6 McL., p. 386. See same cases as to how a State may contract so as to preclude itself from impairing the obligations thereof by subsequent acts; and Van Hoffman vs. City of Quincy, 4 Wall., p. 535. A State Legislature may by contract surrender the right of taxation as to the property of a corporation, and may not afterwards impair such contract.-State Bank of Ohio vs. Knoop, 16 H., p. 369; Ohio Life Ins. and Trust Co. vs. Debolt, id., p. 416; Dodge vs. Woolsey, 18 H., p. 331; s. c., McL., p. 142; and several other cases. In the State of California the State Constitution requires that "taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State,” and “all property in this State shall be taxed according to its value," which renders these decisions inapplicable to this State. A State insolvent law discharging both the debtor and his future acquisitions as respects subsequent debts is not unconstitutional so far as contracted with citizens of the same State.-Ogden vs. Saunders, 12 Wh., p. 213; Baldwin vs. Hale, 1 Wall., p. 223. But a discharge under such a law does not bar the rights of citizens of other States.Idem; Boyle vs. Zacharis, 6 Pet., p. 348; s. c., id., p. 635; Suydam vs. Broadnax, 14 Pet., p. 67; Cook vs. Moffatt, 5 H., p. 295; Gilman vs. Lockwood, 4 Wall., p. 409. Unless they make themselves parties and receive a dividend of the estate.-Idem; and Clay vs. Smith, 3 Pet., p. 411. It does not change the rule if the note was given and payable in the same State, if payer resides in another.-Idem. Though retrospective such law does not impair the obligations of contracts.Adam vs. Storey, 1 Pa., p. 79. Taking property of a corporation chartered by the Legislature for public use does not impair the obligation of contract.-West Riv. Bridge Co. vs. Dix, 6 H., p. 507; R. F. and P. R. R. Co. vs. Louisa. R. R. Co., 13 H., p. 71.

EX POST FACTO.-Under pretense of attaching a condition or making a qualification, States cannot in effect inflict a punishment for an act done not punishable at the time it occurred.-Cummings vs. Missouri, 4 Wall, p. 277. Deprivation or suspension of rights for past conduct is punishment within the meaning of the Constitution.-Ex Parte Garland, id., p. 333. Such Acts of legislation not only ex post facto but are in their nature bills of attainder.-Id. So are Acts requiring test oaths as to past acts.-Id; Ex Parte Baxter, 14 Am. L. Rep., p. 159; Ex Parte Law, 15 id., p. 410; Ex Parte Magruder, id., p. 292. Retrospective Acts neither impairing contracts nor in their nature ex post facto are not within the constitutional prohibi

tion.-Satterlee vs. Matthewson, 2 Pet., p. 280; Watson vs. Mercer, 8 Pet., p. 88; Charles Riv. Bridge vs. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet., p. 420; Balt. and Susq. R. R. Co. vs. Nesbit, 10 H., p. 395; Carpenter vs. Penn., 17 H., p. 456; Alber vs. May, 2 Pa., p. 74; Locke vs. New Orleans, 4 Wall, p. 172. Statute may validate past transactions not impairing vested rights.-Leland vs. Wilkinson, 10 Pet., p. 294; People vs. Brady, 40 Cal., p. 198.

BILLS OF CREDIT.-The Act of Missouri, passed July 27, 1821, **for the establishment of loan offices," was unconstitutional and void.-Craig & Moore vs. The State of Missouri, 4 Peters, p. 410; Byrne vs. State of Missouri, 8 Peters, p. 40. To constitute a "bill of credit" within the Constitution, it must be issued by the sovereign power, containing a pledge of its faith, and designed to circulate as money.-Briscoe vs. The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 11 Peters, p. 313. The Constitution considers the emission of bills of credit and the enactment of tender laws as distinct operations, independent of each other. Both are forbidden. Craig vs. State of Missouri, 4 Peters, p. 410. The bills of a banking corporation, which has corporate property, are not bills of credit within the meaning of the Constitution, although the State which created the bank is the only stockholder, and pledges its faith for the ultimate redemption of the bills.-Darrington vs. The Bank of Alabama, 13 Howard, p. 12. The "legal tender" Acts held to be constitutional, and their use in payment of all indebtedness subsequent to its passage held valid, in Latham vs. U. S., 1 N. & H., p. 149; s. c., 2 N. & H., p. 573.

RIGHTS OF THE STATES.-The power of a Legislature of a State relative to the confirmation of a sale of real estate, is greater than the judicial power. They may sanction past transactions, where vested rights are not disturbed, while the Court can only authorize a title to be made in future.-Leland et al. vs. Wilkinson, 10 Peters, p. 294. A State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits as any foreign nation, when that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.-Id. No sovereign State is liable to be sued without her consent.-Briscoe et al. vs. The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 11 Peters, p. 257. The Legislature of a State cannot annul the judgment or determine

42-VOL. II.-POL.

the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States.United States vs. Peters, 5 Cranch, p. 115. Whereever a right grows out of, or is protected by a treaty, it is sanctioned against all the laws and judicial decisions of the States, and whoever may have this right, it is protected. Owing vs. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, p. 348. The mere grant of a power to Congress does not imply a prohibition on a State to exercise the same power. Sturges vs. Crowningshield, 4 Wheat., p. 122. The State Governments have no right to tax any of the constitutional means employed by the Government of the Union to exercise its constitutional powers.-McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. p. 316. The State Governments retain the right to make such laws as they may think proper within the ordinary functions of legislation, if not inconsistent with the powers vested exclusively in the Government of the United States and forbidden by the Constitution.-Golden vs. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R., p. 313. The power conferred upon Congress by the fifth and sixth clauses of the eighth section, first Article of the Constitution, "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and to provide for punishing counterfeiting coin," etc., does not prevent a State from passing a law to punish the circulation of counterfeit coin of the United States.-Fox vs. The State of Ohio, 5 Howard, p. 410. The prohibitions contained in the amendments to the Constitution were intended to be restrictions upon the Federal Government and not upon the authority of the States.-Id. A bridge held by an incorporated company, under a charter from a State, may be condemned and taken as part of a public road under the laws of that State.West River Bridge Co. vs. Dix et al., 6 Howard, p. 507. The Constitution of the United States cannot be so construed as to take away from the States the right of eminent domain.-Id. A person in custody under a ca. sa. issued under the authority of the Circuit Court of the United States, cannot legally be discharged from imprisonment by a State officer acting under a State insolvent law.-Duncan vs. Darst et al., 1 Howard, p. 301. The shores of navigable waters and the soil under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively, and the new States have the same rights over this subject as the original States.-Pollard vs. Hagan, 3 Howard, p. 212. Although no State could establish a permanent military government, yet it may use its military power to put down an armed insurrec

tion, too strong to be controlled by the civil authority. The State must determine for itself what degree of force the crisis demands.-Luther vs. Borden, 7 Howard, p. 1. A State has power to regulate the remedies by which contracts and judgments are sought to be enforced in Courts of justice, unless its regulations are contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States. Bank of Alabama vs. Dalton, 9 Howard, p. 522. Congress did not intend to declare by the Act of 1790, that a judgment rendered in one State against the person of a citizen of another, who had not been served with process, or voluntarily made defense, should have such faith and credit in every other State, as it had in the State in which it was rendered.-D'Arcy vs. Ketchum, 11 Howard, p. 165. After the admission of a State into the Union, Congress can make no grant of land, situated between high and low water marks.— Goodtie vs. Kibbe, 13 Howard, p. 25; 3 Howard, p. 212; 9 Howard, p. 477. Where a power possesses a river and cedes the territory on the other side of it, making the river the boundary, that power retains the river unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.— Howard et al. vs. Ingersoll, 13 Howard, p. 381. The rights of the Crown devolved upon the States by the revolution, and confirmed by the treaty of peace (Bennett vs. Boggs, Bald., p. 60), are sovereign within their own limits.-Bank U. S. vs. Daniel, 12 Pet., p. 33. For some purposes sovereign, for some subordinate.-Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wh., p. 414, Marshall, C. J. A State has no power over the public lands within its limits.-Turner vs. Am. Bap. Miss. Union, 5 McL., p. 344. Respecting internal regulations the several States on the 4th day of July, 1776, became entitled to all the rights and powers of sovereign States. McIlvaine vs. Coxe, 4 Cr., p. 209; s. p., Bank of U. S. vs. Daniel, 12 Pet., p. 33; Bennett vs. Boggs, Bald., p. 60. The people of the several States are absolutely and unconditionally sovereign within their respective territories, with the exception of those powers expressly surrendered to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States.-Ohio L. Ins. & Trust Co. vs. Debolt, 16 H., p. 428, Taney, J. A State has the right to expel from it criminals, paupers, or liberated slaves.-So held in Moore vs. Illinois, 14 H., p. 13; also Costin vs. Washington, 2 Cr. C. C., p. 254. The States of the Union are not independent States, but are dependent and subordinate to the Federal Government for all specific purposes for which it was adopted and ordained.-The General Parkhill

Dist. Court, Philadelphia, Cadwalader, J., 23d July, 1861. The allegiance which a citizen owes to his State is subordinate to that which he owes to the Federal Government within its conferred powers and to the extent of its jurisdiction.-U. S. vs. Greiner, 24. Law Rep., p. 92; s. c., 4 Phila., p. 396. Federal Government is one of delegated powers; and all powers not delegated to it, or inhibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people thereof.-Briscoe vs. Bank of Ky., 11 Pet., p. 258.

COMMERCE.-The power of Congress over commerce with foreign nations and among the States, is exclusive when exercised. The States have concurrent power with Congress to regulate commerce, with the understanding that in case of conflict State regulations must give way. This power extends to every species of commercial intercourse, and operates upon persons as well as property.-People vs. Coleman, 4 Cal., p. 46; People vs. Downer, 7 Cal., p. 169; Mitchell vs. Stedman, 8 Cal., p. 363 Lin Sing vs. Washburn, 20 Cal., p.

534.

BETWEEN THE STATES.-The several States have no power to regulate commerce between themselves, but by the provisions of this Article Congress has that power exclusively. An impost by way of toll, on logs and lumber floated in a stream from one State to another for revenue purposes of the State, by which the toll is imposed, is an unconstitutional attempt to regulate commerce.-C. L. R. Co. vs. Patterson, 33 Cal., p. 334; see "Jurisdiction," Code of Civil Procedure Cal.

ARTICLE II.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.

SECTION 1.

Powers of Executive.

1. President and Vice President. Terms of.

2. Electors.

3. Manner of choosing President by Electors.

4. Time of chosing Electors.

5. President's qualifications.

6. Vacancy in office of.

7. Salary.

8. Oath.