scinded or revoked by the state. The right of the state is extinguished by the grant, and cannot be resumed. But it may discontinue offices created by statute, or take away the compensation without abolishing the office; or, as we shall see in the next section, abolish or change the organization of municipal corporations at any time, unless forbidden by its own fundamental law. It cannot, however, take from a municipal corporation the power to levy taxes to pay existing debts; nor authorize stay of execution in a case where the debtor has expressly waived it; nor deprive persons of the right to maintain suits because participating in or sympathizing with rebellion against the United States; nor invalidate a contract for the purchase or hire of slaves, such contract being valid when made; nor compel a public creditor to surrender his securities, and accept others bearing a less interest.

231. With regard to charters, they are divided into two classes, namely, public and private charters. The former are such as relate to public purposes alone, to charters that incorporate towns, cities, &c. Such charters merely grant political power, and are not contracts within the meaning of the Constitution, and may, therefore, be changed or modified at the pleasure of the state legislatures-care being taken, of course, not to violate or infringe private rights. But private charters, such as are granted to banks, colleges, insurance or turnpike companies, are con

tracts between the state and the corporators, and cannot, therefore, without the consent of such corporators, be altered or repealed by the state, unless the right to do so has been expressly reserved; nor can the state subject a private corporation to forfeiture of its franchises for that which was not a cause of forfeiture originally; nor repeal a statute which made the stockholders liable for its debts contracted while it was in force.

232. On the other hand, where å state grants rights to private corporators in matters in which the public interest is concerned, no implied contract arises that it will not make a similar grant to other corporators, though the second grant may operate to the injury of the first. Thus, where a state granted a charter to a company authorizing them to build a bridge, and take tolls thereon for a certain period, it was held that it might equally grant a similar charter to another company, though the second bridge should be on the same line of travel as the first, and accommodate the same passengers, and thus be the means of diverting its tolls; and this for the reason that as no direct engagement was made that no other bridge should be built, no such engagement was to be implied; because in such cases no rights are to be taken from the public and given to corporations by impli

cation.

2321. The state under the right of eminent domain, to which all contracts are subject, may appropriate corporate franchises, as well as every other species of property. If suitable provision is made by the legislature for the compensation of those whose property or franchise is injured or taken away, under this paramount power, there is no violation of public faith or private right. On the contrary, the obligation of the contract created by the charter is thereby re cognized.

233. A state law which discharges a debtor from his obligation to pay a debt which was contracted before the passage of the law, is unconstitutional and void, because it not only impairs, but destroys the obligation of the contract. But a law which operates upon and discharges future contracts is constitutional, provided such contracts are made within the state, and between citizens of the state, And this for the reason that parties to a contract have reference to the existing laws of the place where it is made. They know that these laws act upon their contract and govern its construction, validity, and obligation. A state, too, may prescribe the remedies to enforce contracts, and pass statutes of limitation, as well as change the rules of evidence, applicable to existing causes of action or to pending suits. And it may too abolish existing remedies, provided other and efficient ones are substituted or remain, and may increase ex

emptions of property from execution arising out of existing contracts.

233. A statute making the bills, of a bank, whereof the state owns the stock, receivable in payment of all debts due the state, constitutes a contract between the state and those who receive the bills; and the state is thereby precluded from depriving the bill holders of the rights acquired under such statute, by repealing it. So too a state, upon a consideration therefor, may agree to exempt property from taxation, or to exempt it beyond a certain rate or amount, and such exemption cannot be revoked. On the other hand, if the exemption is a mere privilege, it may be revoked at any time, in the legislative discretion.

Prohibition as to Imposts, &c.

234. No state can, without the consent of 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, are for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws are subject to the revision and control of Congress.

235. While the states possess a concurrent power of taxation with the United States, there is one source of revenue which they cannot touch without the consent of Congress; that is, they cannot lay

any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws. By this prohibition on the states to impose duties, and confiding the power to Congress alone, a uniform system of duties is secured, and rival systems on the part of the several states prevented.

236. For the purpose, however, of executing their inspection laws, the states may impose such duties on imports or exports as may be absolutely necessary; but the money arising therefrom is not for the use of the state. The net produce must be paid into the Treasury of the United States, and the laws imposing such duties are subject to the revision and control of Congress. Inspection laws are such as require certain commodities specified in the laws themselves, and whether produced at home or imported from abroad, to be examined, and their quality approved before they are exported or offered for domestic use.

237. A state law requiring the importer of goods, by wholesale, bale, or package, to take out a license and pay for it, under certain penalties or forfeitures for neglect or refusal, has been held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and void, both because it interferes with the power of Congress to regulate commerce, and violates the prohibition which we are now considering, that no state can lay a duty on imports.