The enquirer — Richmond, Va., 1810-04-03 00:00:00, page 1

.. i
OCJ' Published by Thoims Ritchie, nearly op
posite the Globe Tavern, Richmond, Virginia.
(TT CON Dll IONS .—Five dollars a year, to
be paid annually in advance. Those who with to
be considered at annual subscriber,, must hereafter
designate it at the time of subscribing, otherwise
th rir txtpers will be discontinued at the expiration
of the first year. \
RICHMOND PRICES CURRENT.
B. C.
TOBACCO.. 00
FLOUR—SUPERFINE, .... 6 50
DO. FINE, .6 00
CORN, PER BARREL,.3 00
WHEAT.1 17
BACON, PER LB. ...... 0 9
WHISKEY, PER CALLON, ... 0 67
BAR IRON, PER TON.110 €0
KEMP, PER TON,. 250 00
FOR SALE AT THIS Oi-FICE,
A PEW COPIES or
Fulton’s Torpedo War.
THIS DAY IS PUBLISHED,
A New Theory,
OT
7he DIURNAL ROTATION OF THE
EARTH:
Demonstrated upon Mathematical Principles,
from the properties of the Cycloid and the Jifii
Cycloid.
WITH
AN APPLICATION OF THE THEORT,
To the explanation of the various Phenomena of
the Winds, Tides and of those Stony and Me
tallic concretions which have fallen from Hea
ven upon the surface of the Earth.
By JOHN WOOD,
f/futhor of Elements of Persfisctive, fir in -
ted in London, in 1799.
December 14.
JAMES RIVER LANDS FOR SALE._I
offer for sale, a valuable Plantation, situate in
Bermuda Hundred, immediately in the conflu
ence of James and Appomattox rivers, containing
by an old survey 756 acres ; it reaches up James
fiver to the port and ballast bank, including near
ly all the wharfage ground. About one half of
the tract is cleared and the other half in woods.
This plantation will always delight and reward
the farmer ; threo hundred acres, or thereabouts,
of flat land in the fork, on account of a superior
3uality, has been rated very high ; it would be
ifflcult to obtain land on JameB river above or
below the falls better adapted to the culture of
com, wheat and tobacco. ‘ The fields are under
substantial fences, mostly new. The buildings
consist of a comfortable small dwelling house,
with four rooms, newly done up ; an excellent
overseer's house with a brick chimney and two
rooms plaistered, a large granary with a wheat
machine on an improved plan ; a largo tobacco
barn nearly new, dairy, smokehouse, negro hous
es, Sic. Thin place possesses the advantages of
a thriving young apple orchard, many other ex
cellent fruit trees ; navigation to Petersburg, fi
le veil miles, to Richmond fifty, distance bv land
iw nty three milts only, and a good fishery.
There is a plenty of meadow l md,J also a' mnrl
bank of excellent manure supposed to be inex
haustible.
The wharfage ground can be easily and expe
ditiously nnpiovcd at a moderate expanse, and if
properly improved would instantly become the
resort ot the Richmond shipping interest, and an
important place of deposit for that growing com
mercial city. Mr. Cullen Adams, my manager
at tiie Hundred, will at any time shew the pre
mises. For convenience, I shall leave my terms
with Sis excellency John Tyler, and Daniel L.
HjItoii, esq. ol Richmond—as these gentlemen
hare been long acquainted with the Hundred, I
take the liberty of referring to them for further
information
I also oiler for sale a valuable little FARM of]
SOO acres, situate on Appomattox river, adjoining {
the lands ot Mr. Jerman Raker, Mr. George
Skip with and Mr. Edmund Eggleston in Cum
berland county ; for thin tract 1 .should require
one third of tii . purchase money to be paid down
and the balance in two annual payments. If no
private sale is previously made, I ahull on thit
Tract, expose it at public sale, to the higlisst
bidder, on the 23d day of June next, and on the
payments already mentioned.
