The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-04-06
SUPREME COURT 4
a OF THE
UNITE d STATES.
JOHNSON. j.

-,
an opinion. different from that which has
been delivered by the court.
do not hesitate to declare, that a state
does not possess the power of revoking it's
own grants. But / do 1t on general prin-
ciple, on the reason and nature Of things
a principle which will impose laws even on
the Deity.
A contrary opinion can only be maintain
ed upon the ground, that no existing legis-
lature can abridge thepowers oftbose which
will succeed il. To certain extent, this
is certainly correct; but the distinction lies
between power and interest, the right Of ju !.
risdiction and the right Of soil. 49,
The right ofjurisdicticn is essentially con-
nected to. or rather, identified with, the ma
tional sovereignty. To part with it, is to
commit species of political suicide. In
fact, power to produce its own annihilati
on, is an absurdity in terms. 1t is power
as utterly incommunicable to political, as
to natural person. But it is not so with
the interests or property of a nation. Its
possessions nationally, are in no wise neces.
sary to its political existence they are en-.
tirely accidental, and may be parted with
IN every respect, similarly to those of the
individuals who compose the Community
When the legislature have once conveyed
their interests or property in any subject to
the individual, they have lost all control O.
yer it-have nothing to act upon--it has
passed from tbem--is vested in the indivi-
dual---bccomes intimately blended with
his existence, as essentially so as the blood
that circulates through his system. The
government may, indeed, demand of him
the one or the other. not because they are
not his, but because whatever is his is his
Country's.
AS to the idea. that the grants of a fegisla-
trvvr- ,nxr H.. 1901 L. II. -
are corrupt. 1T appears to me to be subject
to insuperable difficulties. The acts of the
supreme power of country, must be con.
sidered pure, for the same reason that all
sovereign acts must be CO nsidered just
because there is no power that can declare
them otherwise. Ehe absurdity in this case
would have been strikingiy perceived, could
the party, who passed the act of cession.
have got again into power, and declared
themselves pure, and the intermediate leeis-
iature corrupt.
The security of the people against the
misconduct OF their rulers, must lie in the
irequsnt recurrence to first principles, and
the imposition Of adequate constitutional
restrictions. Nor wouldn't be difficult, with
the same view, toy laws to be framed, which
would bring the conduct of individuals under
the review OF adequate tribunals, and make
tlrem suher under The consequences of their
own immoral conduct.
fhavS thrown out these ideas, that NAV
have lt distinctly understood, that nv oni-
MON On this point, is not founded on the pro.
vision in the Constitution of the United
otates, relative to laws impairing the obli.
8ation OF Contracts. 1t is much TO be regret
TED, that words of less equiyocal signifcati-
on, had not been adopted in that article of
the Constitution. There is reason to believe.
from the letters of Pablus, which are well
known TO be entitled to the highest respect,
chat the object OF the convention was to afford
general protection to Individual rights "a
xaInst the acts of the state legislatures.
whether the words " acts impairing the OBJ
legation ct contracts" can be construed ia
have the game force, as must have been gi
ven TO the words, obligation and effect of
contracts is the difficulty in my mind.
There can he no solid objection, to adopt
ms the technical definition of the word.
contract. given by Blackstone. The ETY..
melogy. the classical Specification and the
civil Law idea of the word, will all support
ii: Eut the difficulty arises On the word
obligation" which certainly imports an
existing moral or physical necessity. Now.
grant or conveyance by no means necessa.
riiy implies, the continuance of an obligation
oeyond the moment of executing it, 1t is,
most generally, but the contamination of a
contract, IS functus oGicio, the moment it Is
executed. and continnes afterwards to be
BotoinS moro, than the evidence that a cer.
tain act was done.
ienteT, with great hesitation, uron this
question, because it involves subject of the
greatest deiicacy and much difficulty.
The states. and the United States, are Con
tInu9iiy iesisiating on the subject of con.
tracts. prescribing the mcGc Of authenticate.
on. The time within which suits shall be pro-
secuted for them, in many cases affecting
existing contracts, by tie laws which they
pass. aud declaring them to cease or lose
their effect, for want Of compliance, in he
parties, With such statutory provisions. An
these acts. appear TO be within the most
correct limits of legislative powers and most
bsnchciaIiy exercised, and certainly could
ncs have been intended to be affected by this
constitutional provision YET, where to draw
sbe lire, OF how to define or limit the words.
"obiigstion of contracts" will be found
subject OF extreme difficulty.
To give il the general eject of arestric-
don Of the state powers, in favor of private
rights, is certainly going very far beyond
the o5vious and necessary import of the
words. aud would operate to restrict the
ttatesiD the exercise Of that right. which
every community must exercise Of possessing
ltsef Of fhe property of the individual when
accessory for public uses. right, which .
msgaani1nc1s and just government viii ne
sersseiciss, wi'soH' amply indemnifyitg