the declaration that she was at liberty to withdraw from the Union whenever its powers were used for oppression; and New York, after Hamilton had declared that no State should ever be coerced by an armed force. There were two great parties: The Federalists, in favor of a strong, centralized government, and the Anti-Federalists, supporters of State's rights. Washington and Adams. Federalist leaders, were elected, and the government was organized with Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State; Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury; Henry Knox, Secretary of War, and John Jay, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.] ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.1 [ARTICLE I.] Freedom of religion, of speech, and of peaceable assembly. 171. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Terret v. Taylor. 9 Cr. 43; Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 127; Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Reynolds v. United States. 98 U. S. 145; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; The right to bear arms. Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 1; in re Rapier, 143 U. S. 110; Horner v. United States, 143 U. S. 207; Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U. S. 291; Turner v. Williams. 194 U. S. 279; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372: Quick Bear v. Leupp. 210 U. S. 50; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78. [ARTICLE II.] 172. 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. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252: Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; Quartering of soldiers in houses. Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372: Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78. [ARTICLE III.] 173. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Spies v. Illinois. 123 U. S. 131; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78. [ARTICLE IV.] Security from unreasonable searches and seizures. 174. 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. Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71: Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, 18 How. 272; Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2: Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447; In re Chapman. 166 U. S. 661; Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585; Morris v. Hitchcock. 194 U. S. 384; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25: Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372; Hale v. Henkel 201 U. S. 43; Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U. S. 541; 1 The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States were proposed to the legis latures of the several States by the First Congress, on the 25th of September, 1789. They were ratified by the following States, and the notifications of ratification by the governors thereof were successively communicated by the President to Congress: New Jersey, November 20, 1789: Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina, December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19. 1790; New Hampshire, January 25, 1790; Delaware, January 28, 1790: Pennsylvania. March 10, 1790; New York, March 27, 1790; Rhode Island, June 15, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791. and Virginia, December 15. 1791. There is no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures of Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified them. American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U. S. 284: "The enforced production before a grand jury engaged in investigating the alleged criminal conduct of corporate officers, directors, and stockholders, of the letterpress copy books of the corporation for two specified months, in the possession of its president, under a subpoena duces tecum directed to the corporation, does not violate the provisions of U. S. Const., 4th amend., forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures." Wilson v. United States, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; 220 U. S.-. (Cent. Dig., sec. 5; Dec. Dig., sec. 7.) [ARTICLE V.] Security as to accusations, trials, and property. 175. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, with out just compensation. United States v. Perez, 9 Wh. 579; Barron v. The City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; West River Bridge Company v. Dix, 6 How. 507; Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115; Moore v. The People of the State of Illinois, 14 How. 13; Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, 18 How. 272; Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84; Gilman v. The City of Sheboygan, 2 Black, 510; Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321; Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall. 603; Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 268: Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457; Pumpelly v. Green Bay Company, 13 Wall. 166; Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall 654; Ex Parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163: Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. 367; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 200; Langford v. United States, 101 U. S. 341; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78; Ex Parte Wall. 107 U. S. 265; United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513; United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co., 112 U. S. 645; Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616: Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348; Ex Parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1; Parkinson v. United States, 121 U. S. 21; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540; United States v. De Walt, 128 U. S. 393; Manning v. French, 133 U. S. 186; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. v. Woodson, 134 U. S. 614; In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547; Simmonds v. United States. 142 U. S. 148; Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S. 490; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312: Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698; Lees v. United States, 150 U. S. 476; Marchant v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 153 U. S. 380; Linford v. Ellison, 155 U. S. 503; Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S. 109; Sweet v. Rechel. 159 U. S. 380; Brown v. Walker. 161 U. S. 591; Wong Wing v. United States. 163 U. S. 228; Ralton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548; Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U. S. 611; United States v. Joint Traffic Association, 171 U. S. 505; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141; McDonald V. Massachusetts, 180 U. S. 311; Neeley v. Henkel (No. 1), 180 U. S. 109; French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 181 U.S. 324; Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371; Tonawanda v. Lyon, 181 U. S. 389; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238: Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181: Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553; United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445; The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197; Bedford v. United States. 192 U. S. 217; Butterfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470; Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585; Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53; Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73; Morris v. Hitchcock, 194 U. S. 384; Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U. S. 497; Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279; Shepard v. Barron, 194 U.S. 553; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25; Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27; Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516; Ju Toy v. United States, 198 U. S. 253; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437; Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Drainage Commissioners, 200 U. S. 561; Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 200 U. S. 341; Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43; McAllister v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 90; Nelson v. U. S.. 201 U. S. 92; Sawyer v. U. S., 202 U. S. 150; Matter of Moran, 203 U. S. 96; Union Bridge Co. v. U. S., 204 U. S. 364; Martin v. District of Columbia, 205 U. S. 135; Barrington v. Missouri, 205 U. S. 483; United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370; Ellis v. U. S., 206 U. S. 246; Grafton v. U. S., 206 U. S. 333; Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161; Taylor v. U. S., 207 U. S. 120; Shoener v. Pennsylvania, 207 U. S. 188; Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U. S. 541; American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U. S. 284; Adair v. U. S., 208 U. S. 161; Bassing v. Cady, 208 U. S. 386; Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U. S. 249; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Goon Shung v. United States, 212 U. S. 566; New York Central R. R. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481; United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366; Keerl v. Montana, 213 U. S. 135; Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320; District of Columbia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138; Sanchez v. United States, 216 U. S. 167; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177; Brantley v. Georgia, 217 U. S. 284; Rhodus v. Manning, 217 U. S. 597; United States v. Welch, 217 U. S. 333; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 88; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Chicago B. & Q. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 113: Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245; Hooe v. United States, 218 U. S. 322; Cincinnati I. & W. Ry. Co. v. Connersville, 218 U. S. 336; Louisville and Nashville R. R. Co. v. Motley, 219 U. S. 467; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 575; United States v. Grizzard, 219 U. S. 180; Wilson v. United States, 220 U. S., 31 S. C. R. 538. On account of importance of matter, an extract from this decision is here inserted: "The privilege against self-crimination afforded by the U. S. Const., 5th amend., does not protect the officer of a corporation in resisting the compulsory production before the grand jury under a subpoena duces tecum directed to the corporation, of the letter-press copy books of such corporation in his possession, because the contents thereof may tend to incriminate him, even though the inquiry before the grand jury was not directed to the corporation inself." Wilson v. United States, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; 220 U. S. (Cent. Dig.. secs. 1038-1041; Dec. Dig., sec. 298.) Decision of Nevada Supreme Court: State v. Millain, 3 Nev. 409, 438, 479, 480; State v. Rover, 10 Nev. 395 (21 A. R. 745); Wallace v. Mayor, 27 Nev. 77 (73 P. 528, 103 A. S. 747). [ARTICLE VI.] Right to trial by jury and to confront witnesses and secure testimony. 176. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previ ously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. United States v. Cooledge, 1 Wh. 415; Ex Parte Kearney, 7 Wh. 38; United States v. Mills, 7 Pet. 142; Barron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84: Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2; Twichell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321; Miller v. The United States. 11 Wall. 268; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394; Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; Cook v. United States. 138 U. S. 157; In re Shubuya Jugiro. 140 U. S. 291; In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453; Fong Yue Ting v. United States. 149 U. S. 698; Mattox v. United States, 156 U. S. 237; Rosen v. United States, 161 U. S. 29; United States v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 475; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343: Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581: Motes v. United States. 178 U. S. 458: Fidelity and Deposit Co. v. United States, 187 U. S. 315; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197; Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445: West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258: Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279; Schirck v. United States, 195 U. S. 65; Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138; Rasmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516; Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77; Marvin v. Trout, 199 U. S. 212; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372; Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316; Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164: Sawyer v. United States. 202 U. S. 150; Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 20; Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U. S. 481; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56: Twining v. New Jersey. 211 U. S. 78; Goon Shung v. United States, 212 U. S. 566; Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 212 U. S. 1: United States v. Stevenson, 215 U. S. 190; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462. Decision of Nevada Supreme Court: State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408. 415. [ARTICLE VII.] Jury trial in suits at common law. 177. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. United States v. La Vengeance. 3 Dall. 297: Bank of Columbia v. Oakley, 4 Wh. 235; Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433; Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437: State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling Bridge Company, 13 How. 518; The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall, 532; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U. S. 294; McElrath v. United States, 102 U. S. 426: Spies v. Illinois. 123 U. S. 131; Arkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Mann, 130 U. S. 69; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146; Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106: Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698: Coughran v. Bigelow, 164 U. S. 301; Walker v. New Mexico & Southern Pacific Railroad, 165 U. S. 593; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226; American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, 166 U. S. 464; Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516; Marvin v. Trout. 199 U. S. 212; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372; Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 203 U. S. 64; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78. [ARTICLE VIII.] Excessive bail or fines and cruel punishments prohibited. 178. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 475; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Manning v. French, 133 U. S. 186: Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 31; McElvaine v. Brush. 142 U. S. 155: O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323; McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U. S. 311; Jack v. Kansas, Rights reserved to the people. 199 U. S. 372; Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U. S. 481; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349. Decision of Nevada Supreme Court: Ex Parte Kair, 28 Nev. 127 (80 P. 463, 113 A. S. 817). [ARTICLE IX.] 179. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372. Powers reserved to the States. [ARTICLE X.1 180. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 Dall. 419: Hollingsworth v. The State of Virginia, 3 Dall. 378; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wh. 304; McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wh. 316: Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wh. 204; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 264; Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wh. 738; Buchler v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506: The Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; Claflin v. Houseman, assignee, 93 U. S. 130: Inman Steamship Company v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238: United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315: Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (Income Tax case). 