United States or of the State of Minnesota." Persons had been convicted of violating the Act and circulating a pamphlet asserting that "this war was arbitrarily declared without the will of the people"; that "the President and Congress have forced this war upon the United States"; that now "they are attempting by military conscription to fight a war to which we are opposed”; that "the integrity of the country is being menaced"; that "this war was declared to protect the investments"; and so on. The Supreme Court of the State said that the Act was not in conflict with the Espionage Law of Congress because the citizens of the State (who are also citizens of the United States) owe a duty to the Nation, and that the State "owes a duty to the Nation to support, in full measure, the efforts of the national government.” It was specifically held that the State statute did not abridge the freedom of National citizenship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

In President Jackson's seventh annual message (December, 1835) he took cognizance of the abolitionist newspapers and magazines, the publication of which had begun in 1831, and called upon Congress to prevent the transmission of them by the Post Office Department, "under severe penalties," as they were "intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection." Although many in Congress shared his view, no bill was passed.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.143

143 This right already existed in customary law. In the Colonial Declaration of Rights of October 19, 1765, it was said" that it is the right of British subjects in these Colonies to petition the King or either House of Parliament"; and in the Declaration of Rights of October

14, 1774, it was complained that "assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances." further said" that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations and commitments for the same are illegal." It was declared also that "their dutiful, humble, loyal, and reasonable petitions to the Crown for redress have been repeatedly treated with contempt by His Majesty's ministers of state." In the Declaration of Rights submitted by Parliament to William III and Mary (1689) and accepted by them, it was said that the right to petition the King existed and that the prosecution of petitioners which had taken place was illegal. It was considered so valuable by our forefathers that it was protected by this express provision. Assemblies for the discussion of their rights and petitions for the correction of their wrongs had been repeatedly employed by the colonists.

"In every stage of these oppressions," says the Declaration of Independence, "we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury." When this Constitution was written the right of assembly and petition was preserved in the constitutions of several States.

Van Buren's administration was marked by a struggle to prevent the receipt and consideration by Congress of petitions for the abolition of slavery. Senator Calhoun declared such petitions a violation of the Constitution.

The people must assemble "peaceably." Regulations for the preservation of order are not a denial of the right. Nor can the right to petition be employed for the purpose of visiting malice upon others. The petition must be for something within the authority of the body addressed, or the petitioners must in good faith believe it to be.

The petition in England was based on the fact that Parliament was a court as well as a legislative body. Indeed, at first it was more of a court than a legislature.

In

Most of its early pronouncements were declarations of the law as it existed rather than enactments of new law. the course of time the courts grew apace and the judicial activity of Parliament declined, the while its legislative activities increased. Neither House in our Congress has ever possessed such judicial powers as were once commonly exercised by the Houses of Parliament and as are yet exercised by the House of Lords. Hence the right to petition never has been used so much in the United States. Persons aggrieved file their petitions in courts of law or equity and not with Congress. Petitions to Congress or to a State legislature relate to legislation desired and not to grievances cognizable in court.

In 1839 the English Chartists (seeking an extension of suffrage, vote by ballot, pay for members of Parliament, and an abolition of property qualifications for suffrage) presented to the House of Commons a petition having 1,250,000 signatures.

ARTICLE II.

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.144

144 This means the arms necessary to a militia, and not the dirks, pistols, and other deadly weapons used by the lawless. In the Declaration of Rights it was complained that kings had disarmed the people. Of course the colonists were by force of early circumstances bearers of arms. This prohibition upon the Nation means that it can never interfere with the people who make the militia of the States, and that therefore the States will always have the means to check by physical force any usurpation of authority not given to the Nation by the Constitution. Maryland and Virginia had such provisions in their constitutions when the Constitutional Convention sat.

ARTICLE III.

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.145

145 The Petition of Right of 1628, which Charles I was compelled to accept, complained that "companies of soldiers and mariners had been dispersed into divers counties, and the inhabitants, against their wills, had been compelled to take them into their houses and allow them there to sojourn against the laws and customs of this realm." The English Parliament required that the colonists provide quarters for troops, and when General Gage went from Halifax to Boston he demanded quarters, which were refused.

The Colonial Declaration of Rights of October 19, 1765, makes no mention of a standing army in the Colonies; but that of October 14, 1774, proclaimed "that the keeping of a standing army in these Colonies, in times of peace, without the consent of the legislature of that Colony in which the army is kept, is against law"; and an act of Parliament was condemned which required the colonists to provide "suitable quarters for officers and soldiers in His Majesty's service in North America." A complaint in the Declaration of Independence against George III was "for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" and for "keeping among us in times of peace standing armies without the consent of our legislature."

"James II's army," says Burnet, "was kept for some time in the western counties, where they lived at free quarters, and treated all that they thought disaffected with rudeness and violence insufferable."

"Before the Revolution" (1688), says Macaulay ("History of England", Vol. 5, p. 234), "our ancestors had known a standing army only as an instrument of lawless power.'

ARTICLE IV.

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.146

146 Hallam mentions that in the reign of Charles I the unconstitutional practice of committing to prison some of the most prominent people and searching their houses for papers was renewed. Cooley says that this constitutional provision probably resulted from the seizure (1683) of the papers of Algernon Sidney, which were used as a means of convicting him of treason; and of those of John Wilkes at about the time (1763) that the controversy between Great Britain and the Colonies was assuming threatening proportions. The general search warrant never was considered legal in England after the battle fought by Wilkes. The protection of this clause is not limited to one's dwelling house, but extends to his person and papers. Many cases have arisen, but the courts have invariably held that no vague or general warrant is sufficient and that the letter of the Constitution must be closely followed.

Even under the strict customs laws enacted by Congress, the burden of proof is on the claimant seeking to make seizure, and probable cause must be shown for the act; while the stringent acts of Congress regarding internal revenue require that upon the issuing of search warrants by the district court and the commissioners of courts, the internal revenue officer must make oath in writing that he has reason to believe and does believe that "a fraud upon the revenue has been or is being committed upon or by the use of said premises." An order of court requiring a person to pro