ex parte
Milligan (1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 2; Boyd v. U.S., (1886) 116
U.S. 616; Spies v. Illinois (1887) 123 U.S. 131;
Eilenbeeker v. Plymouth County (1890) 134 U.S. 31; Fong Yue
Ting v. U.S., (1893) 149 U.S. 608; Interstate Commerce
Commission v. Brimson, (1894) 154 U.S. 447; In re Chapman,
(1897) 166 U.S. 661; Adams v. New York, (1904) 192 U.S.
585.
(56) The security intended to be guaranteed by the Fourth
Amendment against wrongful search and seizure is designed to
prevent violations of private security in person and
property and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home
of the citizen by officers of the law, acting under
legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against
such usurpations when attempted. But the English and nearly
all of the American cases have declined to extend this
doctrine to the extent of excluding testimony which has been
obtained by such means, if it is otherwise competent." Adams
v. New York, (19O4) 192 U.S. 598.
(57) U.S. v. Perez (1824) 9 Wheat. U.S. 579; Barron v.
Baltimore. (1833) 7 Pet. U.S. 243; Fox v. Ohio (1847) 5
How. U.S. 410; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, (1848) 6 How.
U.S. 507; Mitchell v. Harmony (1851) 13 How. U.S. 115;
Moore v. Illinois (1852) 14 How. U.S. 13; Murray v. Hoboken
Land, etc., Co., (1855) 18 How. U.S. 272; Dynes v. Hoover,
(1857) 20 How. U.S. 65; Withers v. Buckley, (1857) 20 How.
U.S. 84; Gilman v. Sheboygan (1862) 2 Black U.S. 510; Ex
parte Milligan, (1866) 4 Wall. U.S. 2; Twitchell v.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 30 of 33
Pennsylvania, (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 321; Hepburn v. Griswold,
(1869) 8 Wall. U.S. 603; Miller v. U.S., (1870) 11 Wall.
U.S. 268; Legal Tender Cases (1870) 12 Wall. U.S. 457;
Pumpelly v. Green Bay, etc., Canal Co., (1871) 13 Wall. U.S.
166; Osborn v. Nicholson, (187l) 13 Wall. U.S. 654; Ex
parte Lange (1873) 18 Wall. U.S. 163; Kohl v. U.S., (1875)
91 U.S. 367; Davidson v. New Orleans (1877) 96 U.S. 97;
Sinking Fund Cases (1878) 99 U.S. 700; Langford v. U.S.,
(1879) 101 U.S. 341, Kelly v. Pittsburgh, (1881) 104 U.S.
78; Ex parte Wall (1882) 107 U.S. 265; U.S. v. Jones
(1883) 109 U.S. 513; U.S. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., (1884)
112 U.S. 645; Ex parte Wilson (1885) 114 U.S. 417; Boyd v.
U.S., (1886) 116 U.S. 616; Mackin v. U.S., (1886) 117 U.S.
348; Ex parte Bain (1887) 121 U.S. 1; Parkinson v. U.S.,
(1887) 121 U.S. 281; Spies v. Illinois, (1887) 123 U.S.
131; Callan v. Wilson (1888) 127 U.S. 540; U.S. v. De Walt
(1888) 128 U.S. 393; Manning v. French, (1890) 133 U.S.
186; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U.S. 31;
Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Woodson (1890) 134 U.S. 614; In
re Ross, (1891) 140 U.S. 453; Counselman v. Hitchcock,
(1892) 142 U.S. 547; Simmons v. U.S. (1891) 142 U.S. 148;
Thorington v. Montgomery (1893) 147 U.S. 490; Monongahela
Nav. Co. v. U.S., (1893) 148 U.S. 312; Fong Yue Ting v.
U.S., (1893) 149 U.S. 698; Lees v. U.S. (1893) 150 U.S.
