So, too, a person may be entitled to vote by the law of the State, who is not a citizen even
of the State itself. And in some of the States of the Union foreigners not naturalized are allowed
to vote. And the State may give the right to free negroes and mulattoes, but that does not make
them citizens of the State, and still less of the United States. And the provision in the
Constitution giving privileges and immunities in other States, does not apply to them.

Neither does it apply to a person who, being the citizen of a State, migrates to another
State. For then he becomes subject to the laws of the State in which he lives, and he is no longer
a citizen of the State from which he removed. And the State in which he resides may then,
unquestionably, determine his status or condition, and place him among the class of persons who
are not recognized as citizens, but belong to an inferior and subject race; and may deny him the
privileges and immunities, enjoyed by its citizens.

But so far as mere rights of person are concerned, the provision in question is confined to
citizens of a State who are temporarily in another State who are temporarily in another State
without taking up their residence there. It gives them no political rights in the state as to voting
or holding office, or in any other respect. For a citizen of one State has no right to participate in
the government of another. But if he ranks as a citizen of the State to which he belongs, within
the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, then, whenever he goes into another State,
the Constitution clothes him, as to the rights of person, with all the privileges and immunities
which belong to citizens of the State. And if persons of the African race are citizens of a state,
and of the United States, they would be entitled to all of these privileges and immunities in every
State, and the State could not restrict them; for they would hold these privileges and immunities,
under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and its courts would be bound to
maintain and enforce them, the Constitution and laws of the State to the contrary
notwithstanding. And if the State could limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior
grade, this clause of the Constitution would be unmeaning, and could have no operation; and
would give no rights to the citizen when in another State. He would have none but what the State
itself chose to allow him. This is evidently not the construction or meaning of the clause in
question. It guarantees rights to the citizen, and the State cannot withhold them. And these
rights are of a character and would lead to consequences which make it absolutely certain that the
African race were not included under the name of citizens of a State, and were not in the
contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when these privileges and immunities were
provided for the protection of the citizen in other States.

ix. Legrand Distinguished

The case of Legrand v. Damall, 2 Pet. 664, has been referred to for the purpose of
showing that this court has decided that the descendant of a slave may sue as a citizen in a court
of the United States; but the case itself shows that the question did not arise and could not have
arisen in the case.

75