UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR. 665 �of the indictment, that this person to whom the right is alleged to have been denied was not a citizen, or there was a ques- tion whether he was or was not a citizen of the United States. It willberecollectedthat the fourteenth' amendment to the con- stitution declares that ail persons. (using the word/)ersons) born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the juris- diction thereof, are eitizens of the United States. So that, we think, as this is a penal statute, operatihg upon the business of the country, and exercising a control over the management of business by steam-boatmen, theater men, and men who exercise any employment which is quasi public in its character, we ought to construe it strictiy, and we there- fore hold that, as there is no allegation as to the citizenship of McArthur, the case does not come within the statute, and the indictment must be quashed. �There is another question made, which it is not necessary for us to decide in this case, and that is whether or not this court has jurisdiction in such a case. In consequence of the peculiar language of the first article of our state constitution, limiting the boundaries of the State of Illinois to the north- western shore of the Ohio river, it is claimed, this being a steamboat between Paducah, a port in Kentucky, and Cairo, a port in Illinois, that it does not necessarily foUow the offence alleged wbuld be one committed within the jurisdiction of this district, because, if the limit of the district is the northwestern shore of the river Ohio, the steani-boat would not be within the jurisdiction of the court, although the indictment alleges the offence was committed within the jurisdiction. However, that is a question we do not feel inclined to decide in this case, as it is not necessary; but, for the reason given, the motion to quash the indictment will be eustained. ����
