the cases of Craig et al. vs. the State of Missouri24 and Briscoe et al. vs. Bank of Kentucky.25 In the former case it was held that a promissory note in the form of a bill, issued by a State and for the payment of which the credit of the State was pledged, was a bill of credit, even though the bill was not made a legal tender. In the latter case, it was decided that notes issued by a bank, or other corporation, in which the State was the sole stockholder, were not bills of credit issued by the State, when the credit of the State was not pledged for their payment. Taken together, these two cases lay down as the test, to decide whether any bill is within the prohibition of this clause, the question whether the credit of the State is pledged for its payment. SECTION 9. DARTMOUTH COLLEGE Vs. WOODWARD. In the famous Dartmouth College case26 the Supreme Court laid down the interpretation of the clause of the Constitution which provides that "no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts," and it is from this decision that there dates the well-known extreme doctrine of the inviolability of vested rights. Mr. Justice Miller said of this case: "It may well be doubted whether any decision ever delivered by any court has had such a pervading operation and influence in controlling legislation as this. The legislation, however, so controlled, has been that of the States of the Union." The point at issue in the Dartmouth College case was whether the charter of the College, or the charter of any other corporation, was a mere grant of power, still subject to alteration or repeal by the State, or a contract between the State and 24 4 Peters, 410. 211 Peters, 257. 20 Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheaton, 518. the corporation which would be protected under the clause forbidding the impairing of contracts. Chief Justice Marshall said in his decision: "This is plainly a contract to which the donors, the trustees and the crown, (to whose rights and obligations New Hampshire succeeded), were the original parties. It is a contract on the faith of which real and personal estate has been conveyed to the corporation. It is then a contract, within the letter of the Constitution and within its spirit also, unless the fact that the property is vested by the donors and trustees for the promotion of religion and education, for the benefit of persons who are perpetually changing, though the object remain the same, shall create a particular exception, taking the case out of the prohibition contained in the Constitution. * * * On what safe and intelligible ground can this exception stand? There is no expression in the Constitution, no sentiment delivered by its contemporaneous expounders which would justify us in changing it." The charter of a private corporation was therefore declared to be a contract. The effect of this decision is largely evaded by the States by inserting in all charters granted to corporations the express provision that they are subject to amendment or revocation by the State. SECTION 10. LAWS IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. The prohibition against the passage of laws impairing the obligation of contracts does not embrace other contracts than those which respect property rights; for example, it does not restrict the right to legislate on the subject of divorce.27 The evil which this prohibition was intended to prevent. is found in the history of the Revolution. During that period the mode of payments of contracts was so frequently altered by law that confidence was almost destroyed.28 A contract, valid under interpretation of existing laws, will not be invalidated by subsequent action of legislature or judiciary.29 The prohibition against passing laws which impair the obligation of contracts only applies to the States and not to the Federal government.30 Any statute of a State which impaired the obligation of contracts, but which was passed prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution was not affected by this prohibition.31 Contracts cannot be held to be impaired by laws passed prior to their execution.32 Decisions of State courts, construing a contract or statute, are laws impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution; 33 but judicial decisions changing the construction previously given to laws, will not be allowed to impair contracts entered into under the previous construction of the law.34 A legislature cannot contract away the police power of the State; any contract of this character will not be protected by the Constitution.35 SECTION 11. TITLES OF NOBILITY. To the States, as well as to the United States, is denied the right to grant any title of nobility. 28 Charles River Bridge vs. Warren 30 Satterlee VB Matthewson, 2 Peters, 416; The Legai-Tender "Ownings vs. Speed, 5 Wheaton, 421. 32 Railroad vs. McClure, 10 Wallace, 515. 33 University vs. People, 99 U. S., 320. Taylor vs. Ypsilanti, 105 U. S., 72. 35 Boyd vs. Alabama, 94 U. S., 650; Illinois Central Railroad vs. Illinois, 146 U. S., 453. SECTION 12. POWERS DENIED TO THE STATES UNLESS EXERCISED WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS. The powers denied to the States without the consent of Congress are as follows: "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. "No State, shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duties of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." The control over war and military and naval operations, given by the Constitution to Congress, renders it necessary that no State shall engage in war or keep troops or ships of war, in time of peace, except in accordance with the general policy of the Federal government. The other prohibitions in this section will be treated of in chapters VI and X. SECTION 13. GUARANTEES TO THE STATES, BY THE UNITED STATES. The United States guarantees to the States, a republican form of government, and also protection against foreign invasion and, on request for the legislature, or of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence.30 "United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. The duty of the United States Government to protect each State against foreign invasion is an absolute one. Its duty to protect it against domestic violence only arises upon request either by the legislature of the State, or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened. This qualification in cases of domestic violence was inserted to prevent the danger of Federal interference with State affairs, except in cases of absolute necessity. By a republican form of government is meant one governed by representatives chosen by the people. This does not necessarily imply full "manhood suffrage." Except for the restrictions in the last two amendments, each State can put whatever restrictions upon the exercise of the franchise it deems expedient and proper. In the early period of our history property qualification for voting were imposed in nearly every State. Whether the suffrage might be restricted to such an extent as to make the government cease to be republican is a question which has never yet arisen. This guarantee of a republican form of government in each State, is not only for the benefit of the people of the particular State, but also for those of all the other States. It will therefore be enforced not only for, but also against the citizens of a State. A State Constitution, which changes the form of government of a State to some other form than republican, even if adopted by the people of the State, in the regular form prescribed for amending their Constitution, would be set aside by the United States courts. In cases of conflict between rival sets of officials, each claiming to constitute the true government of the State, the question as to which is the lawful government is a political one for the executive department of the United States government to decide. After the executive depart |