ARCHIBALD Til WE ATT.
^Petersburg, 16th March, 1810. Ht
A BAR-KEEPER WANTED.—Wanted, at
XX the Eagle-Tavern, a young man capable of
acting as a bar keeper—None need apply, unless
veil recommended—Good wages will be given.
if. & peter smock.
March 30. tf
OriGE — i he Subscriber once more re
quests ali those indebted to the rstate of
|be late John Strobia, to come forward and make
immediate Daymen's, as but little longer indul
gence can possibly be given.
JOHN U. STROBIA, AJm'r.
March 30. zt
I OR SALE—Earthen Ware in crates assort*
ed,
Green Coffee, Loaf Sugar,
Writing and Wrapping Paper, and
rectified Whiskey ot the very best qual
ity, by ' 1
as Wm. W. DICKINSON.
. March9- t5th A
VTOTICE-'J hr Subscriber having ptircha*
fd die entire Stocks of Mr. Alexander d«
riair.ville, begs leave to offer to the public a gene
ral a,*»*'rtmept of Grocery, Confectionary, Cake,
■ c-— *vl*»ch Will be disposed of to a moderate
f rice.
Mir.li inns court* A
1Vl;K SALE.—517 acre* of LAND, in the
ZT county o: Nelson, on the head waters of
" yc Htver, first r^tt tobacco land. As to its si
WMtop, enquire of Col Joseph Shelton, of Nei
8on conn'y, who has a po.rrr *r» dispose of tiie
•amr or to r ;/. I’Ktj&Sp. K.
—Mmc“ 23-_cnlw
^ bl) immediately, our or two goot
u?r . WOrkTn *l th* w •king ‘-.Sines, .
to mo,lCr workmen hb^rl wages will he give,.
4'f Sr;‘- Wian .* Ho- «won, j»ut below the
S-.-si.., : wm,. Ishvcirv tfdi, Kiaiimoi d
Jrfbruaty f ^w?f
' '*
SUPREME COURT,
OF THE UNITED STATES.
Fletcher, ^Marshall. Ch. J. deliver.
\ vs. > ed the opinion of the
1 Peck. j Court, as follows :
I The pleadings being now amended, this
cause comes on again to be heard on sundry
demurrers and on a special verdict.
1 he Miit was instituted on several cove
nants contained in a deed made by John
Peek, the defendant in error, conveying to
Robert Fletcher, the plaintiff* in error, cer
tain lands which we re part of a large pur
chase made by James Gunn and others,
; in the year 1795, from the state of Georgia,
the contract for which was made in the
form of a bill passed by the legislature of
that state.
The first count in the declaration lets
forth a breach in the second covenant con
tained in the deed. The covenant is “ that
the Jegislature of the state of Georgia, at
the time of passing of the act of sale afore
said, had good right to sell and dispose of
the same in manner pointed out by the
said act.” The breach assigned is that the
legislature had no ppwer to sell.
The plea in bar sets forth the eonstituti- J
on of the state of Georgia, and avers that the
lands sold by the defendant to the plaintiff
were within that state. It then sets forth
the granting act, and avers the power of
the legislature to sell and dispose of the pre-1
mis«s ns pointed out by the act.
lothis plea the plaintiff below demurred,
and the defendant joined in demurrer.
That the Legislature of Georgia, unless
restrained by its own constitution, possesses
; power of disposing of the unappropria
| ted lands within its cwn limits, in sueh man
ner as its own judgment shall dictate, is a
proposition not to be controverted. The
only question, then, presented by this de
murrer, for the consideration of the court,
is this > did the then constitution of the
state of Georgia prohibit the legislature to
dispose of the lands, which were the subject
of this contract, in the manner stipulated by
the contract?
