§ 191]

Credit to Records.

273

corporations doing a particular class of business shall be allowed to engage in business within the state (Paul v. Virginia and Blake v. McClung). It does not follow that a foreign corporation can be deprived of property lawfully acquired within the state without due process of law, or that it can be denied within the state the equal protection of the laws as to property which it has lawfully acquired.

191. Faith and Credit to Acts, Records, and Judgments

of the States.

By comity between foreign governments judgments of courts in one country are usually treated as valid in another country; that is to say, if in an action brought in the courts of one country having jurisdiction of the case, a judgment is rendered determining the rights of the parties to the action, this judgment is regarded as conclusive between the same parties in an action involving the same issues brought in another country, and can only be impeached or disregarded on proof that the judgment was not valid where rendered. This rule of comity existing between countries wholly foreign to each other is made a constitutional rule as between the states by provision of the federal constitution that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof" (Const. Art. IV, § 1,

1). This provision extends not only to judgments rendered and the records thereof, but also to the public statutes of a state, so that if it becomes necessary to determine in the courts of one state what the public statutes of another state are, the fact may be shown by the legislative records of the state whose laws are in question.

Congress has made provision (first in 1790) for the method of proving in any state the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of any other state. The public laws of any state are presumed to be known to persons within that state and the courts of the state will take judicial notice of them without

proof; but the laws of another state are not thus presumed to be matter of general knowledge and the courts will not take judicial notice of them, but they must be proven like other facts when they are in any way called in question. However, the courts of a state must take judicial notice of the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; and likewise the courts of the United States held in any state must take judicial notice of the constitution and laws of that state. The laws of another state or country are to be proved as matters of fact; a court cannot in general take judicial notice of them.

Part VII.

Relations of the Individual to the

Government.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

CITIZENSHIP.

192. References.

J. Story, Constitution (Cooley's ed.), Suppl., §§ 1930-1937; J. R. Tucker, Constitution, §§ 174, 389; J. I. C. Hare, Constitutional Law, 515522; J. N. Pomeroy, Constitutional Law, § 102; J. A. Jameson, Constitutional Conventions, §§ 358–361; J. W. Burgess, Political Science, I, 218-232; T. M. Cooley, Constitutional Law, ch. xiv, § 1; H. C. Black, Constitutional Law, §§ 224-231; F. Van Dyne, Citizenship of United States; James Wilson, Lectures on Jurisprudence (Andrews' ed.), II, ch. xi; I. B. Richman, Citizenship of United States (Pol. Sci. Quart., V, 104); A. P. Morse, Civil and Political Status of Inhabitants of Ceded Territories (Harv. Law Rev., xiv, 262); J. B. Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law, notes, pp. 459 and 464; United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898, 169 U. S. 649; McClain's Cases, 964); Elk v. Wilkins (1884, 112 U. S. 94); Downes v. Bidwell (1901, 182 U. S. 244); Gonzales v. Williams (1904, 24 Sup. Court Reporter, 177); Boyd v. Thayer (1892, 143 U. S. 135; McClain's Cases, 423); Ward v. Maryland (1870, 12 Wallace, 418; Thayer's Cases, 1410); Slaughter-House Cases (1872, 16 Wallace, 36; Thayer's Cases, 516; McClain's Cases, 18); Civil Rights Cases (1883, 109 U. S. 3; McClain's Cases, 37; Thayer's Cases, 554).

193. Citizenship in the States.

Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution there was no uniform rule as to state citizenship. (See above, § 100.) The sole power of providing by

uniform law for the naturalization of aliens was in Congress, and perhaps it was to be assumed that the rule recognized in England that birth within the jurisdiction of a state was sufficient to constitute citizenship was the only rule on the subject. But since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifically provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," it is assumed that citizenship in a state is acquired by permanent residence therein of any person who by birth or naturalization has become a citizen of the United States; and state citizenship is therefore determined by this test.

It is to be noticed that citizenship in a state is not determined by any prescribed term of residence. A state may require residence for a specified period as a condition for enjoyment of the elective franchise; but the moment that residence in a state by one who is a citizen of the United States commences, or the moment one who resides in a state acquires citizenship in the United States, that moment such person becomes a citizen of the state. By residence is meant, not merely a temporary abiding within the state, but residence in a legal sense, that is, a permanent residence. The term in this connection is synonymous with domicil and involves residence in fact, with intent that it shall continue until subsequent removal with the intent of abandoning such residence and acquiring another.

While it is usual to confer political privileges only upon citizens, the states may, if they see fit, confer at least some of these privileges upon persons who are not citizens. In several of the Western states persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, although the required period of residence entitling them to naturalization has not been completed, have been allowed to vote and hold office; but such persons do not thereby become citizens of the state, not being citizens of the United States. It would thus appear that not only may persons who are citizens of a state be denied political privileges, because their term of residence in the state has not been of sufficient duration, but on the other hand persons may

§ 194]

By Birth.

277 be given political privileges who have not yet acquired citizenship. It is apparent that there is no necessary connection between the two, and that citizenship is to be determined by the federal constitution and laws, while the enjoyment of political privileges is dependent upon the constitution and laws of the (See below, § 198.) Of course, in the territory within the jurisdiction of the United States and not within the jurisdiction of any state, political privileges, if any, are enjoyed by virtue of the laws of the United States.

state.

The distinction between the right of citizenship and the enjoyment of political privileges is made clear by noticing that political privileges are conferred only on adults and in most of the states only on adult males; while all persons, men, women, and children, are citizens if they come within the description of citizenship found in the constitution and laws.

194. Citizenship in the United States by Birth.

One becomes a citizen of the United States either by birth or naturalization. By the simple language of the Fourteenth Amendment "All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens"; but interpretation has been necessary in applying this language to particular classes of cases. For instance, an Indian whose parents at the time of his birth were members and subject to the jurisdiction of his tribe, although he may have been born within the territorial limits of the United States, is not a citizen by birth and can become a citizen only by naturalization (Elk v. Wilkins); and this can be effected only under special laws relating to Indians, not under the general naturalization laws. If, however, at the time of his birth his parents, although not citizens of the United States, are not members and subject to the jurisdiction. of a tribe, then he is no doubt a citizen by birth, for citizenship of parents is not essential if such parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time when the person in question is born within the territory of the United States. Thus it has been held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that although the subjects of China cannot become citizens, never