17. An act of a state legislature, banishing the person and confiscating the property of certain individuals therein named as traitors, passed before the establishment of the Federal Constitution, is not void. Cooper v. Telfair, 4

Dall. 14.

18. The words of the Constitution, declaring that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," must be taken to refer to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of England. United States v. M' Gill, 4 Dall. 426, 429.

19. The Constitution, art. 2, sect. 2, 3, with regard to the appointment and commissioning of officers by the President, seems to contemplate three distinct operations I. The nomination: this is the sole act of the President, and is completely voluntary. 2. The appointment: this is also the act of the President, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 3. The commission: to grant a commission to a person appointed, might perhaps be deemed a duty enjoined by the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 155.

20. The acts of appointing to office, and commissioning the person appointed, are distinct acts. Ibid. 156.

21. The Constitution contemplates cases where the law may direct the President to commission an officer appointed by the courts, or by the heads of departments. In such a case, to issue a commission would be apparently a duty distinct from the appointment, the performance of which, perhaps, could not be legally refused. Ibid.

22. Where the officer is not removable at the will of the executive, the appointment is not revocable, and cannot be annulled; it has conferred legal rights which cannot be resumed. Ibid. 162.

23. The question whether the legality of the act of the heads of departments be examinable in a court of justice, or not, must always depend on the nature of that act. Ibid. 165. Where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act on cases in which the executive possesses a confidential or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend on the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy. Ibid.

24. Where the head of a department acts in a case in which executive discretion is to be exercised, in which he is the mere organ of executive will, any application to a court to control, in any respect, his conduct, would be rejected without hesitation. But where he is directed by law to do a certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals, in the performance of which he is not placed under the particular direction of the President, and the performance of which the President cannot lawfully forbid, and therefore is never presumed to have forbidden,—as, for example, to record a commission, or a patent for land, which has received all the legal solemnities, or to give a copy of such record, in such cases, the courts of the country are no further excused from the duty of giving judgment that right be done to an injured individual, than if the same services were performed by a person not at the head of a department. Ibid. 171.

25. The authority given to the Supreme Court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, is not warranted by the Constitution. Ibid. 176.

26. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become the law of the land. Ibid. 176, 177, 180.

27. An act of Congress cannot invest the Supreme Court with an authority not warranted by the Constitution. Ibid. 175, 176.

28. A contemporary exposition of the Constitution, practised and acquiesced under for a period of years, fixes the construction, and the Court will not shake or control it. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299.

29. An act of Congress giving to the United States a preference over all other creditors, in all cases, is constitutional and valid. United States v. Fisher et AL. 2 Cranch, 358, 395.

30. Such preference exists in a case where no suit has been instituted; as, upon an assignment by a bankrupt, the United States must be first paid. Ibid. 31. The legislature of a state cannot annul the judgment, or determine the jurisdiction, of the courts of the United States. United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115.

32. In an action of ejectment between two citizens of the state where the lands lie, if the defendant set up an outstanding title in a British subject, which he contends is protected by treaty, and that therefore the title is out of the plaintiff, and the highest state court decides against the title thus set up, it is not a case in which a writ of error lies to the Supreme Court of the United States. Owing v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 344.

33. This is not a case arising under the treaty, and the words of the judiciary act must be restrained by those of the Constitution. Ibid.

34. Whenever a right grows out of, or is protected by, a treaty, it is sanctioned against all the laws and judicial decisions of the states; and whoever may have this right, it is protected. But if the person's title is not affected by the treaty, if he claims nothing under the treaty, his title cannot be protected by the treaty. Ibid. 348.

35. If a title be derived from a legislative act, which the legislature might constitutionally pass, if the act be clothed with all the requisite forms of law, a court sitting as a court of law cannot sustain a suit by one individual against another, founded on the allegation that the act is a nullity in consequence of the impure motives which influenced certain members of the legislature which passed the act. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 131.

36. One legislature, so far as respects general legislation, is competent to repeal any act which a former legislature was competent to pass; and one legislature cannot abridge the powers of a succeeding legislature. But if an act be done under a law, a succeeding legislature cannot undo it. Ibid. 135.

37. When a law is, in its nature, a contract, and absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot divest those rights. Ibid.

38. It may well be doubted whether the nature of society and government does not prescribe some limits to the legislative power; and if any be prescribed, where are they to be found, if the property of an individual, fairly and honestly acquired, may be seized without compensation? Ibid.

