658 PEDEBAL EEPOBTEB. �and to place him within its iuriadiction." And the court, in conclusion, say: �"Prom this it appears that ample provision bas been made for the trial of the contestation before a court of competent jurisdiction, for bringing the party against whom the pro- ceeding is had before the court and notifying him of the case he is required to meet, for giving him an opportunity to be heard in bis defence, for the deliberation and judgment of the court, for an appeal from this judgment to the highest court of the state, and for.hearing judgment thereon. A mere statement of the facts carries with it a complete answer to ail the constitutional objections urged against the validity of the act. The remedy provided was certainly speedy, but it could only be enforced by means of orderly proeeedings, in a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with rules and forma established for the protection of the rights of parties." �In the United States v. Cruikshank, 92 TJ. S. 554, the supreme court again say: "The fourteenth amendment pro- hibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply fur- nishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the states upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. As was said by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, it secures the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of pri- vate rights and distributive justice." �In the case of Bank of Columbia v. Okely, A Wheat, 235, last referred to, it was held that a statute of Mary- land, incorporating a bank and giving to the corporation a summary process by execution, in the nature of an attach- ment against its debtors, who had, by an express consent in writing, made the bonds, bills or notes by them drawn or indorsed negotiable at the bank, was not repugnant to the constitution of the state of Maryland, which provided that "no freeman ought to be imprisoned, etc., or deprived of ��� �
