f
citizens of the United States" is not identical with the
clause in the Constitution which declared that "the citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States." It embraces
much more. It is possible that those who framed the article
were not themselves aware of the far-reaching character of
its terms, yet if the amendment does in fact bear a broader
meaning, and does extend its protecting shield over those
who were never thought of when it was conceived and put in
form, and does reach social evils which were never before
prohibited by constitutional enactment, it is to be presumed
that the American people, in giving it their _imprimatur_,
understood what they were doing and meant to decree what in
fact they have decreed. The "privileges and immunities"
secured by the original Constitution were only such as each
State gave to its own citizens, ... but the XIV. Amendment
prohibits any State from abridging the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States, whether its own
citizens or any others. It not merely requires equality of
privileges, but it demands that the privileges and
immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely unabridged
and unimpaired.

In the same opinion, after enumerating some "privileges" of the
citizens, such as were pertinent to the case on trial, but
declining to enumerate all, the Court further says:

These privileges can not be invaded without sapping the
foundation of Republican government. A Republican government
is not merely a government of the people, but it is a free
government.... It was very ably contended on the part of the
defendants that the XIV. Amendment was intended only to
secure to all citizens equal capacities before the law. That
was at first our view of it. But it does not so read. The
language is, "No State shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States." What are the
privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United
States? Are they capacities merely? Are they not also
rights?

The Court in this seems to intima