Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts--Of States may contract with an individual, and its enactments to that end become contracts within the prohibition. Levey v. Stockschlager, 129 U. S. 477. See also Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 286. Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 445. New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 660. Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 679. Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 367. The rule that one legislature can not bind its successors does not prevent the enactment of laws in the nature of contracts which a subsequent legislature can not repeal. State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 How. 389. Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 554. A grant by the United States to a State upon condition, and the acceptance thereof by the State, constitutes a contract which can not be impaired by the legislature. McGee v. Mathis, 4 Wall. 155. Head v. University, 19 Wall. 531. Salt Co. v. East Saginaw, 13 Wall. 377. Compact between States and the United States limiting right to issue fishing licenses in Columbia River is valid and not impaired by a statute imposing additional restrictions. Olin v. Kitzmiller, 259 U. S. 260. A State can no more impair by legislation the obligation of its own contracts than it can impair the obligation of the contracts of individuals. Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 207. See also Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 500. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 127. Pearsall v. Great Northern R. Co., 161 U. S. 672. Hawkins v. Barney, 5 Pet. 457. Sands v. Manistee River Imp. Co., 123 U. S. 288. Covington, etc., Brdg. Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204. Mobile Gas Co. v. Patterson, 288 Fed. 884. With the United States.-Acceptance by a State of an act of Congress granting to the State land for the construction of canals, which provided that such canals, "when completed or used, shall be and forever remain public highways for the use of the Government of the United States," does not constitute a contract by the State for the perpetual maintenance of such canals as public highways, but a proper construction of the provision is that the Government should be entitled to the free use Sec. 10.--Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Of States of the canals so long as, and not longer than, they were maintained as public highways, and that an act of the legislature leasing the lands does no violence to the contract laws of the Constitution. Walsh v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 176 U. S. 475. See also Wright v. Columbus, etc., R. Co., 176 U. S. 481. U. S. v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 21 Md. 119 (water supply for Washington, D. C.). State treasury warrants.-When the officers of a State, pursuant to its statutes, have received State treasury warrants, as payment for obligations due the State, they have acted for the State in carrying out an offer upon its part which the State has the legal capacity to make and carry out, and a State has no authority subsequently to enact a statute upon the assumption that the treasury warrants were illegally issued. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 98. See also Missouri v. Walker, 125 U. S. 339, as to employment of agent to collect State claim. Legislative grants.-A legislative grant, although in the form of a statute, is a contract within this clause, whether made directly, or indirectly through a municipal corporation, and a statute repealing a prior grant is void. The prohibition extends to all legislation whereby the estate granted will be in any wise impaired. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 137. Baltimore Trust, etc., Co. v. Baltimore, 64 Fed. 153. Rice v. Railroad Co., 1 Black 358. See also Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch 50. Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch 332. Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 25. Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U. S. 9. Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203. Commissioners v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 114. Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 289. League v. DeYoung, 11 How. 202. Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304. Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U. S. 701. Mulligan v. Corbins, 7 Wall. 491. Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 256. Where, after a township had subscribed for the stock of a railroad company, and had agreed to pay for it in valid, negotiable bonds, an act was passed by the legislature requiring the bonds to be registered and certified before they should become valid, such an act did not impair the contract. Hoff v. Jasper County, 110 U. S. 53. See also Railroad Co. v. Falconer, 103 U. S. 821. County of Clay v. Society for Savings, 104 U. S. 590. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, 170 U. S. 226. Arkansas Sou. R. Co. v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 218 U. S. 431. Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Of States Licenses.-A license granted by a State or a municipal corporation is not a contract within the meaning of this prohibition; it is merely the grant of a privilege which may be revoked or may have additional conditions imposed upon its enjoyment, unless otherwise provided in the State constitution. Phalen v. Virginia, 8 How. 168. See also Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 122. Postal Tel. Co. v. Charleston, 153 U. S. 695. Schurz v. Cook, 148 U. S. 397. Rundle v. Canal Co., 14 How. 89. Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 819. Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 32. Purchase of public lands.-A grant from the State, passing an estate into the hands of a purchaser for a valuable consideration, is a contract, and is protected by this clause from any legislation impairing it and rendering it null and void. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 127. See also Sullivan v. Texas, 207 U. S. 416, where it was held that the substan- Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280 (investigation of land titles by Reitler v. Harris, 223 U. S. 437 (forfeiture). The mere application to purchase State lands and the expenditure of money for a survey of the lands do not constitute a contract with the State, but the lands may be withdrawn from sale before any right becomes consummated. Banning Co. v. California, 240 U. S. 142. Campbell v. Wade, 132 U. S. 37. Lease of State land.