Arkansas.—"The General Assembly shall direct, by law, in what courts and in what manner suits may be commenced against the State."* Missouri.-"The General Assembly shall direct, by law, in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the State."t Illinois. "The General Assembly shall direct, by law, in what manner suits may be brought against the State." Indiana.-"Provision may be made, by general law, for bringing suit against the State as to all liabilities originating after the adoption of this Constitution; but no special act authorizing such suit to be brought, or making compensation to any person claiming damages against the State, shall ever be passed." || In New York, the old rule prevails, that the State cannot be sued, in her own courts, for any cause of action. In conformity with this principle, it has been decided, that the State courts have no power to restrain, by injunction, the acts of officers of the State who are proceeding under the authority of law; and that the fact of the statute in question being unconstitutional forms no ground for granting the injunction. The courts of the Federal Government, however, are the legal superiors of the States in cases in which they have jurisdiction; and it has been held that an injunction may be granted by the United States Courts to restrain State officers from collecting a State tax which was unlawful under the laws of the United States.** A few interesting miscellaneous provisions of our State Constitutions may be noticed. (a) By art. iv, § 11, of the Consti * Constitution of Arkansas, art. iv, § 22. Constitution of Missouri, art. iii, § 25. Constitution of Illinois, art. iii; § 34. Constitution of Indiana, art. iv, § 24. Thompson v. The Commissioner of the Canal Fund, 2 Abbott's Pr. Rep. 248. In regard to municipal corporations, the contrary doctrine is held; and where an act of such a corporation is clearly illegal, and the necessary effect of the act will be to injure or impose a burden on the property of a corporator, it will warrant the interference of the court by injunction. Christopher v. The Mayor, &c. of N. Y. 13 Barb. 567. So, if the municipal corporation is guilty of a breach of trust. Milhau v. Sharp,'15 Barb. 193. So, again, the same principle has been decided where the act of the corporation was in violation of an express law, and tended to increase the taxes. De Baun v. The Mayor, 16 Barb. 392. In this case Edmonds, J., and Morris, J., dissented. Under the former judicial system of the State, the Court of Chancery had no power to enjoin proceedings for the collection of an illegal assessment. Meserole v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 8 Paige, 198; reversed on appeal, by the Court of Errors, 26 Wend. 132. ** Osborn v. The U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. (a) Various Particular Constitutional Provisions. But One Corporation to be Created at a Time.-Where a Constitution provided that "No law shall create, renew, or extend the charter of more than one corporation," a statute giving privileges to tution of Alabama, the power to remit fines and forfeitures is given to the governor; and in that State it has been held, that several corporations was held to be valid. Cleveland &c. R. R. v. Erie, 27 Penn. St. 380. No Special Act of Incorporation.-"The General Assembly shall pass no special act conferring corporate powers." An act declaring that the purchasers of a certain franchise should have corporate powers, was held invalid. Atkinson v. Marietta &c. R. R. 15 Ohio, N. S. 21. The same was held of a statute enlarging the corporate limits of a city. State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio, N. S. 18; Wyandotte City v. Wood, 5 Kans. 603. But an act allowing generally any city or town to amend its charter, is valid. Von Phul v. Hammer, 29 Iowa, 222. Under a similar provision it was held that the giving to an individual the privilege of keeping a ferry, was not a violation of the prohibition. McRoberts v. Washburne, 10 Minn. 23. Banking Laws to be Submitted to the People.-"No act of the General Assembly authorizing corporations or associations with banking powers, shall go into or in any manner be in force, unless the same shall be submitted to the people at the general election," &c. An amendment of the general banking law in relation to the matter of taxation need not be submitted to vote. Bank of Rep. v. Hamilton Co. 21 Ill. 53. Nor an amendment making all bills presented together payable as one obligation. Reaper's Bank v. Willard, 24 Ill. 433. Appropriation Bills.-Where the Constitution required that every act making an appropriation should distinctly state the sum appropriated, a statute appropriating "not exceeding $300,000," to be paid "out of any money thereafter in the treasury not otherwise appropriated," was held valid (Miller and Stewart, JJ., dissenting). McPherson v. Leonard, 29 Md. 377. School Fund.