The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-04-01

other does not. They are established for
different purposes and have separate iur-
isdictions. Together they make one whole
and furnish the people Of the United
States with complete government, ample
for the protection of all their rights at
home and abroad. True, it may some
time happen that person is amenable to
both Jurisdictions for one and the
same act, Thus, if marshal of
the United States is unlawfully resisted
while executing the process of the courts
within state, a1d the resistance is accom-
panied by an assault on the officer, the
sovereignty of the United States is vic
lated by the resistance, and that of the
state. by the breach OF peace in the assault.
SO, too, If one passes the counterfeited coin
of the United States within a state, it may
be an offence against the United States
and the state-the United States, because
it discredits the coin, and the state, be
cause of the fraud upon him to whom it is
passed
This does not, however, necessarily i'm
ply that the two governments possess
powers in common, or that bring them
into conflict with each other. 1t is the
natural consequence of a citizenship which
owes allegiance to two sovereignties and
claims protection from both. The citizen
cannot complain, because he has volun-
tarily submitted himself to such form of
government. He owes allegiance to the
two departments, so to speak, and, within
their respective spheres, must pay the
penalties which each exacts for disobedience
to its laws. In return he can demand
protection from each within its own juris-
diction. The government of the United
States is one of delegated powers alone.
Its authority is defined and limited by the
constitution; all powers not granted to it
| by that instrument are reserved to the
states or the people. No rights can be
acquired under the constitution or laws of
the United States except such as the gov
eminent of the United States has the au-
thority to grant CT secure. All that can
not be so granted or secured are left under
the protection of the states.
| AN INALIENABLE RIGHT.
We now proceed to an examination of
the indictments to ascertain whether the
several rights which it is alleged the. de
PENDANTS intended to interfere with are
such as had been in law and in fact granted
or secured by the constitution or laws of
the United States. The first and ninth
counts state the intent of the defendants
to have been to hinder and prevent the
citizens named in the full exercise and en-
ioyment of their lawful rights and privil-
eyes to peaceably assemble together with
each other, and with other citizens of the
! United States, for a peaceful and lawful
purpose" The right of the people peace
ably to assemble for lawful purposes ex-
listed long before the adoption of the con-
stitution of the United States. In fact,
it is and always has been one of the attrib-
utes of citizenship under tree govern
ment. 1t derives its source, to use the
language of Chief Justice Marshal 10 Glib
bOus VS.. Ogden, Q Wheat, 2ll, from those
laws whose authority is acknowledged by
civilized man throughout the world; it is
found wherever civilization exists; it was
not therefore right granted to the people
by the constitution. The government of
the United States when established found
it in existence, with the obligation on the
part Of the state to afford it protection, as
no direct power over it was granted to con-
gress. 1t remains according to the ruling
in Gibbons VS.. Ogden, Wheat, BOB, sub
ject TO state jurisdiction; only such existing
rights were committed by the people to
the protection of congress as cana within
the general scope Of the authority granted
to the national government The first
amendment OF the constitution prohibits
congress from abridgiDg the right of the
people to assemble and to petition the roy
ernment for a redress of grievances. This
like the other amendments proposed and
adopted at the same time, was not in
: tended to limit
THE POWERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT
in respect to their own citizenship. bu'
operate on the national government alone
Barron VS. The City of Baltimore, 70 Pet
, %; T., Lessee of Livingston, VS.. Moore
7 Pet. SOL; Fox VS.. Ohio, 5 How, 434
Smith VS.. Maryland, is How, 76; With
ers VS.. Buckley, 20 How, 90; Pervear VS.
The Commonwealth, Wall. 479;
Twitchell VS.. The Commonwealth, z Wall.
32l; Edwards VS.. Elliott, q Wall, 567.-
1t Is now too late to question the correct
ness Of this construction, as was said b.
the late Chief Justice 10 Twitchell VS.. Tn
Commonwealth, p. 32j. The scope anC
4 application OF these amendments are n
e longer subjects of discussion here. The.
, lett the authority 81 the states just wher
I they found it, and added nothing to tn,
5 already existing power OF the United
States. The particular amendment nov
, under conslde ration assumes the existence
Of the right Of the people to assemble TO
lawful purposes, and protects it agains
encroachment by congress. The right wa
not created by the amendment, neithe
/. was continuance guaranteed except a
] against congressional interference. Fo
their protection tits enjoyment, therefore
the people must look to the stat, Their
, is where the power Tor that PURPOSE wa
! originally placed, and it has never bee
/, surrendered to the United States Tn
j right of the people peaceably to assembl
+ iOr the purpose of petitiOniIg congress to
/ "a redress OF grievances or tor anythln
e connected with the power or duties Of til
I national government is an attribute q
J. national citizenship, and as such under tn
n protection of and guaranteed by the Unite
S Stats. The very idea of a governmen
republican in form, implies a right On tn
: part OF its citizens to meet peaceably fO
G consultation in respect TO public affair
D and 10 petition for a redress of grievances
It., as it has been alleged In these counts
Q the object of the defendant was to proven
a meeting tor such purpose, the cours
would have been within the statute an
L within the scope of the sovereignty of tn
United States. Such, however, is not tn
case. The offense as stated in the indict
ments will be made out if it be shown tina
u the object of the conspiracy was to proven
| nm nj h.,