tofore illustrated in the original treaties with France and Great Britain. In the treaties with Great Britain and France the thirteen Colonies by name are called "free, sovereign, and independent States," and as constituting in general terms the United States. Such form educates the officials and peoples of foreign countries in the essential fact that the United States "are," and that treaties must be made with them, there being no "national government."

The early Spanish and late Italian controversies with the United States were prolonged, because Spain and Italy thought that they had signed treaties with a "nation" similar to their own, the President being the chief ruler thereof.

Naming the States in treaties defines the name of the United States, and by directly connecting them severally with the treaties connects them collectively with all infringements, and thus enables foreign delegated agents at Washington to act understandingly.

The States in the Constitution denied themselves the power to make treaties individually between themselves, and severally with foreign countries, because they ratified a treaty, namely the Constitution, which in certain enumerated grants speaks for them collectively. The powers of the United States are enumerated because

delegated; the powers which the States prohibited to themselves are few and specifically named. Reserved powers or rights inherent in the several States are not enumerated because too numerous, as they embrace all which secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

No treaty with a foreign power can be called "the supreme law of the land" (Art. VI.), unless it follows the model of the Jay peace treaty with Great Britain. The States must be specially named as constituting united sovereigns, or the instrument is not drafted "in pursuance" of the letter and spirit " of the Constitution." Carelessness, ignorance, and nationalism have misled European diplomats. See fourth question, in which is set forth the exact acknowledgment of George the Third.

Are there two classes of citizens?

Yes. The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." In Article XII. of the Bill of Rights, it is provided that "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The men of the Revolution were ex

cepted, as their republican principles had been tried by every peril and sacrifice known to heroes and patriots.

To-day no alien naturalized can be President or Vice-President. This makes a "natural born citizen of the United States" of the first class, he being eligible to the two highest executory offices of the Union, while naturalized citizens are excluded.

Is "a natural born citizen" confined to the United States?

It would seem So. Persons born abroad of parents native to this country are not by any provision of the Constitution declared to be "natural born citizens." Constitutional enumerations are to be strictly interpreted and not subject to loose law and opinions. All persons born outside of the United States are subject to the Presidential inhibition.

Do the several States only make citizens and voters?

The United States have no power to create citizens or voters. Suffrage being a State reservation and the highest evidence of citizenship, it follows that the State courts should naturalize aliens. It was certainly never intended that an

alien, ignorant of our language, and consequently of the Constitution of the State in which he resides and of the United States, should be made a citizen. Suffrage is based on intelligent understanding of our institutions, their limitations and necessities.

Suffrage is not a right, but a privilege. It can be modified, restricted, and even withdrawn in certain cases such as treason, felony, etc. There could be no modification, restriction, or withdrawal were it a right per se. The United States courts may assist, when convenient, the State courts in naturalization, because they are courts of record. It is permissible simply and based on the fact that there are citizens of the United States as United Sovereigns.

Who are citizens of the United States?

The second Article of the Constitution, relating to Presidential eligibility, quoted in a preceding answer, refers to "a citizen of the United States." In the original instrument such citizenship is not defined, but left to be construed as an extension of State citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment says: "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."

Such was the generally admitted construction, prior to this amendment, as to the constitutional status of white persons.

Abroad and on the high seas the United States protect their citizens; at home the several States protect all citizens. The first is limited; the second is unlimited within their police borders. Congress has power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" so as to prevent internecine conflicts. There the power of that body ceases. It follows that "a uniform rule" carries with it the right of a State to make citizens of aliens.

What is a concise definition of a citizen of the United States?

The answer is: As the United States are but an extension of the governments of the several States, a citizen of the United States is but an extension of the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the several States.

The Supreme Court have never decided with precision what are the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States. The constitutional fact is that while three-fourths of the States can abridge, and even withdraw, the aforesaid privileges and immunities by amendment, the United States cannot abridge the privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State. This shows the fore