476; Marchant v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1894) 153 U.S. 380;
Linford v. Ellison, (1894) 155 U.S. 503; Johnson v. Sayre,
(1895) 158 U.S. 100; Sweet v. Rechel (1895) 159 U.S. 380;
Brown v. Walker. (1896) 161 U.S. 591; Wong Wing v. U.S.,
(1996) 163 U.S. 228; Talton v. Mayes (1896) 163 U.S. 376;
Bauman v. Ross, (1897) 167 U.S. 648; Wilson v. Lambert,
(1898) 168 U.S. 611; U.S. v. Joint Traffic Assoc. (1898)
171 U.S. 505; Maxwell v. Dow (1900) 176 U.S. 581; Scranton
v. Wheeler, (1900) 170 U.S. 141; McDonald v. Massachusetts
(1901) 180 U.S. 311; Neely v. Henkel, (1901) 180 U.S. 109;
French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., (1901) 181 U.S. 324;
Wight v. Davidson, (1901)181 U.S. 371; Tonawanda v. Lyon
(1901) 181 U.S. 389; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio (1902)
183 U.S. 238; Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses (1902) 186 U.S.
181; Dreyer v. Illinois (1902) 187 U.S. 71; Lone Wolf v.
Hitchcock (1903) 187 U.S. 553; U.S. v. Lynah (1903) 188
U.S. 445; Japanese Immigrant Case (1903) 189 U.S. 86;
Hawaii v. Mankichi (1903) 190 U.S. 197; Bedford v. U.S..
(1904) 192 U.S. 217; Buttfield v. Stranahan (1904) 192 U.S.
470; Adams v. New York, (1904) 192 U.S. 585.
(58) See cases cited in note 2, supra.
(59) See cases cited in note 2, supra.
(60) See cases cited in note 2, supra.
(61) See cases cited in note 2, supra.
(62) U.S. v. Coolidge, (1816) 1 Wheat. U.S. 415; Ex parte
Kearney, (1822) 7 Wheat. U.S. 38; U.S. v. Mills, (1833) 7
Pet. U.S. 142; Barron v. Baltimore, (1833) 7 Pet. U.S. 243;
Fox v. Ohio, (1847) 5 how. U.S. 410; Withers v. Buckley,
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 31 of 33
(1857) 20 How. U.S. 84; Ex parte Milligan, (1866) 4 Wall.
U.S. 2; Twitchell v. Pennsylvania (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 321;
Miller v. U.S. (1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 268; U.S. v. Cook,
(1872) 17 Wall. U.S. 168; U.S. v. Cruikshank, (1875) 92
U.S. 542; Reynolds v. U.S., (1878) 98 U.S. 145; Spies v.
Illinois, (1887) 123 U.S. 131; Brooks v. Missouri, (1888)
124 U.S. 394; Callan v. Wilson, (1898) 127 U.S. 540;
Eelenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134 U.S. 31; Jones
v. U.S., (1890) 137 U.S. 202; Cook v. U.S., (1891) 138 U.S.
157; In re Shibuya Jugiro, (1891) 140 U.S. 291; In re Ross
(1891) 140 U.S. 453; Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., (1893) 149 U.S.
698; Mattox v. U.S. (1895) 156 U.S. 237; Rosen v. U.S.
(1896) 161 U.S. 29; U.S. v. Zucker, (1896) 161 U.S. 475;
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) 163 U.S. 228; Thompson v. Utah,
(1898) 170 U.S. 343; Maxwell v. Dow, (1900) 176 U.S. 581;
Motes v. U.S. (1900) 178 U.S. 458; Fidelity, etc, Co. v.
U.S.. (1902) 187 U.S. 315; Hawaii v. Mankiche (1903) 190
U.S. 197.
(63) U.S. v. La Vengeance, (1796) 3 Dall. U.S. 297; Columbia
Bank v. Okely, (1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 235; Parsons v.
Bedford. (1830) 3 Pet. U.S. 433; Livingston v. Moore,
(1833) 7 Pet. U.S. 469; Webster v. Reid, (1850) 11 How.
U.S. 437; Pennsylvania v. Wheeliag, etc., Bridge Co.,
(1851) 13 How. U.S. 518; Justices v. Murray, (1869) 9 Wall.
U.S. 274; Edwards v. Elliott, (1874) 21 Wall. U.S. 532;
Pearson v. Yewdall, (1877) 95 U.S. 294; MeElrath v. U.S.