-The Constitution creating a "school fund," and requiring it to be preserved, a statute in form contemplating a loan from the fund to a corporation, but which in fact, from the nominal security provided for, amounted to a gift, was held to be an evasion of the Constitution and void. People v. Allen, 42 N. Y. 404. Origin of Revenue Bills.-Where bills raising revenue must originate in the lower house, it was held that a bill incorporating a town and giving it power to raise money by taxation, was not a revenue bill, and might originate in the Senate. Harper v. Comm'rs, 23 Geo. 566. Bills to be Read Three Times.-It is not necessary that everything which is to become a law by the adoption of the bill shall be read. Thus the reading a bill enacting a code is enough without reading the code itself. Dew v. Cunningham, 28 Ala. 466. And where the Constitution provides a particular style, "Be it enacted," etc., it is sufficient if the bill enacting the code has such style. Ibid. An association may be incorporated and its constitution made its charter without reciting the charter in the act. Bibb County L. Association v. Richards, 21 Geo. 592. Such a provision was held directory in Miller v. State, 3 Ohio, N. S. 475. Compliance with the requirement will be presumed where laws have been passed and approved by the Legislature, although the journals do not show such readings, the Constitution not requiring entry of the readings in the journals. Supervisors v. People, 25 Ill. 181. But where it did not appear from the journals that the bill had ever been put upon its passage or voted upon, it was held that the bill never became a law, as the ayes and noes should have been on the journals. People v. Stearne, 35 Ill. 121. this power cannot be exercised by the Legislature, and that, therefore, any act which attempts, directly or indirectly, to remit a fine, either before or after it has been paid, is unconsti tutional.* In Louisiana, the Constitution declares that the State shall not become a subscriber to the stock of any corporation or joint-stock company; but it has been held that this does not take from the Legislature the power to authorize a subscription by a municipal corporation to a corporation or joint-stock company. + The Constitution of New York, of 1846, making an effort *Haley v. Art. 121. Clark, 26 Ala. 439. Police Jury v. McDonogh's Succession, 8 La. Ann. R. 341; City of New Orleans v. Publication of Statutes.—Omission to publish a statute will not affect its validity. Peterman v. Huling, 31 Penn. St. 432: see also Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184. "No general law shall be in force until published." Held that a publication by mistake among the private acts was a sufficient compliance. In re Boyle, 9 Wisc. 264. But unauthorized publication by a private individual is not enough. Clarke v. Janesville, 10 Wisc. 136. The provision as to publishing within a certain time is so far directory that the statute may be published afterwards, if within a reasonable time. State v. Lean, 9 Wisc. 279. Where private statutes were not to become laws until the payment of an enrollment tax, it was held that this did not apply to provisions of a public nature incorporated in them. Peterman v. Huling, 31, Penn. St. 432. Monopolies.-"No man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community." It was held under this provision that a statute giving a particular gas company the right to lay gas pipes in the streets of a city exclusive as against all except such as might afterwards be authorized by the Legislature, was a monopoly and void. Norwich Gas L. Co. v. Norwich C. Gas Co. 25 Conn. 19. But a statute of New York, where there is no such express constitutional restriction, authorizing a city to grant the "exclusive" right to lay gas pipes in the streets to a particular company, was held not to constitute a monopoly. People v. Bowen, 30 Barb. 24. An act giving towns through licensed agents the exclusive right to sell liquors, was held not to create a monopoly, in State v. Brennan's Liquors, 25 Conn. 278. But a somewhat similar statute was declared void, in State v. Beebe, 6 Ind. 501. In a State where the Constitution prohibited "public emoluments or privileges but in consideration of public service," a grant of the right to erect a public tollwharf was sustained. Martin v. O'Brien, 34 Miss. 21. Imprisonment for Debt.