The question, whether a law be void for
its repugnancy to the constitution, is at all
times a question of much delicacy, which
ought seldom, it' ever, to be decided in the
affirmative, in a doubtful case. The court,
when impelled by duty to render such a
judgment, would be unworthy of its station,
could it be unmindful of the solemn obliga
tions which that station imposes. But it is '
not on slight implication and vage conjee-'
lure that the legislature is to be pronounced
Co have transcended its powers, and its acts
to be considered as void. The opposition
between the constitution and the law should
be such that the judge feels a clear Sc strong
conviction qf their incompatibility with each
other.
In this case the court can perceive no such
opposition. Jn the constitution of Georgia,
adopted in the year 178f,the court can per
ceive no restriction on the legislative puw_
er, which inhibits the passage of the act of
1795. The court cannot say that, in pas
sing that act, the legislature has transcen..
ded its* powers and violated the constituti
on.
In overruling the demurrer, therefore, to
he first pleu, the circuit court committed
no error.
The 3d covenant is, that all the title which
the state of Georgia ever had in the premi
ses had been legally conveyed to John Peck,
the grantor.
The 2d count assigns. In substance, as z
breach of this covenant, that the original
grantees from the state of Georgia promis
ed and assured diver? members of the legis
lature, tnen sitting in General Assembly,
that, if the said members would assent to
and vote, for the passing of the act, and if,
the said bill should pass, such members
should have a share of, and be interested in
all the lands purchased from the said state
by virtue of such law. And that divers of
the said members, to wfipm the said promi-'
ses were made, were unduly influenced there
by, and, under .such influence, did vote for j
the passing of the 3aid bill; by reason where-1
of the said law was a nullity*, &c. and so the 1
title of the state of Georgia did not pass to
the said Peck, 5tp.
The plea to this count, after protesting
that the promises it alleges were not made,
avers that, until after the purchase made*
from the original grantees by James Green
leaf, under whom the said Peck claims, nei
ther the said James Greenleaf nor die said
Peck, nor any of the mesne vendors bet ween
the said Gre'enleaf and Peck had any no.
tice or knowledge that any such promises or
j assurances were made by the said original
grantees, or either of them, to any of the
members of the legislature of the state of
Georgia.
I o this plea the plaintiff clernurrcd gen •
erally, and the defendant joined in demur
rer.
1 hat corruption should find its way into
tlie governments of our infant republic* and
contaminate the very source of legislation,
or that impure motives should contribute
to the passage of a law or the formation of
a legislative contract, are circumstances
most deeply to be deplored. How far a
court of justice would, in any case, be com.
petent, on proceedings instituted by the state
j itself, to vacate a contract thus formed, and
I to annul rights acqvred, under that con.
tract, by third persons having no notice of
i tl,u improper means by which it was ob.
tamed, is a question which the court would
approach with much circumspection. It
may well be doubted how f*r the validity of
a law depends upon the motives of its fra,
iners, and how far the particular induce'
ments, operating on members of the supreme
| sovereign power of a state, to the formation
. a contract byjthat power, are examinable
IJn R cou, t justice. It' the principle be
cm cfdtd, that an act of the suptenie save
[ reign power might be declared null bv a
, court in consequence of we means winch
I procured it, still would there be much diHi.
i cuity in Myir.g to what extent those means
[ most be applied to produce this effect_
viubi it be direct corruption, or would in
■ei ent or undue influence of any kin;!be bid
.ic's-nt!1 Muift the vimaging .cause operate
; on a majority, or on what number of the '
j members? Would the act be null, whate_
! ver might be the wish of the nation, or would
, its obligation cr nullity depend upon the pub,
| lie sentiment ?
If the majority of the legislature be cor,
rupted, jt may well be doubted whether it
be within the province of the judiciary to
control their conduct ; and, if less than a
j niajority act from impure motives, the prin
i ciple by which judicial interference would
be rtgulated, is not clearly discerned.
! Whatever difficulties this subject might
present, when viewed under aspects of which
it m?y be susceptible, this court can per.,
ceive none in the particular pleading new
under consideration.
