1900. ] HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 461 
He proceeds to say that there is a United States government and 
there are state governments; that each one is distinct and has 
citizens of its own ; that the same person may be a citizen of the 
United States and of a state, but his rights under each will be dis- 
tinct. 
“The people resident within any state are subject to two governments, 
one state and the other national, but there need be no conflict between 
the two. The powers which one possesses the other doesnot. They are 
established for different purposes and have separate jurisdictions. To- 
gether 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.”’ 
He admits that the same person may be amenable to both for the 
same act, and instances a resistance to a United States officer as 
violating at once the peace of the state and the national law, and a 
counterfeiting of United States coin and passing it as exposing 
the counterfeiter to a penalty under United States law and to pros- 
ecution for fraud within a state. 
“This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments 
possess powers in common or bring them into conflict with each other.” 
He goes again over the ancient ground of nothing belonging to 
the national government except powers granted by the constitution 
and that everything not so granted is left to state protection. The 
right to assemble peaceably is found to depend upon state protec- 
tion, so the first and ninth counts of the indictment go out. The 
right to bear arms is indeed guaranteed against infringement in the 
second amendment to the federal constitution, but the amendment 
only restricted federal powers and did not affect the states, and as 
against a state or its citizens this right has no guarantee in the fed- 
eral constitution, and so the second and tenth counts were dis- 
missed. 
The third and eleventh counts for conspiring to deprive citizens 
of life and liberty without due process of law are held equally bad. 
The fourteenth amendment, to be sure, says that no state shall 
make or enforce a law doing this, but the duty of protecting citi- 
zen against citizen within a state rests with the state. The same is 
true as to the equal protection of the law, of which an intent to de- 
prive is charged in the fourth and twelfth counts. The constitu- 
tional prohibition lies only against state action in that direction. 
