The logic of this language reduced to its simplest terms is this: "A corporation is constructively an inhabitant of the State by which it is created. and under whose authority it performs its functions. therefore it is a citizen of that State." The sophistry employed in the Deveaux case was. to say the least of it. ingenious and plausible. but this. sir. is mere drivel. In the first place. mere inhabitancy or residence does not and cannot confer citizenship on any person. If it did. every unnaturalized foreigner residing in a State would be ipso facto a citizen. and our naturalization laws an idle and unnecessary piece of lumber on our statutebooks. In the second place. the general capacity of a corporation to sue and be sued depends neither upon the personality of its members nor the particular locality which may be constructively termedits residence. but is derived. as I have said. solely fromthe law which gives it existece. and. in the third place. inhabitancy or residence is neither sufficient nor necessary to give juTisdiction to a Federal court in a civil cause. As the law now stands. an alienor a citizen of New York may sue a citizen of Kentucky in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Oregon. if the defendant can he found within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. although neither of them may be an inhabitant or resident of that district.
Keywords matched
naturalization