I This is not a hill brought by the state of
Georgia to annul the contract, nor does it ap_
prar to the court, by this count, that the state
of Georgia is dissatisfied withihe sale that
has been made. The case, as made out in the
pleadings,is simply this—One individual who
holds lands in the state of Georgia, under a
deed covenanting that the title of Georgia
was in the grantor, brings an action of co
venant upon tliis deed, and assigns, as a
breach, that some of the members of the le- [
gisfature were induced to vote in favor of the
law, which constituted the contract, by be- :
ing promised an interest in it, and that there- !
fore the act is a mere nullity.
'1 his solemn question cannot be brought
thus collaterally and incidentally before
the court. It would be indecent, in the ex
treme, upon ; private contract between two
individuals, to enter into an inquiry respect
ing the corruption of the sovereign power
of a state. If the title be plainly deduced
from a legislative act which the legislature I
might constitutionally pass, if the act be j
clothed with all the requisite forms of a
law, a couTt sitting as a court of law can- (
not sustain a suit brought by one individual
against another founded on the allegation
that the act is a nullity, in consequence of
the impure motives which influenced cer
tain members of the legislature which pas
sed the law.
i ne circuit court, therefore, did right in i1
overruling this demurrer.
The 4th covenant in the deed is, that the
title to the premises ha« been, in no way,
constitutionally or legally impaired by vir- 1
toe of any subsequent act of any subsequent
legislature ol the state of Georgia.
i lie third count lecitesthe undue means <
practised on certain members of the legis
lature, as stated in the second count, and 1
then alleges that, in consequence of these <
practices, and of other causes, a subsequent i
legislature passed an act annulling and res- 1
cindiog the la w under which the conveyance
to the original grantees was made, daclar- <
ing that conveyance void, and asserting tilt
title of the state to the lands it contained.— H
I he count proceeds to recite, at large, this :
rescinding act, and concludes with averring i
that, by reason of this act, the title of the
said Beck in the premises was constitution- i
ally and legally impaired and rendered null
and void. \
After protesting, as before, that no such i
promises were made as stated in this count,
the defendant again pleads that himself and t
the first purchaser under the original gran- I
tees and all intermediate holders of the pro
perty were purchasers without notice.
1 o this plea there is a demurrer and join
der.
The importance and the difficulty of tha <
questions, presented by these pleadings, are
deeply telt by the court. j
l'he lands in controversy vested absolutely .
in James Gunn, and others, the original
granites, by the conveyance of the Gover_ i
nor, made in pursuance of an actuf assent. I
bly to which the legislature \yas fully com
petent. Being thus in full possession of the i
legal estate, they for a valuable considera
tion, conveyed portions of the land to those
who were willing to purchase. It the ori- <
ginal transaction was infected with fraud, <
these purchasers did not participate in it,
and had no notice of it. They were inno
cent. \etthe legislature of Georgia ha3
involved them in the fate of the first parties
to the transaction, and. if the act be valid,
has annihilated their rights also.
'1 he legislature of Georgia was a party to
this transaction ; and tor a party to pronounce
its own deed invalid, whatever cause may
be assigned for its invalidity, must be con
sidered as a mere act of power which must
find its vindication in a train of reasoning not
often heard in courts of justice.
But the real party, it is said, are the peo
ple, and when their agents are unfaithful,
the acts of those agents cease to be obliga.
tory.
It is, however, to be recollected that the
people can act only by these agents, and
that, while within the powers conferred on
them, their acts must be considered as the
acts of the people. If the agents be corrupt,
others may be chosen, and, if their contracts
be examinable, the common sentiment, as
well as common usage of mankind, points
out a mode by which this examination may
oc made, and their validity determined.
It' the legislature of Geoigia was not
bound to submit its pretensions to those tri
! bun ds which are established for the security
of property, and to decide on human rights,
if it might claim to itself the power of judg
ing in its own case, yet there are certain
great principles of justice, whose authority
is universally acknowledged, tlmt ought not
to be entirely disregarded.
