Before the adoption of this amendment, the rights known as privileges and immuni ties of the citizens of the states (with a few' exceptions specifically named in the federal constitution) depended for protection exclu sively upon the states, and it was not the purpose of the amendment to subject them to the control of congress. The citizens of the states, as such, are left to the state gov ernments for security and protection in re spect to such rights; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394. The amendment adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another ; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 543, 2 L. Ed. 588; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 405; nor does it control the power of the state over its own citizens; Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 31 Atl. 322, 29 L. R. A. 404.
It applies only to such privileges and im munities as existed when it was adopted ; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 627; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 405; and secures them against im pairment or invasion by the states; U. S. v. C'ruikshank, 92 U. S. 543, 23 L. Ed. 588 ; id., 1 Woods, 308, Fed. Cas. No. 14,897; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 405.
The police power of the state and its au thority for the protection of life, health and property of its citizens are unimpaired; Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583, 1 Sup. Ct. 637, 27 L. Ed. 207; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; Munn v. People, 69 111. 80; Frasher T. State, a Tex. App. 263, 30 Am. Rep. 131; Green v. State, 58 Ala. 190, 29 Am. Rep. 739. Not only the supreme court, but judges generally, have been dis inclined to define broadly what are the privileges and immunities protected by the 14th amendment as appertaining to citizen ship of the United States, except to charac terize them as those "which owe their ex istence to the federal government, its nation al character, its constitution or its laws." There have been suggested as illustrations in various cases, in addition to those cited supra, the right -of free transit from one state to another and to the federal capital; of access to sea-ports, public offices and courts ; protection upon the high seas or in foreign countries; the right of petition ; of peaceable assemblage ; the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; the right to become a citizen of any state by residence therein ; and the right to use the navigable waters of the United States; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; State v. Medbury, 3 R. I. 141; Crandall v. State, 10 Conn. 343; Oliver v. Washington Mills, 11 Allen (Mass.) 281; Cooley, Const. Lim. (4th Ed.) 498. As deprecating a general defini tion, see McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 24 L. Ed. 248. The right of free transit through or from a state has been declared to be a privilege and immunity secured by art. IV, sec. 2, of the United States constitu
tion and a statute prohibiting laborers from leaving the state without a license was held void on that ground, it being unnecessary to consider it as affected by the 14th amend ment; Joseph v. Randolph, 71 Ala. 499, 46 Am. Rep. 347. The same right is protected against adverse legislation by decisions of the United States supreme court; Smith v. Turner, 7 How. (U. S.) 283, 12 L. Ed. 702 ; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35, 18 L. Ed. 745; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 418, 20 L. Ed. 449; in which cases the same result is reached upon different grounds. The states are not prohibited from abridging any rights and immunities of their own citizens except such as are protected by express provisions of the federal constitu tion; State v. Strauder, 11 W. Va. 745, 27 Am. Rep. 606; Short v. State, 80 Md. 392, 31 All. 322, 29 L. R. A. 404.
Whether the privileges and immunities re ferred to in the 14th amendment include those protected by the first eight amend ments is a point touched upon, but not de termined or discussed at large, by the su preme court. See Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 22, 31 L. Ed. 80; O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 361, 12 Sup. Ct. 693, 36 L. Ed. 450; Re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 446, 10 Sup. Ct. 930, 34 L. Ed. 519 ; Hodgson v. Vermont, 168 U. S. 262, 18 Sup. Ct. 80, 42 L. Ed. 461; Guthrie, Fourteenth Amend. 62 65. It has been held in a state court that this amendment does not extend the opera tion of the 4th and 5th amendments; State v. Atkinson, 41) S. C. 363, 18 S. E. 1021, 42 Am. St. Rep. 877.
Privileges and immunities protected by the constitution are the enjoyment, on terms of equality with others in similar circum stances, of pursuing a trade and of acquir ing, holding and selling property; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 992, '1257, 32 L. Ed. 253 ; Mason v. Missouri, 179 U. S. 328, 21 Sup. Ct. 125, 45 L. Ed. 214 (and there are a number of dicta to the effect that the right to follow the ordinary callings of life is a privilege of citizens of the United States; Butchers' Union S. H. & L. S. L. Co. v. Slaughter-House Co., 111 U. S. 746, 762, 4 Sup. Ct. 652, 28 L. Ed. 585; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 8 Sup. Ct. 992, 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253; Hodges v. U. S., 203 U. S. 1, 35, 27 Sup. Ct. 6, 51 L. Ed. 65) ; the right of an individual or class not to be singled out as a special subject of hostile or discriminating legislation ; Pembina Consol. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650; to be pro tected from class legislation; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923.