39. The question whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the Constitution, is a question which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative in a doubtful case. The opposition between the Constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other. Ibid. 128.

40. Where an estate has passed, under a legislative grant, into the hands of a purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice, the state is restrained, either by general principles which are common to our free institutions, or by the particular provisions of the Constitution of the United States, from passing a law whereby the estate so purchased can be impaired and invalidated. Ibid. 139.

41. The appellate powers of the Supreme Court are given by the Constitution; but they are limited and regulated by the judiciary act and other acts of Congress. Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cranch, 307.

42. An act of the legislature, declaring that certain lands which should be purchased for the Indians should not thereafter be subject to any tax, constituted a contract, which could not be rescinded by a subsequent legislative act; such repealing act being void under that clause of the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a state from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164.

43. In expounding the Constitution of the United States, a construction ought not lightly to be admitted which would give to a declaration of war an effect in this country it does not possess elsewhere, and which would fetter that exercise of entire discretion respecting enemy's property, which may enable the government to apply to the enemy the rule that he applies to us. Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch, 110.

44. The power of making "rules concerning captures on land and water *

which is superadded, in the Constitution, to that of declaring war, is not confined to captures which are extra-territorial, but extends to rules respecting enemy's property found within the territory, and is an express grant to Congress of the power of confiscating enemy's property, found within the territory at the declaration of war, as an independent substantive power, not included in that of declaring war. Ibid.

45. The legislature may enact laws more effectually to enable all sects to accomplish the great objects of religion, by giving them corporate rights for the management of their property, and the regulation of their temporal as well as spiritual concerns. Terret et Al. v. Taylor et Al. 6 Cranch, 43.

46. Consistently with the Constitution of Virginia, the legislature could not create or continue a religious establishment which should have exclusive rights and prerogatives, or compel the citizens to worship under a stipulated form or discipline, or to pay taxes to those whose creed they do not conscientiously believe. But the free exercise of religion is not restrained by aiding, with equal attention, the votaries of every sect to perform their own religious duties, or by establishing funds for the support of ministers, for public charities, for the endowment of churches, or for the sepulture of the dead. Nor did either public or constitutional principles require the abolition of all religious corporutions. Ibid.

47. The public property acquired by the Episcopal churches under the sanctions of the law did not, at the revolution, become the property of the state The title was indefeasibly vested in the churches, or their legal agents. The dissolution of the form of government did not involve in it a dissolution of civil rights, or an abolition of the common law. Ibid.

48. A legislative grant and confirmation vests an indefeasible, irrevocable title; is not revocable in its own nature, or held only durante bene placito. Ibid.

49. In respect to public corporations, which exist only for public purposes, as counties, towns, cities, &c., the legislature may, under proper limitations, have a right to change, modify, enlarge, or restrain them; securing, however, the property for the uses of those for whom, and at whose expense, it was originally purchased. Ibid.

50. But the legislature cannot repeal statutes creating private corporations, or confirming to them property already acquired under the faith of previous laws, and by such repeal vest the property exclusively in the state, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they may please, without the consent or default of the corporators. Ibid.

51. Congress cannot vest any portion of the judicial power of the United States, except in courts ordained and established by itself. Martin v. Hunters' Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 380.

52. The 25th sect. of the judiciary act of September 24, 1789, ch. 20, (2 Bior. 56,) is supported by the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Ibid.

The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the United States in their sovereign capacities, but, as the preamble declares, by the people of the United States. Ibid. 324.

53. It was competent for the people to invest the national government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary, to extend or limit these powers at their pleasure, and to give to them a paramount and supreme authority. Ibid.

54. The people had a right to prohibit to the states the exercise of any powers which were, in their judgment, incompatible with the objects of the general compact; to make the powers of the state governments, in given cases, subordinate to those of the nation; or to reserve to themselves those sovereign authorities which they might not choose to delegate to either. Ibid.

55. The Constitution was not, therefore, necessarily carved out of existing state sovereignties, nor a surrender of powers already existing in the state governments. Ibid.

56. On the other hand, the sovereign powers vested in the state governments by their respective constitutions, remain unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they pre granted to the government of the United States. Ibid.

57 The government of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, either expressly or by necessary implication. Ibid.

58. The Constitution, like every other grant, is to have a reasonable construction, according to the import of its terms; the words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and not in a sense either unreasonably restricted or enlarged. Ibid.

59. The power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 359.

See ante, No. 1.

