of the Union alone. Congress may not pass any law establishing a religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, but the provisions of the constitution relating to these subjects, have no reference to the rights of the states. This distinction is very essential to a correct understanding of the institutions of the country, as many are misled on the subject. Some of the states, for example, are rigid in enforcing respect for the sabbath, and a popular notion has prevailed that their laws are unconstitutional, since the federal compact guaranties liberty of conscience. This guarantee, like most of the others of the same nature, is only against the acts of Congress, and not against the acts of the states themselves. A state may pass any law it please to restrain the abuses of the sabbath, provided it do not infringe on the provisions of its own constitution, or invade a right conceded to the United States. It cannot stop the mail for instance, or the passage of troops in the service of the federal government, but it may stop all who are not thus constitutionally protected by the superior power of the Union.
This reading of the constitution is in conformity with all the rules of construction, but that it is right, can be shown from the language of the instrument itself. In article 1st, section 9th, clause 3d, we find this provision—"No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed." In article 1st, section 10th, clause 1st, which section is composed entirely of restraints on the power of the states, we find this provision—"No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c. &c." Had the provision of clause 3d, sect. 9th, been intended to limit the powers of the states, clause 1st, sect. 10th, would clearly have been unnecessary. The latter provision therefore, is one of the few instances, in which the power
