The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-04-03
TO. 1O4.


exunguishment OF the right Of The gran,or,
aad implies a contraC. not to re-assert tn &C
| nSht. A party is, there fore, always estop-
| PED oy ms own grant. The contract between
georgia ana the. purchasers was eXecctc d
! by the grant.
Since. then. In fact, grant is Contract
executed the obligation of which still con-
| tinues, and since the Constitution USES tie
general term contract, without distinguish
ing between those which arg exccutoly and
Those which are executed, it must BE- con-
strued to comprehend the latter. as well as
the former, Il law angling conveyances
between individuals, and declaring that the
srantors should stand seized of their former
estates, Notwithstanding those grants, would
&c as fepugnant to the constitution, as law
discharglng the vendors of property from,
the obligation OF executing their contracts
oy con'eyanccs. 1t would be strange, if a
contract to convey, was secured bv the Con-
stiuton, while an absolute convey ance re-
NAMED unprotected.
II, under fair construction OF the Con-
stitution, grants are conprehended under
Tue term Contracts, is q grant from the state,
excluded fro!a the operation Of the provisi.
ON As Tie clause to be considered as inhi-
oiting the state from impairing the obi gait
OH OF contracts between two individuals, but
as excluding from that inhibition Contracts
made with itselfa
The words themselves contain no such
distinction. They are general, and are aS-
plicaole to contracts of every description -
III contracts. made with the state, are 60 he:
exempted from their operation, the exccp-
ton Rust arise from the character If The
contracting party, not from the words whiCi.
are employed.
Whatever respect might have been felt
ief the state sovereigRties, it is not to be dis
guIsed that the trainers of the Constitution
viewed, with some apprehension, the vio-
tent acts which might grow out of the
Feelings OF The moment, and that the people
OF the United States, in adopting that 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 arc exposed. The res
tricuors en- the legislative power OF the
states, are obviously founded in this scnt,-
ment ind the Constitution Of Che United
States, contains what may be deemed q bill
OF rights for the people OF each state.
NO state shall pass any bill of attainder,
&c POST tacfo law or law impairing the OBJ
legation of contracts.
a bill of attainder may affect the life Of
an individual, or may ConGscate his 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 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 stare may enter?
he state Legislatures can pass no ca, tose
Jacto law. An cc Post .jacte law, is one
which renders an act punishable in man
ner IN which it was not punishable when il
SS,Yrh l,,,,r ia.
naities on the person, CT may inflict pecuni,
airy penalties. which swell the public trea.
sury. The legislature ia then prohibited
from passing law by which mans estate,
or any part OF it, shallbe seized for crime
which was not declared, by some previous
law, to render him liable to that punishment.
why, thea, should violence be done 70 the
natural meaning Of words, for the purpose
OF leaving to the legislature The power of
seizing, for cubiic use, the estat. Of an in
dlviduai, in the form Of law, annullipa
the title by which he holds that estate p.
The court can perceive no sufficient grounds'
tor making this distinction. This rescind-
ing act would have the effect Of an e1 hosc
JGcfo law. 1t torfeits the estate of Fletcher.
Tor CRIME not committed by himself, but
by those from whom he purchased. This
Cannot be Effected in the form Of an &C host
facto law, or bill of attaintler why, then,
Is it allowable III the form of law annul-
ling the original grant,
The argument in favor OF Dresuuring an
intention to except case not excepted by
the words OF the Constitution, is susce ptible
OF some Illustration, from principle crigi.
naily migrated in that instrument, though
no longer part Of it. The Constitution.
as passed, gave the courts of the United
states jurisdiction in suits brought against
individual states. & state, then, which VIC.
lated ITS own contract, was Suabe in the
courts or the United States fer that violation.
Would 1t have been defence, in such suit.
to say that the state had passed law abb
solving itself from the contract! 1t is scarce-
~ to be cosceived, that such defence could
be setup And yet, if state is neither res,
trained by the general principles of our p5-
lticai institutions, nor by the words or the
Constitution, from impairing the obligation
OF itsown contracts, such defence would
be valid ore. This feature Is no longer
found in the Constitution but It aids in the
construction OF those clauses with which il
was originally associated.
1t is, then, the unanimous opinion of Tho.
court, that in this case, the estate having
passed into che hands of purchaser for a
valuable consideration, without notice, the
state OF Georgia was restrained. either by
general principles which are common TO our
Tree institutions, or by the particular prov.
sions OF the constitution Of the u States.
from passing law whereby the estate Of
the plaintiff in the premises so purchased
could be constitutionally ard legally impair.