157 U. S. 429: Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506: St. Anthony Fails Water Power Co. v. St. Paul Water Commissioners, 168 U. S. 349: Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613; Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Warren, 181 U. S. 73. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125: Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14; Northern Securities Co. v. United States. 193 U. S. 197; Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279: McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Murphey, 196 U. S. 194; Matter of Heff (Indian), 197 U. S. 488: South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437; Jack v. Kansas, 199 U. S. 372; Hodges v. United States, Extent of the judicial power. 214 U. S. 218; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, 214 U. S. 274; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U. S. 509. Decision of Nevada Supreme Court: Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 284, 292. ARTICLE XI.1 181. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402; Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 264; Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wh. 738; United States v. The Planters' Bank, 9 Wh. 904: The Governor of Georgia v. Juan Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110; Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 5 Pet. 1; Briscoe v. The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257; Curran v. State of Arkansas, 15 How. 304: Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711: New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436; Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick Railroad, 109 U. S. 446; Poindexter v. Greenlow, 114 U. S. 270; Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 114 U. S. 311; Hagood v. Southern 117 U. S. 52; Ralston v. Missouri Fund Commissioners, 120 U. S. 390; In re Ayers. 123 U. S. 443; Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U.S. 529: Christian v. Atlantic & North Carolina R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 233; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1; North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22; New York Guaranty Co. v. Steele. 134 U. S. 230; Virginia Coupon Cases, 135 U. S. 662; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1; United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107; Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141; Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28; Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537; South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286; Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11; Graham v. Folsom, 200 U. S. 248; Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line, 200 U. S. 273; McNeill v. Southern Railway Co., 202 U. S. 543; Mississippi R. R. Commission v. Illinois Central R. R., 203 U. S. 335; Scully v. Bird, 209 U. S. 481; Ex Parte Young, 209 U. S. 123; Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151; Ludwig v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 216 U. S. 146: Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews, 216 U. S. 165; Herndon v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 135; Roach v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 159; Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co., 218 U. S. 357; Wetmore v. Tennessee Copper Co., 218 U. S. 369. ARTICLE XII.2 Meeting of the electors and transmission and count of their votes-Elections of President and Vice-President by the House and Senate in certain cases. 182. The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. 1 The eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Third Congress on the 5th of September, 1794; and was declared in a message from the President to Congress dated the 8th of January, 1798, to have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. 2 The twelfth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Eighth Congress on the 12th of December, 1803, in lieu of the original third paragraph of the first section of the second article, and was declared in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of September, 1804, to have been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.. In re Green, 134 U. S. 377. ARTICLE XIII.1 Prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude. 183. SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 184. SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393; White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646: Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Civil Rights Case, 109 U. S. 3; Plessy v. Ferguson. 163 U. S. 537; Robertson v. Balwin, 165 U. S. 275; Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207; Hodges v. United States, 203 U. S. 1; Bailey v. Alabama, 211 U. S. 452; Chiles v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 71: Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U. S. 161; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219. ARTICLE XIV.2 Citizenship; security and equal protection of citizens. 185. SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418; Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; Kennard v. State of Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 37; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U. S. 294: Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491; Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 96 U. S. 521; Dav idson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303; Virginia v. Rivers, 100 U. S. 313; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Missouri v. Louis, 101 U. S. 22; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Fox V. Cincinnati, 104 U. S. 783; Kelly v. Pittsburg, 104 U. S. 78; Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583: Goss v. United States Mortgage Co.. 108 U'. S. 477; Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285: Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 11 U. S. 701; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94; Foster v. Kansas, 112 1 The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-eighth Congress, on the 1st of February, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 18th of December, 1865, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-seven of the thirty-six States, viz: Illinois, Rhode Island, Michigan,. Maryland, New York. West Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia. Ohio, Missouri, Nevada. Indiana, Louisiana. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Tennessee, Arkansas, Connecticut. New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. 2 The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 16th of June, 1866. On the 21st of July, 1868, Congress adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a concurrent resolution declaring that "the legislatures of the States of Connecticut, Tennessee. New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont. New York, Ohio, Illinois, West Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana. Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana, being three-fourths and more of the several States of the Union, have ratified the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth Congress: Therefore Resolved. That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State." The Secretary of State accordingly issued a proclamation, dated the 28th of July, 1868, declaring that the proposed fourteenth amendment had been ratified, in the manner hereafter mentioned, by the legislatures of thirty-six States, viz: Connecticut, June 30, 1866; New Hampshire, July 7, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (and the legislature of the same State passed a resolution in April, 1868, to withdraw its consent to it); |