Ifthe legislature be its own judge in its
own case, it would seem equitable tlyt its
decision .should be regulated by those rules
which would have regulated the decision of
a judicial tribunal. The question was. in
its nature, a question of title, and the tribu
nal which decided it was either acting in
the character of a court of justice, and per
forming a duty usually assigned to a court,
or it was exerting a mere act ol power
in which it was controlled only by its own
will.
If a suit be brought to set aside a convey
«nce"obta»ned by fraud, 5c the fraud be clear
ly proved, the conveyance will be set aside.
jv< between the parties; but the lights of
t.'inl persons, who are purchasers without
notice, for a valuable Consideration, cannot
be disregarded. Titles, which, according
| to every lev*I test, are perfect, ale acquir
1 ed with that confidence which ;» by
the opinion that the purchaser is sale, h
there be any concealed defect, uvising from
the conduct of those who had held the pro
perty long before he acquit ed it, of which
he had no notice, that concealed defect can
not be set up against him. lie has paid his
money for a title good at law, he is innocent,
whatever may be the guilt of others, and
equity will not subject him to the penalties
attached to that guilt. All titles would be
insecure, and the intercourse between man
and man would be very seriously obstructed,
if this principle Kfc overturned.
A court of chancery, therefore, had a bill
been brought »o set aside the conveyance
made to James Gunn and, others, as being
obtained by improper practices with the le
gislature, whatever might have beet: its de
cision as respected the original grantees,
would have been bound, by its own rules,
and by the clearest principles of equi
ty, to leave unmolested those who were pur
chasers without notice, for a valuable consi
deration.
t If the legislature felt itself absolved from
those rules of property which are common
to all citizens of the United Status, and from
those principles of equity which arc nr. know- j
ledged in a'.l our courts, its act is to bo sup - I
ported by its power alone, and the same
power may divest any o'hcr individual of his
lands, it it shall be the will of the legislature
so to exert it.
It is not intended to speak with disrespect I
the legislature of Georgia or of its acts. '
f ar from it. The question is a general!
question, and is treated as one. For although !
>uch powerful objections to a legislative |
jrunt, as are alledged against this, may not
igair. exist, yet the principle, on which a
lone this rescinding act is to be supported,
nav he applied to every case to which it :
hall be tile will of any legislature to apply
it. The principle this ; tb».t ?. legislature :
may, by its own act, divest the vested e3 i
:aieol any man whatever, for reasons which I
‘hall, by itself.be deemed sufficient.
In this case the legislature may have had >
tmple proof that the original grant was ob j
mined by practices which can never be too!
much reprobated, and which would have j
ustiiied its abrogation so far as respected
■ hose to whom crime was imputable. Hut •
■ he grant, when issued, conveyed an estate,
ii lee simple to the grantee, clothed with all
he solemnities which law can bestow; This
estate was transferrable ; and those who 1
[)uichased parts of it, were not stained by J
.hat guilt which infected the original trails
iction. Their case is not distinguishable !
rom the ordinary case of purchasers of a 1
egal es ate, without knowledge of any secret !
l aud whioli might have led to the emanation '
tlit original grant.’ According to the 1
•veil known course of equity, their rights
:ould not be affected by such fraud. Their
situation was the same, their title was the|
lame with that of every other member of!
h" community, who holds land by reg,
liar conveyances from the original patentee.
Is the power of the legislature compete.i‘
0 the annihilation of such title, and to a re
mmption of the property thus held f
1 He principle asserted is, that one legisla
ure is competent to repeal any act which a
ormer legislature was competent to pass ;
ind that one legislature cannot abridge the
powers of a succeeding legislature.
1 he cbrrcctnes3 of this principle, so far a3
respects general legislation, can never be
•introverted. Hut, if an act be done under
1 fc*ucceediiig legislature cannot undo
V , *le l)ast cannot be recalled by the most
ibsolute power. Conveyances have been
made, those conveyances have vested legal
:states, and, it these estates may be seized
iy the sovereign authority, util*, that they
originally vested is a fact, and cannot cease
o be a fact.