-Though in private contracts, in the absence of a covenant or condition to the contrary, there is an implied covenant in a lease that the lessor shall pay all taxes and assessments levied on the leased land during the term, a ruling of a State court that such general rule, so far as concerns taxation, does not apply to leases by the State, does not impair a contract right of a lessee of State land. Trimble v. Seattle, 231 U. S. 683. Disposition of escheated and confiscated property.-Where an undivided one-half interest in certain escheated property was granted by a statute to A, it was held that a statute releasing to B whatever "interest in such land might rightfully belong to the State" is not void as impairing the obligation of contracts. Mulligan v. Corbins, 7 Wall. 487. A statute providing for escheat proceedings, and a determination of the rights of the State as against all possible claimants, after actual notice to all known claimants and constructive notice to all unknown ones, does not impair the obligation of any contract contained in the grant under which the deceased Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Of States held over, whether that grant was from the State or from a private person. Hamilton v. Brown, 161 U. S. 256. State debts and liabilities.-The creditor of a State has a contract right which the legislature can not impair by subsequent enactment. Wabash, etc., Co. v. Beers, 2 Black 452. Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304. Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711. Durkee v. Board of Liquidation, 103 U. S. 646. Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 5. Guaranty Co. v. Board of Liquidation, 105 U. S. 624. Gilman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black 510. After the payment of an obligation due the State a contract is implied that payments shall neither be repudiated nor denied, and a statute giving the State a right of action for debts already paid by warrant on the ground that such payments were void impairs the obligation of that contract. Houston, etc., R. Co., v. Texas, 177 U. S. 98. See also Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 770. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 278. Chaffin v. Taylor, 114 U. S. 309; 116 U. S. 567. McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 701. In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 495. Suits against the State.'-In general.-A State can not, without its consent, be sued in a circuit court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon a suggestion that the case is one that arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. While a State can not be compelled by suit to perform its contracts, any attempt on its part to violate property or rights acquired under its contracts may be judicially resisted; and any law impairing the obligation of contracts under which such property or rights are held is void and powerless to affect their enjoyment. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1.' When a State becomes a party to a contract the same rules of law are applied to her as to private persons under like circumstances. When she or her representatives are properly brought into the forum of litigation, neither she nor they can assert any right or immunity as incident to her political sovereignty. Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 232. Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 338. As to suits against the United States on contracts, see subject " To which the United States shall be a party," under Art III, sec. 2, cl. 1, p. 457. See also eleventh amendment, p. 638, which it was said in the Hans case was a reversal of the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (2 Dall. 419), by the will of the whole people. Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Of States Law consenting to be sued not a contract.--A State may pass a law allowing the entry of suit and then dismiss the suit in case of failure of the plaintiff to comply with certain requirements without impairing the obligation of any contract. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 528. The repeal of a right to have a claim against the State examined and recommended by the supreme court to the legislature is no impairment of the obligation of a contract, nor does the decision of the State court that an amendment to the State constitution repealed the court's authority to examine and recommend such a claim have that effect. Baltzer v. North Carolina, 161 U. S. 245. Limitation of eleventh amendment.-Suits can not be maintained against the States by citizens of other States, though they present cases arising under the Constitution. Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711. Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52. Where the contract is between the individual and the State no action will lie against the State, and any action founded upon it against defendants who are officers of the State, the object of which is to enforce its specific performance by compelling those things to be done by the defendants which, when done, would constitute a performance by the State, or to forbid the doing of those things which, if done, would be merely breaches of the contract by the State, is in substance a suit against the State itself, and equally within the prohibition of the Constitution. In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 504. State constitutions as contracts.-A State constitution is not a contract within the meaning of this clause. It is the fundamental law of the State and as such may be construed and carried into effect by the State courts, without review by the Federal Supreme Court, except in cases where what is done comes, or is supposed to come, in conflict with the Federal Constitution. Church v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 282. No rights of contract can be vested under a constitutional provision which a subsequent constitution may not destroy without impairing the obligation of the contract within the sense of this provision, and an ordinary act of legislation can not have that effect. New Orleans v. Houston, 119 U. S. 275. A statute as a contract.-A legislative enactment, in the ordinary form of a statute, may contain provisions which, when accepted as the basis of action by individuals or corporations, become contracts between them and the State within the protection of this clause. New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 114. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1-25 |