the pleasure of Congress. Among these were included bills of credit; laws making other things than specie a tender in payment of debts; the laying of imposts or duties on imports; the keeping of troops or ships of war in time of peace; the entering into agreements or compacts with other States, or with foreign powers; and the engaging in war, when not invaded, or in danger of invasion before Congress could be consulted. The enactment of attainder and ex post facto laws, and of laws impairing the obligation of contracts, was not prohibited at all.

But when these various subjects came to be regarded more closely, it was perceived that the list of absolute prohibitions must be considerably enlarged. Thus the power of emitting bills of credit, which had been the fruitful source of great evils, must either be taken away entirely, or the contest between the friends and the opponents of paper money would be transferred from the State legislatures to Congress, if Congress should be authorized to sanction the exercise of the power. Fears were entertained that an absolute prohibition of paper money would excite the strenuous opposition of its partisans against the Constitution; but it was thought best to take this opportunity to crush it entirely; and accordingly the votes of all the States but two were given to a proposition to prohibit absolutely the issuing of bills of credit. To the same

1 Articles XII., XIII. of the first 2 Elliot, V. 484, 485. draft, Elliot, V. 381.

class of legislation belonged the whole of that system of laws by which the States had made a tender of certain other things than coin legal satisfaction of a debt. By placing this class of laws under the ban of a strict prohibition, not to be removed by the consent of Congress in any case, the mischiefs of which they had been a fruitful source would be at once extinguished. This was accordingly done, by unanimous consent.1

At this point; the kindred topic of the obligation of contracts presented itself to the mind of Rufus King, suggested doubtless by a provision in the Ordinance then recently passed by Congress for the government of the Northwestern Territory. The idea of a special restraint on legislative power, for the purpose of rendering inviolate the obligation of contracts, appears to have originated with Nathan Dane, the author of that Ordinance. It was not embraced in the resolve of 1784, reported by Mr. Jefferson, which contained the first scheme adopted by Congress for the establishment of new States in the Northwestern Territory; and it first appears in our national legislation in the Ordinance of 1787. Its transfer thence into the Constitution of the United States was a measure of obvious ex

1 Elliot, V. 484, 485.

2 The Ordinance, which was passed July 13, was published at length in "The Pennsylvania Herald," a newspaper printed at Philadelphia, on the 25th of July (1787). Mr. King's motion was made Au

gust 28, and is described by Mr. Madison as a motion "to add, in the words used in the Ordinance of Congress establishing new States, a prohibition on the States to interfere in private contracts." Elliot, V. 485.

pediency, and indeed of clear necessity. In the Ordinance, Congress had provided a system of fundamental law, intended to be of perpetual obligation, for new communities, whose legislative power was to be moulded by certain original maxims of assumed justice and right. The opportunity thus afforded for shaping the limits of political sovereignty according to the requirements of a preconceived policy, enabled the framers of the Ordinance to introduce a limitation, which is not only peculiar to American constitutional law, but which, like many features of our institutions, grew out of previous

abuses.

In the old States of the Confederacy, from the time when they became self-governing communities, the power of a mere majority had been repeatedly exercised in legislation, without any regard to its effect on the civil rights and remedies of parties to existing contracts. The law of debtor and creditor was not only subjected to constant changes, but the nature of the change depended in many of the States upon the will of the debtor class, who formed the governing majority. So pressing were the evils thus engendered, that, when the framers of the Ordinance came to provide for the political existence of communities whose institutions they were to dictate, they determined to impose an effectual restraint on legislative power; and they accordingly provided, in terms much more stringent than were afterwards employed in the Constitution, that no law should have effect in the Territory which should

in any manner whatever interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements previously made.1

The framers of the Constitution were not engaged in the same work of creating new political societies, but they were to provide for such surrenders by existing States of their present unquestioned legislative authority, as the dictates of sound policy and the evils of past experience seemed to require. When this subject was first brought forward in the Convention, the restriction was made to embrace all retrospective laws bearing upon contracts, which were supposed to be included in the term "ex post facto laws." It being ascertained, however, that the latter phrase would not, in its usual acceptation, extend to civil cases, it became necessary to consider how such cases were to be provided for, and how far the prohibition should extend. The provision of the Ordinance was regarded as too sweeping; no legislature, it was said, ever did or can altogether avoid some retrospective action upon the civil relations of parties to existing contracts, and to require it would be extremely inconvenient. At length, a description was found, which embodied the extent to which the prohibition could with propriety be carried. The legislatures of the States were restrained from passing any "law impairing the obligation of contracts"; -a provision that has been found amply sufficient, and attended with the most salutary consequences, under the interpretation that has been given to it.

1 See the clause of the Ordi- 2 Elliot, V. 485, 488, 545, nance, cited ante, Vol. I. p. 452, 546.

note 2.

Bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, which had not been included in the prohibitions on the States by the committee of detail, were added by the Convention to the list of positive restrictions, which was thus completed.

In the class of conditional prohibitions, or those acts which might be done by the States with the consent of Congress, the committee of detail had placed the laying of "imposts or duties on imports." To this the Convention added "exports," in order to make the restriction applicable both to commodities carried out of and those brought into a State. But this provision, as thus arranged, would obviously make the commercial system extremely complex and inconvenient. On the one hand, the power to lay duties on imports had been conferred upon the general government, for the purposes of revenue, and to leave the States at liberty, with the consent of Congress, to lay additional duties, would subject the same merchandise to separate taxation by two distinct governments. On the other hand, if the States should be deprived of all power to lay duties on exports, they would have no means of defraying the charges of inspecting their own productions. At the same time, it was apparent that, under the guise of inspection laws, if such laws were not to be subject to the revision of Congress, a State situated on the Atlantic, with convenient seaports, could lay heavy burdens upon the productions of other States that might be obliged to pass through those ports to foreign markets. Again, if the States should be de