I thought that I would provide a full transcript of the money quote in Justice Washington’s notes on Corfield.
“As to the 4th article second section of the Constitution, ‘the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.’ Is the right which a citizen has to enjoy the common property belonging to the citizens of the state a privilege or immunity? See infra A
A. I am inclined to think that it is a privilege within the meaning of this article of the Constitution. If it be not, then the rights to navigate the waters would not be, because they also are common property, and yet it would seem to violate this article to make a law forbidding citizens of their state to navigate the waters of that state. I am inclined to the opinion of the Court in Livingston v. Van Ingen, that the ___ of this article is that the citizen of each state shall within every other state have equal privileges or rights as the citizens of such state have, the words all privileges of citizens being equivalent to equal privileges.”
[There is one word I can’t quite make out.]
Other portions of the Corfield notes include summaries of the relevant cases, which is interesting from the standpoint of seeing how Washington made decisions. There is also a section on the Commerce Clause issue in the case, which I need to think about further in light of what was decided in Gibbons v. Ogden. More tidbits to come.