When, then;a lathis, in its nature, a con
vact, when absolute rights have vested un
lei' that contract, a repeal of the lav/ cannot
n\est those right* ; and the act of annul'
nig them, if legitimate, is rendered so by a
power applicable to the case of every indi
vidual in the community.
it may well be doubted whether the na
ture of society and of government does not
prescribe somelimitsto the legislative pow
tr ; and, if any be prescribed, where are
.hey to be found, if the property of an indi
vidual, fairly and honestly acquired, inay be
seized without compensation t
i o the Legislature, all legislative power
is granted ; but the question, whether the
act of transferring the property of an indi
vidnal to the public, be in tire nature ofle
gislative power, is Well Worthy of serious
reflection.
It is the peculiar province oF the Legisla
• prescribe general rules for ihe go
vernment of society ; the application of those
rules to individuals in society, would seem
to be the doty of other departments. How
far the power of giving the law may involve
every other power, in cases where the Con
Stittuion is siient, never has been, and per
haps never can be, definitely stated.
Ihe validity of this rescinding act, then,
might vyell be doubted, were Georgia a
smgie sovereign power. But Georgia can
not be viewed as a single unconnected sove
reign power, on whose legislature no other
restrictions are imposed, than maybe found
in its own Constitution. She is a part of a
large empire, she is a member of the A
merican Union, and that Union has a Con
stitution, the supremacy of which all ac
knowledge, and which imposes limits to
the Legislatures of the several states, which
none claim a right to pass. The Constitu
tion of the United States declares, that urs
state shall pass any bill of attainder, e.v fio$t
fucto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts.
Does the rase now under consideration
come within this prohibitory section of the
Constitution t
In considering this very interesting oues
tiOTi, we imnnfiliatoly a$k oui*elv«;ri wimt is
a contract ? Is a grant a contract f
A contract is a compact between two r>r
more parties, and is either executory nr
executed. An executory contract, is one
in which a party binds himself to do, or not
to do. a particular thing--such was the
law tinder which the conveyance was made
by thu Governor. /, contract executed is
one In which the objret bf the contract i,
perforuifU; and this, HUtCUstone. dif.
.'Tif' -mOmm-imm
j ferS in' nothin? from a grant. A contract
; executed, as well as one which is executory,
contains obligations binding on the parties,
i A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an
extinguishment of the right of ihe grantor,
aad implies a contrac. not to re-.vssert that
tight. A party is, therefore, ahva\s estop
peel by his own grant. The contract between
Georgia and the purchasers was executed
by the grant.
Since, then. In fact, a grant is a contract
executed the obligation of which >till con
tinues, and since lire Constitution uses tha
general ter pi contract, without dn-tinguisu
li,S between those which m e* ejtccuioi y and
those which arc executed, it must b. con
i ‘-.trued to comprehend the latter, as well as
| the tormer. .A law annulling cotivu .mces
between individuals, and declaring tli.it the
| grantors should stand seized of their former
estates, notwithstanding tfiose grants, would
boas repugnant to the constitution, as a law
discharging the vendors of property from
the obligation of executing their contracts
by conveyances. It woglil he strange, if a
contract to convey, was secured bv the Con
stitution. while an absolute conveyance re
mained unprotected.
It, under a lair construction of the Con
stitution, grants arc comprehended under
the term contracts, is a grant from the state,
excluded from the operation of. the provisi„
on t Is the clause to he considered as inhi
biting the state trom impairing the obligati
on ot contracts between hto individuals, hut
■’.s excluding trom that inhibition contracts
made with itself ?
I lie words themselves contain no Such
distinction. 1 hey are general, and are ap
plicable to contracts of every. description 1—
H contracts, made with the state, are to he
exempted from their operation, the ex up
tion must ai ise from the character «f the
contracting party, not from '.lie words which
are employed.
