[474] Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 (1883). [475] 14 Statutes at Large, 27, Ch. 31; Enforcement Act, May 31, 1870, 16 Statutes at Large, 140, Ch. 114. [476] Civil Rights Cases, _supra_. [477] That is, violating Amendments VI. and XIV. [478] Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U. S., 516 (1884). [479] “The trial by jury in civil cases guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment (Walker _v._ Sauvinet, 92 U. S., 90) and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Presser _v._ Illinois, 116 U. S., 252) have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment by the States, and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury in the Fifth Amendment (Hurtado _v._ California, 110 U. S., 516) and with respect to the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment (West _v._ Louisiana, 194 U. S., 258). In Maxwell _v._ Dow, 176 U. S., 606, when the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a State court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was held that the indictment made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the Fourteenth Amendment.... We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination (‘see Amendment V.’) is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship guaranteed by this clause (‘the first clause’) of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the States.” Twining _v._ State of New Jersey, 211 U. S., 78 (1908). [480] United States _v._ Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S., 649 (1898). [481] Art. i., 8: 4. [482] United States _v._ Villato, 2 Dallas, 373; Nishimura Ekin _v._ U. S., 142 U. S., 651; Luria _v._ U. S., 231 U. S., 9. [483] _Ex parte_ Griffiths, 118 Indiana, 83 (1889), citing many cases, (_inter alia_) Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dallas, 409, n.; United States _v._ Ferrera, 13 Howard, 40, n.; United States _ex rel._ _v._ Duell, 172 U. S., 576 (1898), also to be consulted. [484] United States _v._ Rodgers, 150 U. S., 249 (1893). [485] Guinn and Beal _v._ United States, 238 U. S., 347 (1915). [486] _Idem._ [487] _Idem._ and citing _Ex parte_ Yarbrough 110 U. S., 651 (already considered in the present Chapter) and Neal _v._ Delaware, 103 U. S., 370. The decisions of the Supreme Court do not conflict with a State constitution that requires, as a qualification for voting, a literacy test, or a religious test, or a property test, or indeed any test which is not a discrimination on account of race color or previous condition of servitude. [488] Calder _v._ Bull, 3 Dallas, 386 (1798); Kring _v._ Missouri, 107 U. S., 221 (1882); Thompson _v._ Utah, 170 U. S., 343 (1898). All the State constitutions forbid _ex post facto_ laws.