Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 782
Inhabitant. One who reside actually and permanently in
a given place, and has his domicile there. Ex parte Shaw, 145
U.S. 444, 12 S.Ct. 935, 36 L.Ed. 786.
The words
"inhabitant," "citizen," and "resident," as employed in different constitutions
to define the qualifications of electors, means substantially the same
thing; and, in general, one is an inhabitant, resident, or citizen at
the place where he has his domicile or home. But the terms "resident"
and "inhabitant" have also been held not synonymous, the latter implying
a more fixed and permanent abode than the former, and importing privileges
and duties to which a mere resident would not be subject. A corporation
can be an inhabitant only in the state of its incorporation. Sperry
Products v. Association of American Railroads, C.C.A.N.Y., 132 F.2d
408, 411. See also Domicile;
Residence.
[Black's Law Dictionary,
Sixth Edition, p. 782]
It has
been suggested that, in adopting it into the Constitution, the words
"free inhabitants" were changed for the word "citizens." An examination
of the forms of expression commonly used in the State papers of that
day, and an attention to the substance of this article of the Confederation,
will show that the words "free inhabitants," as then used, were synonymous
with citizens. When the Articles of Confederation were adopted,
we were in the midst of the war of the Revolution, and there were very
few persons then embraced in the words "free inhabitants" who were not
born on our soil. It was not a time when many save the [60 U.S. 585]
children of the soil were willing to embark their fortunes in our cause,
and though there might be an inaccuracy in the uses of words to call
free inhabitants citizens, it was then a technical, rather than a substantial,
difference. If we look into the Constitutions and State papers of that
period, we find the inhabitants or people of these colonies, or the
inhabitants of this State or Commonwealth, employed to designate those
whom we should now denominate citizens. The substance and purpose of
the article prove it was in this sense it used these words; it secures
to the free inhabitants of each State the privileges and immunities
of free citizens in every State. It is not conceivable that the States
should have agreed to extend the privileges of citizenship to persons
not entitled to enjoy the privileges of citizens in the States where
they dwelt that, under this article, there was a class of persons in
some of the States, not citizens, to whom were secured all the privileges
and immunities of citizens when they went into other States; and the
just conclusion is that, though the Constitution cured an inaccuracy
of language, it left the substance of this article in the National Constitution
the same as it was in the Articles of Confederation.
[Scott
v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)]