But let us look to the law which applies to the case. The Constitution of the United States, and in accordance with that, the Constitutions of the several States, in the same manner, and in like terms, have provided a safety valve for the discontents and fermentations of the popular mind, under real or supposed grievances, or under any occasions of dissatisfaction, by guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, the right of popular assemblies to declare and express the public will, and the right of petition and remonstrance addressed to the Government. The Constitution of the United States, on this point, reads thus: “Congress shall make no law 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.” The Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania has it thus: “The printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the Legislature, or any branch of Government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and feelings is one of the invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.... The citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance.” We have selected the Constitution of Pennsylvania for what it says on this point, as it is more full than any other, and contains the substance of all. We believe, that this extract, in connexion with that from the National Constitution, comprehends the whole of the Constitutional law of the country on the subject, and that is a fair expression of the public mind--of the political creed of the citizens of the United States, in regard to the particulars here represented. We observe, then, that certain _specific_ modes of combined popular action for political purposes, are here licensed. Of course, we suppose it is fairly to be inferred, that the framers of these Constitutional laws did not intend to license _all_ and _any_ modes _whatever_ of popular action for public purposes. Such an assumption would be preposterous and absurd. It would be tantamount to the setting aside of all authority, and the dissolution of _one_ all government. On the contrary, the declaration, that _these_ modes are lawful, is an implied and virtual declaration, that _other_ modes are unlawful. We think there can be no mistake, and we trust, no difference of opinion, on this point. Because, if other mode be lawful, then _any_ and _all_ others are, and the rule falls to the ground--is good for nothing; it is, in that case, a mere mockery of legislation, and the community is left without law, and without government, in this particular.