opinions in these cases themselves) is certain dicta in Blake v. Loughborough and Fleming v. Page, and the action of the executive department in the case of Louisiana.

§ 284. The District of Columbia. The power of the United States government over the districts of Columbia is granted by the 17th clause of the 8th section of Article 1 of the Constitution and has been considered in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER XV.

REGULATION OF INTERSTATE RELATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

§ 285. Purpose and scope of the United States Constitution. The main purpose of the United States Constitution was the establishment of the Federal government and the regula tion of the relations between this new central government and the governments of the States. A small portion, however, of the Constitution, is concerned with the mutual relations of the States. The provisions of this character are mainly taken from the Articles of Confederation and are contained in the fourth article of the Constitution. Except for the provisions contained in the United States Constitution, the States in their relations to one another are in the position of foreign countries. The laws of one State are foreign laws in another State, and the same principles of Private International Law apply, in the main between two States of this Union as between two foreign countries.1

§ 286. State acts, records and judicial proceedings."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."2

The effect of this provision is to give such acts, records and proceedings the same force in any State that they have in their own State. Chief Justice Marshall said, on this point, in Hampton v. McConnell: "The doctrine

*

*

* was, that the

first sentence of this section with
the last sentence of Art. IV. of
the Articles of Confederation.
33 Wheaton 234.

4

judgment of a State court should have the same credit, validity and effect in every other court in the United States, which it had in the State where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to a suit therein in such State, and none others, could be pleaded in any other court in the United States." In Harding v. Harding, a very recent case, the Supreme Court said that when a decree rendered in one state is entitled to protection under this clause, it is entitled to have full force given to it in every other state, and not merely some force. The effect of a judgment rendered in one State depends upon the laws of that State, and these must therefore be alleged and proved in the courts of another State, as the courts of one State do not take judicial notice of the laws of another State, but such laws must be proved as facts. The registered public debt of one state, exempt from taxation by the debtor state, is taxable by another State, when owned by a resident of the latter State. No State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction."

5

A judgment rendered in one State does not carry with it into another State the efficacy of a judgment upon property or persons to be enforced by execution. To give it such force in another State it must be made a judgment there; and can only be executed in the latter State as its laws may permit.' When suit is brought in one State on a judgment rendered in another State, any plea that would be good in the State where the judgment was rendered would be good against the exemplified record, and no other; the judgment cannot be denied or controverted by any plea such as nil debet." When a judgment is conclusive between the parties in the state where it was rendered it is equally so in every other State.10

The sufficiency of all defenses to a judgment which go to the substance of the action, are determined by the laws of the State

where the judgment was rendered. All matters, however, which relate to the remedy, e. g., the statute of limitations, are governed by the lex fori. In a late decision," the court held that this full faith and credit claim was not violated by the refusal of the Massachusetts Courts, to give effect to a decree of divorce given by a court of another State to a citizen of Massachusetts who had gone to such other State for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, on a ground which did not constitute a sufficient cause in Massachusetts. This case was decided principally on a Massachusetts statute on this subject, and there was a dissenting opinion by four of the judges of the Supreme Court. The correctness of this decision was questioned by many lawyers who held the correct rule to be that a divorce good in the State where it is granted, should be held good in any other State. In a case decided during the past year,12 however, the Supreme Court has taken an even more advanced position on this question, holding that the mere domicile within the state of one party to the marriage does not give the courts of that State jurisdiction to render a decree of divorce enforceable in all of the other States by virtue of this full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, against a non-resident who did not appear and was only constructively served with notice.

For a judgment to be personally binding upon a party, he must have been served within the limit of the State rendering the judgment, or must have voluntarily appeared and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court. There can be no personal judgment rendered based upon service by publication or upon personal service outside of the State. 13 Such service, however, may justify a judgment in rem, where the res is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court.

In accordance with the second sentence of this clause of the Constitution, Congress has legislated as follows: "The acts of the legislature of any State or territory, or in any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be authenticated by having the seal of such Territory, States or country

affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State or Territory, or of any such country, shali be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States by the attestation of the Clerk and the seal of the Court annexed, if there be a seal, together with the certificate of the Judge, Chief Justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every Court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken." Such mode of proof is not exclusive. It may be proved according to common law rules, or the States may prescribe additional methods of proof.

§ 287. Privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states. "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."14

The rights of every citizen of this country are of two classes, first, those which he possesses as a citizen of the United States, and, second, those which pertain to State citizenship.15 It is with the second class of rights that this clause is concerned. In Kimmish v. Ball16 the Court in construing this clause said: "The clause of the Constitution declaring that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, does not give non-resident citizens of Iowa any greater privileges and immunities in that state than her own citizens can enjoy. So far as liability is concerned and for the act mentioned, citizens of other States and citizens of Iowa stand upon the same footing."

§ 288. Interstate extradition laws. "A person charged in any State with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand. of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be

14 United States Constitution, Art. IV., Sec. II., Clause I. Compare this with Clause I of Art. IV. of the Articles of Confederation.

15 For a treatment of this distinction see account of the Slaughter House Cases, Chap. XIII.

16 129 U. S. 217.