intent to return to another, which
will not create citizenship in the former. But plaintiff states
nothing to take her case out of the definition of citizenship of
a State as defined by the first section of the XIV. Amendment.

In regard to that amendment counsel for plaintiff in this court
truly says that there are certain privileges and immunities which
belong to a citizen of the United States as such; otherwise it
would be nonsense for the XIV. Amendment to prohibit a State from
abridging them, and he proceeds to argue that admission to the
bar of a State of a person who possesses the requisite learning
and character is one of those which a State may not deny. In this
latter proposition we are not able to concur with counsel. We
agree with him that there are privileges and immunities belonging
to citizens of the United States, in that relation and character,
and that it is these, and these alone, which a State is forbidden
to abridge. But the right to admission to practice in the courts
of a State is not one of them. The right in no sense depends on
citizenship of the United States. It has not, as far as we know,
ever been made in any State, or in any case, to depend on
citizenship at all. Certainly many prominent and distinguished
lawyers have been admitted to practice, both in the State and
Federal Courts, who were not citizens of the United States or of
any State. But, on whatever basis this right may be placed, so
far as it can have any relation to citizenship at all, it would
seem that, as to the courts of a State, it would relate to
citizenship of the State, and as to Federal Courts, it would
relate to citizenship of the United States.

The opinion just delivered in the Slaughter-house Cases from
Louisiana renders elaborate argument in the present case
unnecessary; for, unless we are wholly and radically mistaken in
the principles on which those cases are decided, the right to
control and regulate the granting of license to practice law in
the courts of a State is one of those powers which are not
transferred for its protection to the Federal Government, and its
exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of
the United States in the party seeking such license. It is
unnecessary to repeat the argument on which the