Whatever respect might have been felt
for the state sovereignties, it is not to l»c dis
guised that the framers of the Constitution.'
viewed, with some apprehension, the vio
lent acts which might grow out of the
feelings of'he moment, and that the people '
ot tlie United States, in ado,Jtjng tljat instru
ment. have manifested their determination
to shield themselves and their property from
the effects of those sudden and Strong passi
ons to which men . p exposed. The res
trictions cti the legislative power of the
states, are obviously founded in this senti
ment ; ;,ud the Constitution cf the Uni'cd
States, contains what mav be deemed a biiL
ul lights forme people of each state.
No state shall pass any bill ot attainder,
cx float facto law,, or law impairing the ob
ligation of contracts.
A bill of attainder may nflect t.he life of
an individual, <>v may confvcate bis proper
ty, or may do both.
In this form, the power of the legislature
over the lives and fortunes of individuals, is
expressly restrained What motive, then,
tor implying in words, which import a ge
neral prohibition to impair the obligation of
contracts, an exception in favor of the right
to impair the obligation of those contracts
into which the sta e may enter ?
1 he state Legislat'd) es can pass nr, ex font
facto law. An exfiost J'acto law, is ore
which renders an act punishable in \ man
ner in which it was not punishable when it
was committed. Such a lav/ may inflict pe
nalties on the person, or may inflict pecuni
ary penalties, which swell the public trea.
sury. The legislature is then prohibited
from passing a law by which a man’s estate,
or any part of it, shall he seized for acrima
which was nut declared, by ^oir.c previous
law, to render him liable to that punishment.
Why, then, should violence be done to tha
natural meaning of words, for the ouvposo
of leaving to the legislature the power of
seizing, for public use, the estate of an in
dividual, in the form of a lav, annulling
the title by which he holds that estate ?—
The court can perceive no sufficient grounds
for making this distinction. This rescind
ing act would have the effect of an ex floutr
facto law. It forfeits the estate of Fletcher,
lor a crime not committed by himself, but
by those from whom he purchased. This
cannot be effected in the form of an cx fioit
facto law, or bill of attainder; why, then,
is it allowable in the form of?, law annul
ling the original grant i
The argument in favor of presuming art
intention to except a case not excepted by
tlie words of the Constitution, is susceptible
of some illustration, from a principle origi.
n.illy ingrafted in that instrument, though
no longer a part of it. The Constitution,
ns passed, gave the courts of the United
Stales jurisdiction in suits brought against
individual states. A state, then, which vio
lated its own contract, vya* suable in the
courts of the United States fur that violation.
V\ on Id it have been <\ defence, in such a suit,
to^ay that tlie state had passed a lew ab
solving itself from the contract? It isRfcarce
iy to be conceived, that such a defence could
be set up. And yet, if a state is neither rc3f
t rained by the general principles of our po
litical institutions, nor by the words of tlie
Constitution, from impairing the obligation
of itSown contracts, such a defence would
be a valid one. This feature Is no longer
found in the Constitution ; but it aids in the
construction of those clauses with which it
was originally associated'.
It is, then, the unanimoua opinion of the
court, that in this case, the estate having
passed into the hands of a purchaser for a
valuable consideration, without notice, the
state of Georgia was restrained, either by
general principles which are common to one
free institutions, or by the particular prove,
sinus of the constitution of the U, States,
from passing a law whereby the estate of
the plainiil? in the premises no purchased
could be Constitutionally and legally impair -
led and rendered null and void.
! In overruling the demurrer to the 3d plea,
I therefore, tiicie is no error.
1 he first covenant in the de:d is that the
state of Georgia, at ihe time of the net if
the legislature thereof, entitled as afore
saicl, was legally seized In fee of the sol
thereof subject only totiie extinguishment of
part of the Indian title thereon/
'I he 4th count assign* as a breach o» this
covenant, that the right of tha soil wa, in
the V. ?nd t»v; in