A corporation is not a citizen secured by the protection given to privileges and immu nities; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 410, 19 L. Ed. 972; Pembina Consol. S. M. & M. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 45, 20 Sup. Ct. 518, 44 L. Ed. 657; Selover, B. & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U. S. 112, 33 Sup. Ct. 69, 57 L. Ed. 146 ; and the same view was taken prior to this amendment ; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 586, 10 L. Ed. 274; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357; Ducat v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 172, 95 Am. Dec. 529.
A citizen of the United States has been said to have a right as such to participate in foreign and inter-state commerce, to have the benefit of the postal laws, to make use in common with others of the navigable wa ters of the United States, to pass from state to state and into foreign countries; lie may petition the federal authorities, visit the seat of government without being subjected to the payment of a tax for the privilege ; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35, 18 L. Ed. 745 ; be the purchaser of public lands on the same terms as others ; U. S. v. Wad dell, 112 U. S. 76, 5 Sup. Ct. 35, 28 L. Ed. 673; Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 617, 36 L. Ed. 429; participate in the government if he comes within the conditions of suffrage, be protected from violence while exercising his right of suffrage ; Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 617, 36 L. Ed. 429; demand the protection of the gov ernment on the high seas or in foreign coun tries ; Cooley, Const. 489, 246 ; see Slaughter Cases, 16 Wall. S.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; take out patents and copyrights, buy, sell, or devise United States securities, and take the benefit of the national bankrupt laws ; Black, Const. L. 531. A state may not impose a tax upon travellers passing by pub lic conveyance out of the state; Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 35, 18 L. Ed. 745; nor impose conditions upon the rights of citi zens of other states to sue its citizens in the federal courts ; Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 445, 22 L. Ed. 365 ; see Coger v. Packet Co., 37 Ia. 145 ; nor deny to color ed citizens the privilege of serving on the ju ry, because of their color ; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 25 L. Ed. 664; Vir ginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 25 L. Ed. 667; Re Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 25 L. Ed. 676; or to citizens who have become such by natu ralization; Com. v. Towles, 5 Leigh (Va.) 743.
Trial by jury is not a privilege or immu nity which the states are prevented by the 14th amendment from abridging ; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23 L. Ed. 678; Max well v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 20 Sup. Ct. 448, 494, 44 L. Ed. 591; but citizens of African descent cannot be excluded from jury duty, on account of race or color, whether the dis crimination is by statute or in the adminis tration of the law independently of it ; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 25 L. Ed. 664; In re Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 25 L. Ed. 676; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 26 L. Ed. 567; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110, 1 Sup. Ct. 625, 27 L. Ed. 354 ; but
if there is no discrimination on account of race or color and the jury be drawn wholly of white persons, it is valid ; Bush v. Ken tucky, 107 U. S. 110, 1 Sup. Ct. 625, 27 L. Ed. 354; Hicks v. Com., 3 Ky. Law Rep. 87. A white man may not .complain that negroes were excluded from the jury which tried him; Cora. v. Wright, 79 Ky. 22, 42 Am. Rep. 203. The exclusion of Chinese from juries is valid ; State v. Ah Chew, 16 Nev. 50, 40 Am. Rep. 488.
The right to practice law is not such a privilege or immunity as is protected by the federal constitution ; Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 130, 21 L. Ed. 442; In re Lock wood, 154 U. S. 116, 14 Sup. Ct. 1082, 38 L. Ed. 929; In re Taylor, 48 Md. 28, 30 Am. Rep. 451; nor the right to marry ; Ex parte Kinney, 3 Hughes 9, Fed. Cas. No. 7,825; nor the right to vote ; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 543, 23 L. Ed. 588; Minor v. Hap persett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. Ed. 627; Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 13 Am. Rep. 136; Spencer v. Board of Registration, 1 MacArthur (D. C.) 169, 29 Am. Rep. 582; ple v. Barber, 48 Hun (N. Y.) 198; nor the right to practise medicine; Ex parte Spinney, 10 Nev. 323 ; State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 30 Pac. 729; nor to sell intoxicating liquors ; Eilenbecker v. District Court, 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. Ed. 801; nor of fishery ; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, 24 L. Ed. 248; nor the .right of marriage as be tween different races ; Green v. State, 58 Ala. 190, 29 Am. Rep. 739; Ex parte Francois, 3 Woods 367, Fed. Cas. No. 5,047; State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389, 10 Am. Rep. 42 ; State v. Reinhardt, 63 N. C. 5471 Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. App. 263, 30 Am. Rep. 131; see Conner v. Elliott, 18 How. (Ti. S.) 591, 15 L. Ed. 497; nor the privilege of attending the public schools of the state; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 405 ; Bertonneau v. Board, 3 Woods 177, Fed. Cas. No.'1,361 ; Claybrook v. Owensboro, 16 Fed. 297; nor the right of free education ; State v. Maryland Institute, 87 Md. 643, 41 Atl. 126; nor the use of the mails for remitting money to a lottery com pany; Dauphin v. Key, 4 MacArthur (D. C.) 203; nor the right to associate as a military company and drill with arms, not regular state organized militidi;stinction be Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6 Sup. Ct. Ed. 615; nor to use the national flag for ad vertising purposes ; Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34, 27 Sup. Ct. 419, 51 L. Ed. 696, 10 Ann. Cas. 525. Nor is a registration law for certain cities, though there be but one in the class affected by it; Mason v. Missouri, 179 U. S. 328, 21 Sup. Ct. 125, 45 L. Ed. 214; nor a classification of towns ; Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 18 Sup. Ct. 617, 42 L. Ed. 1047; nor to have a controversy in the state court prosecuted or determined by one form of action rather than by another ; Iowa C. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 16 Sup. Ct. 344, 40 L. Ed. 467; nor to ride in a particular car or part of a public convey ance ; Chilton v. R. Co., 114 Mo. 88, 21 S. W. 457, 19 L. R. A. 269, where a regulation re quiring negroes to ride in separate cars was held to violate no constitutional right.