(1880) 102 U.S. 426; Spies v. Illinois (1887) 123 U.S. 131;
Arkansas Valley Land. etc., Co. v. Mann (1889) 130 U.S. 69;
Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County. (1890) 134 U.S. 31;
Whitehead v. Shattuck, (1891), 138 U.S. 146; Scott v.
Neely, (1891) 140 U.S. 106; Cates v. Allen (1893) 149 U.S.
451; Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., (1893) 149 U.S. 698; Coughran
v. Bigelow, (1896) 164 U.S. 301; Walker v. New Mexico,
etc., R. Co.. (1897) 165 U.S. 693; Chicago, etc., R. Co.
v. Chicago (1897) 166 U.S. 226; American Pub. Co. v. Fisher
(1897) 166 U.S. 464; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. U.S. (1902)
187 U.S. 315.
(64) Sm ca"d cited in note 1, supra.
(65) Pervear v. Massachusetts (1866) 5 Wall. U.S. 475; Spies v.
Illinois (1887) 123 U.S. 131; Manning v. French, (1890)
133 U.S. 186; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, (1890) 134
U.S. 31; McElvaine v. Brush, (1891) 142 U.S. 155, O'Neill
v. Vermont, (1892) 144 U.S. 323; McDonald v. Massachussetts
(1901) 180 U.S. 311.
(66) Livingston v. Moore, (1833) 7 Pet. U.S. 469; Spies v.
Illinois (1887) 123 U.S. 131.
"This government is acknowledged by all to be one of
enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only
the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent to have
required to be enforced by all those arguments which its
enlightened friends, while it was depending before the
people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 32 of 33
universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent
of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and
will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall
exist." M'Culloch v. Maryland, (1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 405.
(67) Chisholm v. Georgia. (1793) 2 Dall. U.S. 419;
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, (1798) 3 Dall. U.S. 378; Martin
v. Hunter, (1816) 1 Wheat. U.S. 304; M'Culloch v. Maryland.
(1819) 4 Wheat. U.S. 316; Anderson v. Dunn, (1821) 6 Wheat
U.S. 204; Cohen v. Virginia (1821) 6 Wheat U.S. 264;
Osborn v. U.S. Bank (1824) 9 Wheat. U.S. 738; Buckner v.
Finley, (1829) 2 Pet. U.S. 586; Ableman v. Booth, (1858) 21
How. U.S. 506; Collector v. Day, (1870) 11 Wall. U.S. 113;
Claffin v. Houseman, (1876) 93 U.S. 130; Inman Steamship
Co. v. Tinker, (1876) 94 U.S. 238; U.S. v. Fox. (1876) 94
U.S. 315; Tennessee v. Davis (1879) 100 U.S. 257; Spies v.
Illinois, (1887) 123 U.S. 131; Pollock v. Farmers' L & T.
Co., (1895) 157 U.S. 429; Forsyth v. Hammond, (1897) 166 U,
S. 506; St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water
Com'rs, (1897) 168 U.S. 349; Missouri, etc., R. Co., v.
Haber (1898) 169 U.S. 613; Hancock Mut. L Ins. Co. v.
Warren, (1901) 181 U.S. 73; Kansas v. Colorado. 185 U.S.
125; Andrews v. Andrews (1903) 188 U.S. 14; Church v.
Kelsey, (1887) 121 U.S. 282; Ouachita Packet Co. v. Aiken,
(1887) 127 U.S. 444; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pendleton.
(1887) 122 U.S. 347; Bowman v. Chicago, etc. R. Co..
(1888) 126 U.S. 465; Mahon v. Justice (1888) 127 U.S. 700;
Leisy v. Hardin (1890) 135 U.S. 100; Manchester v.
Massachusetts (1891) 139 U.S. 240.
"The perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means
implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of
the right of self-government by the States. Under the
Articles of Confederation each State retained its
sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the
United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of
the States were much restricted, still, all powers not
delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people .... Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of
separate and independent autonomy to the States, through
their union under the Constitution, but it may be not
unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and
the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the
design and care of the constitution as the preservation of
the Union and the maintenance of the national government.
The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an
indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."
Texas v. White, (1868) 7 Wall. U.S. 700.
Rights, Privileges and Immunities in U.S. Constitution:
Page 33 of 33
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
John S. Wise