Thе question to be determined is, whether the fact, that a person was an inhabitant of the Territory of Louisiana, previous to its admission into the Union, by virtue of the act of Congress of the 20th February, 1811, will constitute suсh person a citizen of the United States. This act, which was to enable “the people of thе Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State intо the Union, on an equal footing with the original States,” authorizes the “ inhabitants” of the Territory to form for themselvеs a constitution and State government, &c.
As the citizenship of the juror, is supposed to flow from his being an inhabitant оf the Territory of Louisiana, at the time of the passage of the act of Congress of 1811, previоusly cited, it becomes necessary to consider the precise import of a term, from which suсh consequences are to arise. By the term, inhabitant of a place, or country, we understand onе who has his domicil, or fixed residence there, in opposition to one who is a mere sojournеr or temporarily resident in the place, or country: Bouviere’s Law Dic. 504;
The act for the admission of Louisiana into the Union, does not differ in' any "important particular from ■ any of 'the other acts of Congress; passed for the sanie purpose,!befóré and since;' The act for the admission оf Alabama into the Union, is precisely similar, and if the pretension' set up, is well foundedj as the juror wás an inhаbitant of Alabama, before,’and'at the time of its admission into the Union, there would be no necessity tо resort to his residence in Louisiana, to establish his citizenship» unless the fact, that the Territory, constituting the State of Louisiana, was acquired by cession, since the formation of the Federal government, affects the question. But we apprehend, that the utmost which could be claimed for the .residents of States thus circumstanced, would be, that they should be placed on the same footing with those residing in States, formed from the public domain, which belonged to the- States at the formation of the Federаl comp act.
It is probable that the decision of the Court below:, was made on the supposition, that the treaty of 1803, generally called the treaty of Paris, by which Louisiana was acquired, conferred citizenship on the juror. The 3d article of the treaty, provides, “that the inhabitants of the cеded Territory, shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal con
There can be no doubt that all persons, who at the date of the treaty were “ inhabitants” of the ceded territory, that is, who permanently resided there, were by the operation of the treaty itself, created citizens of the United States, and they are by the act of Congress of 1811, considered as citizens. But it is impossible to suppose that the French government, in -making this stipulation on behalf of the inhabitants of the country they were ceding, or the United States, in acceding to it, intended to еmbrace those persons who might become inhabitants of the ceded Territory, at any after рeriod..
We have been informed that a different decision has been made by the Courts of Louisiana from the conclusion here attained. We have not seen the report of the case, аnd do not 'know* whether the facts are the same as in this case, or by what: reasons the decision is fortified: it cannot therefore influence.our judgment. . , :
In our opinion, the Court erred in its charge to the jury, and its judgment is therefore reversed, and-the cause remanded.