Speech #430007408

The next ebservetion is more important. in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizonshitp of the United States sia a citizenship of a Sttte is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State. but an nportant eleteent is necessary to convort the former into the latter. lo must resido within the State to make lim a citizen of it. but it is only necessary that Ite should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. It is quite clear. then. that there is a citizenship of the United States antl a citizensltip of a State. which are distinct from each other. and which dopend nti different chaiacterietics or cirenmtanes in the individual. We think ttis distinetion and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weightin this argo. mient. because the next paragraph of this same section. which is the one maifily relied on by the plaintiffs in error. speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United Sates. and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States.