Opinion of the Court. 532, 557. The States, so far as this amendment is concerned, are left to regulate trials in their own courts in their own way. A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in the state courts is not, therefore, a privilege or immunity of national citizenship, which the States are forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to abridge. A State cannot deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 280. Due process of law is process due according to the law of the land. This process in the States is regulated by the law of the State. Our power over that law is only to determine whether it is in conflict with the supreme law of the land—that is to say, with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof or with any treaty made under the authority of the United States." This case shows that the Fourteenth Amendment in forbidding a State to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, does not include among them the right of trial by jury in a civil case, in a state court, although the right to such a trial in the Federal courts is specially secured to all persons in the cases mentioned in the Seventh Amend ment. Is any one of the rights secured to the individual by the Fifth or by the Sixth Amendment any more a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States than are those secured by the Seventh? In none are they privileges or immunities granted and belonging to the individual as a citizen of the United States, but they are secured to all persons as against the Federal Government, entirely irrespective of such citizenship. As the individual does not enjoy them as a privilege of citizenship of the United States, therefore, when the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the abridgment by the States of those privileges or immunities which he enjoys as such citizen, it is not correct or reasonable to say that it covers and extends to Opinion of the Court. The certain rights which he does not enjoy by reason of his citi zenship, but simply because those rights exist in favor of all individuals as against Federal govermental powers. nature or character of the right of trial by jury is the same in a criminal prosecution as in a civil action, and in neither case does it spring from nor is it founded upon the citizenship of the individual as a citizen of the United States, and if not, then it cannot be said that in either case it is a privilege or immunity which alone belongs to him as such citizen. So it was held in the oyster planting case, McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391, that the right which the people of that State acquired to appropriate its tide waters and the beds therein for taking and cultivating fish, was but a regulation of the use, by the people, of their common property, and the right thus acquired did not come from their citizenship alone, but from their citizenship and property combined. It was, therefore, a property right and not a mere privilege or immunity of citizenship, and, for that reason, the citizen of one State was not invested by the Constitution of the United States with any interest in the common property of the citizens of another State. This was a decision under another section of the Constitution (section second of article fourth) from the one under discussion, and it gives to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, but it is cited for the purpose of showing that where the privilege or immunity does not rest alone upon citizenship, a citizen of another State does not participate therein. In this case the privilege or immunity claimed does not rest upon the individual by virtue of his national citizenship, and hence is not protected by a clause which simply prohibits the abridgment of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Those are not distinctly privileges or immunities of such citizenship, where every one has the same as against the Federal Government, whether citizen or not. The Fourteenth Amendment, it must be remembered, did not add to those privileges or immunities. The Sauvinet case is an authority in favor of the contention that the amendment Opinion of the Court. does not preclude the States by their constitutions and laws from altering the rule as to indictment by a grand jury, or as to the number of jurors necessary to compose a petit jury in a criminal case not capital. The same reasoning is applicable to the case of Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480, although that case was decided with special reference to the "due process of law" clause. In Kemmler's case, 136 U. S. 436, it was stated that it was not contended and could not be that the Eighth Amendment to the Federal Constitution was intended to apply to the States. This was said long after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and also subsequent to the making of the claim that by its adoption the limitations of the preceding amendments had been altered and enlarged so as in effect to make them applicable to proceedings in the state courts. In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, it was held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in regard to the right of the people to bear arms, is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the National Government, and not of the States. It was therein said, however, that as all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the National Government, the States could not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government. In O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 332, it was stated that as a general question it has always been ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not apply to the States. In Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S. 490, it was said that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution operates exclusively in restraint of Federal power, and has no application to the States. We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the Opinion of the Court. powers of the Federal Government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and if the particular clause of that amendment, now under consideration, had the effect claimed for it in this case, it is not too much to say that it would have been asserted and the principles applied in some of them. It has been held that the last clause of the Seventh Amendment, which provides that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reëxamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law, is not confined to trials by jury in Federal courts, but applies equally to a cause tried before a jury in a state court and brought thence before a Federal court. The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274; Chicago, Burlington &c. Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226; Capital Traction Company v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1. But these decisions only carry out the idea that the amendment is a restraint upon Federal power, and not upon the power of the State, inasmuch as they declare that the clause restricts the right of the Federal courts to reëxamine the facts found by a jury in a state court, as well as in a Federal one. In Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, it was held that the clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a State from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws, did not thereby prohibit the State from prescribing the jurisdiction of its several courts either as to their territorial limits or the subject-matter, or amount or finality of their respective judgments or decrees; that a State might establish one system of law in one portion of its territory and another system in another, provided it did not encroach upon the proper jurisdiction of the United States, nor abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws in the same district, nor deprive him of his rights without due process of law. In the course of the opinion, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Bradley, he said: "We might go still further and say, with undoubted truth, that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent any State from adopting any system of laws or judicature it sees fit for Opinion of the Court. all or any part of its territory. If the State of New York, for example, should see fit to adopt the civil law and its method of procedure for New York City and the surrounding counties, and the common law and its method of procedure for the rest of the State, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent its doing so. This would not of itself, within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, be a denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws. If every person residing or being in either portion of the Stateshould be accorded the equal protection of the laws prevailing there he could not justly complain of a violation of the clause referred to. For, as before said, it has respect to persons and classes of persons. It means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and under like circumstances. The Fourteenth Amendment does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two States separated only by an imaginary line. On one side of this line there may be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no such right. Each State prescribes its own modes of judicial proceeding. If diversities of laws and judicial proceedings may exist in the several States without violating the equality clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no solid reason why there may not be such diversities in different parts of the same State. A uniformity which is not essential as regards different States cannot be essential as regards different parts of a State, provided that in each and all there is no infraction of the constitutional provision. Diversities which are allowable in different States are allowable in different parts of the same State. Where part of a State is thickly settled, and another part has but few inhabitants, it may be desirable to have different systems of judicature for the two portions — trial by jury in one, for example, and not in the other. Large cities may require a multiplication of courts and a peculiar arrangement of jurisdictions. It would be an unfortunate restriction of the powers of the state government if it could not, in its |