they have full title without reference to this amendment to the Constitution. The amendment is a guarantee to the people of the States that there can be no interference to the enjoyment of this right, by the authorities of the national government. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and as such is under the protection of the guarantee by the United States. (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542.)

§ 604. These amendments to the Constitution cannot be so construed as to justify a citizen in the violation of a criminal statute, upon the ground that the act is in accordance with his religious belief, and required by obligations arising from that belief. One Reynolds was indicted in Utah, for the crime of polygamy, he having married a second wife, knowing that his first wife was still living. For defence he alleged that the church to which he belonged, enjoined the practice of polygamy upon its male members, and that with the sanction of the recognized authorities of the church, and by a ceremony performed pursuant to its doctrines, he had

married a second. wife.

§ 605. Chief Justice Waite in the opinion of the Court said: "So here, as a law of the organization of society, under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practice to the contrary, because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief, superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145.)

CHAPTER LIII.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

ART. 2.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

§ 606. The only case of importance which has arisen under this article, is that of Presser against the State of Illinois (116 U. S. 252). The State of Illinois having made provision for the enrolment of all able-bodied male citizens of the State, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as might be exempted from duty by law, and designated them as the State Militia, and having provided also for a course of instruction in military science in the educational institutions of the State, enacted a provision in these words, namely: "It shall not be lawful for any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this State, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this State, without a license of the governor thereof, which license may, at any time, be revoked." The statute imposed a penalty of ten dollars, or imprisonment in the common jail for a term not exceeding six months, for any violation of the One Herman Presser was indicted in 1879 in Cooke County, charged with a violation of the statute which forbade persons to associate themselves together and drill with arms, not having first obtained a license from the governor as required by the statute.

statute.

§ 607. Said Presser was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of ten dollars. By due proceedings the case was

brought to the Supreme Court as involving the construction of several provisions of the Constitution of the United States, namely: article one, section eight; article one, section ten, and article two, of the amendments. It was claimed that inasmuch as by the first two references named, the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia having been confided to Congress, and Congress having acted upon the subject, such action excluded the power of legislation by the State on the same subject.

§ 608. To this the Court answered in substance that such legislation on the part of the State was not inconsistent with the action of Congress, unless it deprived or tended to deprive the United States of its rightful resource of maintaining the public security, and disabled the people from performing their duty to the general government. On this point the Court held that the statute of Illinois did not have that effect.

§ 609. It was alleged on behalf of the appellant, that some portions of the statute, of which the provision in question was a part, were unconstitutional. To this the Court answered, that inasmuch as the parts in controversy were found to be constitutional, and inasmuch as they could be separated in construction and operation from the other parts, they were held to be valid, and that, without reference to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the parts to which objection was made.

§ 610. The claim that the statute was in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution was disposed of by the declaration by the Court, that the Second Amendment was a guarantee that nothing should be done by the United States in restraint of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but that the amendment could not be appealed to as limiting the power of the States.

§ 611. The teaching in this case seems to justify the following conclusion, namely: that as long as a State in the exercise of its power does not interfere with the ability of the

United States government to command the military resources of the State, it may exercise jurisdiction over its citizens in the enjoyment of the right of freedom in the matter of keeping and bearing arms. (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252.)

CHAPTER LIV.

AS TO SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.

ART. 4.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

§ 612. One case only of importance has arisen in which the meaning of this amendment has been brought to the test of judicial inquiry. By a statute of the United States, passed June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. 186), more severe penalties were provided than had previously existed for the use of fraudulent papers in connection with the importation of merchandise. Under that statute, proceedings were instituted in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and thirty-five cases of plate glass were seized by the collector as forfeited to the United States, agreeably to the provisions of the said statute.

§ 613. Acting under the authority vested in the District Attorney by section five of that act, he filed a motion, which was granted by the Court, requiring the claimants to produce the invoice of the glass in question, and, in default thereof, the claimant was notified that the allegations, as stated in the motion, would be taken as confessed.

§ 614. There was a provision in the statute that the allegations stated in the motion were to be taken as confessed, against the claimant "unless his failure or refusal to produce the same shall be explained to the satisfaction of the Court."

§ 615. Upon the hearing before the Supreme Court, the