60. The grant, in the Constitution, to the United States, of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, does not extend to a cession of the waters in which those cases may rise, or of the general jurisdiction over them. United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336.

61. Congress may pass all laws which are necessary for giving the most complete effect to the exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, granted in the Constitution to the United States; but the general jurisdiction, subject to this grant, adheres to the territory, as a portion of sovereignty not yet given away, and the residuary powers of legislation still remain in the state. Ibid.

62. Congress has power to provide for the punishment of offences committed by persons serving on board a ship of war of the United States, wherever that ship may be; but Congress has not exercised that power in the case of a ship lying in the waters of the United States. Ibid.

63. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, a state has authority to pass a bankrupt law, (provided such law does not impair the obligation of contracts,) provided there be no acts of Congress in force to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy conflicting with such law. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122. Contra, Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 313, 5 Hall's Am. L. Journ. 502. S. C. Accord, Adams v. Storey, 6 Hall's Am. L. Journ. 474. 64. The mere grant of a power to Congress does not imply a prohibition on the states to exercise the same power. Ibid.

65. Whenever the terms in which a power is granted to Congress require that it should be exercised exclusively by Congress, the subject is as completely taken from the state legislatures, as if they had been expressly forbidden to act upon it. Ibid.

66. To release the future acquisitions of a debtor from liability to a contract, impairs its obligation. Ibid. 198.

67. Statutes of limitation, and usury laws, unless retroactive in their effect, do not impair the obligation of contracts, within the meaning of the Constitution. Ibid.

68. The right of the states to pass bankrupt laws is not extinguished by the enactment of a uniform bankrupt law throughout the Union by Congress; it is only suspended. The repeal of that law cannot confer that power upon the states, but it removes a disability to exercise, which was created by the act of Congress. Ibid.

69. The act of the legislature of the state of New York, of April 3d, 1811, which not only liberated the person of the debtor, but discharged him from all liability for any debt contracted previous to his discharge, on his surrendering his property in the manner prescribed, so far as it attempted to discharge the contract, is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and is not a good plea in bar of an action brought upon such contract. Ibid.

70. A state bankrupt or an insolvent law, which not only liberates the person of the debtor, but discharges him from all liability for the debt, so far as it attempts to discharge the contract, is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States; and it makes no difference whether the law was passed before or after the debt was contracted. M’Millan v. M'Neil, 4 Wheat. 209.

71. The act of Assembly of Maryland, of 1793, incorporating the Bank of Columbia, and giving to the corporation a summary process by execution, in the nature of an attachment, against its debtors, who have, by an express con

sent in writing, made the bonds, bills, or notes, by them drawn or endorsed negotiable at the bank, is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or of Maryland. Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 316.

72. Congress has power to incorporate a bank. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.

73. The government of the Union is a government of the people; it emanates from them; its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit. Ibid.

74. The government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme laws of the land. Ibid.

75. The government, which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means. Ibid.

76. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States, similar to the Articles of Confederation, which excludes incidental or implied powers. Ibid. 77. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

Ibid.

78. The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the government of the Union, it may be exercised by that government. Ibid.

79. If certain means to carry into effect any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the government of the Union, be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance. Ibid.

80. The act of April 10, 1816, ch. 44. (3 Stor. 1547,) to "incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution. Ibid.

81. The Bank of the United States has, constitutionally, a right to establish its branches, or offices of discount and deposit, within any state. Ibid.

82. The state within which such branch may be established cannot constitutionally tax that branch. Ibid.

83. The state governments have no right to tax any of the constitutional means employed by the government of the Union to execute its constitutional powers. Ibid.

84. The states have no power, by taxation otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operation of the constitutional laws en acted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national govern ment. Ibid.

85. This principle does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the Bank of the United States, in common with the other real property in a particu lar state; nor to a tax imposed on the proprietary interest which the citizens of that state may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the state. Ibid.

86. The charter granted by the British crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, (art. 1, sect. 10,) which declares that no state shall make any law impairing contracts; and this charter was not dissolved by the revolution. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518.

87. An act of the legislature of New Hampshire, altering the charter in a material respect, without the consent of the corporation, is an act impairing the obligation of a contract, and is unconstitutional and void. Ibid.

88. The act of Congress of March 3, 1819, ch. 76, § 35, referring to the law of nations for a definition of the crime of piracy, is a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress to define that crime. United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153. 89. Congress has authority to impose a direct tax on the District of Columbia,