-The constitutional prohibition is not applicable to an imprisonment for contempt in not complying with an order or decree for the payment of temporary alimony. Carlton v. Carlton, 44 Geo. 216. Nor is it violated by an order of the chancellor that a party pay over money in his hands on pain of imprisonment. Remley v. De Wall, 41 Geo. 466. to eradicate the manorial tenures or long leases, reserving rents in money, produce, or services, which, in the language of Mr. Justice Gridley, "experience had proved to be prejudicial to the prosperity and interests of the State, as a question of political economy," prohibited leases or grants of agricultural land for more than twelve years, in which any rent or service should be reserved. It has been held, that this provision applies only to such rents and services as are certain, periodical, and which issue out of the land, and not to covenants for the performance of duties not certain nor periodical, nor confined to the use of the land alone. * The Constitution of the State of Indiana declares "that all trust funds held by the State shall remain inviolate, and be faithfully applied to the purposes for which the trust was created;" and under this clause it has been held that a law diverting the proceeds of the sixteenth section, granted by Congress to the inhabitants of each township for the use of schools, from the use of schools in the congressional township where the land was situated to the use of the school system of the State at large, is unconstitutional and void. ‡ In terminating the examination, necessarily extremely par tial and incomplete, of this interesting subject, the most superficial observer cannot fail to be struck with the great and growing uniformity in the fundamental organization of so many governments which, in their several spheres, are absolutely independent. Provisions inserted in the revision of one State Constitution are adopted by others; the judicial interpretation adopted by the courts of one member of the Union is followed by its sister States; so that the similarity between our institutions is daily becoming more and more manifest. In regard to the division and general arrangement of political power, the right of suffrage, the guaranties of private property, the protection of private rights-the gradual result of the three quar ters of a century which have elapsed since the foundation of Stephens v. Reynolds, 2 Seld. 454. The Constitution of Michigan contains a similar proviso: "No lease or grant hereafter of agricultural land, for a longer period than twelve years, reserving any rent, or service of any kind, shall be valid."-Cons. art. xviii, § 12. + Cons. art. viii, § 7. The State v. Springfield Township, 6 Indiana, 83. our institutions was laid, aided by the active intercourse and communication of our citizens, and by a press citizens, and by a press of great intelligence and vigor, has been to bring the members of the confederacy to a similarity of condition greater than any other age or any other people can show. So marked a uniformity of language, laws, and institutions, prevailing through territories so vast or among populations so numerous, the world has never before beheld. On one subject alone does any considerable diversity of condition or difference of opinion exist. That subject is rendered embarrassing beyond all others by disparity of race, and by dissimilarity of climate and production. But our past history affords us reasonable grounds to hope and to believe that if the question be approached in the fraternal spirit which our history inculcates, and in the humane temper which marks our national character, a solution of the difficulties attendant upon it will be found, worthy of the practical sense to which we lay claim, and calculated to perpetuate that Union on which not only our dearest interests, but the best hopes of humanity depend. As to the power of the judiciary to investigate the correctness of legislative action founded on a question of fact, the following case may be noticed: The Constitution of New York, of 1846, provided that every county should be entitled to a member of Assembly; and that no new county should be hereafter created, unless its population shall entitle it to a member. The county of Schuyler was created by laws of 1854, c. 386. The question was, whether the Legislature, in determining the question of population, was confined to the decennial State census, taken in 1845, or whether its own decision on the point was to be considered conclusive. De Camp v. Eveland, 19 Barb. 81. A repealing clause in an unconstitutional statute, declaring that all laws contravening the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed, does not affect the previous laws. Tims v. The State, 26 Ala. 165. Where an act is void because unconstitutional, an amendatory act is of no effect to give it validity. Bradley v. Baxter, 15 Barb. 131; M'Spedon & Baker v. Stout, Sup. Court, N. Y., by Davies, J. (not reported). Mr. Rawle's work on the Constitution, published in 1825, contains the following statement: "The Provincial Constitutions of America were, with two exceptions, modeled with some conformity to the English theory; but the colonists of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations were empowered to choose all their officers— legislative, executive, and judicial; and, about the same time, a similar charter was granted to Connecticut. And thus, complains Chalmers, a writer devoted to regal |