more difficult for exporters to find markets. Still, some of the ablest men in the Convention were opposed to denying Congress this power, on the ground that exports would be a fruitful source of revenue.

430. Preferences as to Ports.-The Constitution was framed on the principle that the people of the different States are entitled to equal rights and privileges; and the prohibition of any preference of the ports of one State to those of another sprang from this principle. This is in the same line as the first clause of the previous section requiring all duties, imposts, and excises to be uniform throughout the United States.

These are technical For a ship to enter is

431. Entering and Clearing. terms relating to the custom-house. to report her arrival, cargo, etc., to the custom-house authorities; to clear is to obtain from the same authorities the necessary papers giving her leave to sail. All ships arriving from foreign ports must enter, all ships sailing to such ports must clear; but vessels sailing from one American port to another are not obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in the ports of any State other than that to or from which they may be bound. The first part of the clause limits Congress; the second part, both Congress and the States.

Section 9, Clause 7.-No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

This clause

432. Congress Controls the Treasury. is a limitation of the Executive Department. It puts the expenditure of the public funds in the hands of Congress, just as previous clauses put the raising of funds in its hands. The statement and account of receipts and expenditures are found in the Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances.

The ordinary expenses of the Government are provided for annually in general appropriation bills, such as the River and Harbor, Agricultural, Army, Navy, Consular and Diplomatic, Indian, Mili

tary Academy, Post-Office, Deficiency, District of Columbia, Fortifications, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, Pension, and Sundry Civil Bills. In these bills the objects for which the appropriations are made, with the particular amounts, are minutely specified. The Deficiency Bill provides for expenditures not fully met by the regular appropriations for the year before.

Section 9, Clause 8.-No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

433. Titles of Nobility and Presents. -Titles of nobility go with aristocratical and monarchical institutions, and are repugnant to a republican society and government. Mr. Hamilton called their prohibition the corner-stone of republicanism. The second prohibition of the clause is intended to prevent foreign states from influencing the officers of our Government by giving them gifts and titles. In former times the policy of one nation was sometimes largely controlled by another in this way. English kings once did not disdain to accept largesses from the kings of France. Presents are sometimes made by foreign powers to officers of the United States out of compliment, but they either pass into the custody of the Government, or Congress gives those for whom they are intended permission to receive them.

All the above prohibitions relate to National officers merely. In 1809 Congress proposed, but the States did not ratify, the following Amendment to the Constitution: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STATES.

ARTICLE I.

434. General Reasons.-Duly to limit the States was no less important than duly to limit the Union. In 1787 the States were strong, the Union weak. States had persistently neglected to discharge their duties under the Confederation. Hence it was almost as necessary positively to deny them powers the possession of which was inconsistent with a vigorous general government, as it was to add to the powers of that government.

Section 10, Clause 1.-No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

435. Reasons for these Prohibitions.-If a State could enter into treaties, alliances, and confederations, and grant letters of marque and reprisal, the Nation would thereby be drawn into difficulties, and the Union would soon be broken up. The exercise by the States of such powers would make them sovereign States. In fact, nearly all of the powers enumerated in this clause were denied to the States in the Articles of Confederation.

436. Bills of Credit.-The Supreme Court has defined bills of credit as "paper issued by the sovereign power containing a pledge of its faith, and designed to circulate as money." Congress and the States issued such money in large quantities in the Revolution; the intolerable evils that these bills produced were fresh in the minds

of the men who framed the Constitution; and, to prevent the recurrence of similar evils, they voted down a proposition authorizing Congress to emit bills of credit, and prohibited the States from issuing them. According to Mr. Madison, the purpose was to give Congress the power to issue bills not having the legal-tender quality, but to prohibit the States absolutely.

For the States to coin money, emit bills of credit, and make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, would be repugnant to the sovereignty of the Union. Besides, their exercise of these powers would introduce endless confusion into the monetary system of the country, as is well illustrated by the history of the Confederation and of the State banks.

437. The Obligation of a Contract.-Chief Justice Marshall says a contract is " an agreement in which a party undertakes to do, or not to do, a particular thing." Accordingly, it creates duties and rights between two or more parties. The obligation of a contract is its binding force or sanction upon all the parties concerned. However, this obligation does not arise unless the contract is one that the law sanctions. Thus, a man who agrees to pay money without an equivalent is not bound to pay the money, because such a contract is not binding. A law impairing the obligation of a contract is a law that weakens or destroys its binding force. Two or more men entering into a contract, do so with reference to the law as it is at the time, and no law should afterward interfere with what they have done.

438. The Dartmouth College Case.—Judge Cooley says no clause of the Constitution has been more prolific of litigation, and given rise to more animated, and, at times, angry controversy than this one in relation to contracts. The best known case that has arisen under it is the Dartmouth College Case.1 The New Hampshire Legislature materially changed by law the terms and conditions of the charter of Dartmouth College, granted many years before. This law the Supreme Court set aside in 1818, on the ground that the charter was a contract between the State and the college corporation, and that the law impaired it. This decision, which has since been the great bul14 Wheaton 518.

wark of vested rights in the United States, has been somewhat modified by recent decisions.

439. No Prohibition on Congress.-Congress is not prohibited from impairing contracts, but it was assumed that such prohibition was not necessary. It has been held that the Legal Tender Acts had that effect. The argument is that contracts requiring the payment of money, existing in 1862-3 when these acts were passed, were made when gold and silver only were legal money; that these contracts called for coin, or its equivalent, to satisfy them; while the acts allowed them to be satisfied with depreciated paper money. Chief Justice Chase thus reasoned in 1868, but the Supreme Court did not take that view.

440. The Statute of Limitations.-The phrase "law impairing the obligation of contracts" is purely technical. It is the business of the courts to declare its meaning, and to adjust it to other parts of our jurisprudence. The Statute of Limitations, which exists in all English-speaking countries, declares that certain rights shall cease if they are not asserted or prosecuted within a certain time. For example, title to land, under these conditions, lapses in twenty-one years. The Supreme Court has decided that such statutes do not impair the obligation of contracts, unless they are made retroactive. A similar decision has been rendered concerning usury laws.

Section 10, Clause 2.-No State shall, without the consent of the 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.

sumer.

441. Inspection Laws.-The great object of inspection laws is to bring certain commodities offered for sale, as meats, flour, oil, and the like, up to a given standard of quality. This is in the interest of both producer and conThe inspector examines the commodity, and marks the cask or package. Inspection laws cannot be kept up without expense, and the above clause permits the States, without asking the consent of Congress, to lay such duties on exports and imports, in the form of fees, as may be necessary to defray this expense. But if there is an excess of fees collected, over and above defraying such cost, then the

Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaton 122.