Dissenting Opinion: Field, J. tators previous to the late civil war, the true doctrine is the very opposite of this. If the power is not in terms granted, and is not necessary and proper for the exercise of a power which is thus granted, it does not exist. And in determining what measures may be adopted in executing the powers granted, Chief Justice Marshall declares that they must be appropriate, plainly adapted to the end, not prohibited, and consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Now, all through that instrument we find limitations upon the power, both of the general government and the State governments, so as to prevent oppression and injustice. No legislation, therefore, tehding to promote either can consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. A law which interferes with the contracts of others and compels one of the parties to receive in satisfaction something different from that stipulated, without reference to its actual value in the market, necessarily works such injustice and wrong. There is, it is true, no provision in the Constitution of the United States forbidding in direct terms the passing of laws by Congress impairing the obligation of contracts, and there are many express powers conferred, such as the power to declare war, levy duties, and regulate commerce, the exercise of which affects more or less the value of contracts. Thus war necessarily suspends intercourse between citizens or subjects of belligerent nations, and the performance during its continuance of previous contracts. The imposition of duties upon goods may affect the prices of articles imported or manufactured, so as to materially alter the value of previous contracts respecting them. But these incidental consequences arising from the exercise of such powers were contemplated in the grant of them. As there can be no solid objection to legislation under them, no just complaint can be made of such consequences. But far different is the case when the impairment of the contract does not follow incidentally, but is directly and in terms allowed and enacted. Legislation operating directly upon private contracts, changing their conditions, is forbidden to the States; and no power to alter the stipulations of such contracts by direct legis Dissenting Opinion: Field, J. lation is conferred upon Congress. There are also many considerations, outside of the fact that there is no grant of the power, which show that the framers of the Constitution never intended that such power should be exercised. One of the great objects of the Constitution, as already observed, was to establish justice, and what was meant by that in its relations to contracts, as said by the late chief justice in his opinion in Hepburn v. Griswold, was not left to inference or conjecture. And in support of this statement he refers to the fact that when the Constitution was undergoing discussion in the Convention, the Congress of the Confederation was engaged in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory, in which certain articles of compact were established between the people of the original States and the people of the Territory "for the purposes," as expressed in the instrument, "of extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, whereon these republics [the States united under the confederation], their laws and constitutions, are erected." That Congress was also alive to the evils which the loose legislation of the States had created by interfering with the obligation of private contracts and making notes a legal tender for debts; and the ordinance declared that in the just preservation of rights and property no law "ought ever to be made, or have force in the said Territory, that shall in any manner whatever interfere with or affect private contracts, or engagements, bona fide and without fraud, previously formed." This principle, said the chief justice, found more condensed expression in the prohibition upon the States against impairing the obligation of contracts, which has always been recognized "as an efficient safeguard against injustice;" and the court was then of opinion that "it is clear that those who framed and those who adopted the Constitution intended that the spirit of this prohibition should pervade the entire body of legislation, and that the justice which the Constitution was ordained to establish was not thought by them to be compatible with legislation of an opposite tendency." Soon after the Constitution was adopted the case of Calder v. Bull came before this court, and it was Dissenting Opinion: Field, J. there said that there were acts which the federal and State legislatures could not do without exceeding their authority; and among them was mentioned a law which punished a citizen for an innocent act, and a law which destroyed or impaired the lawful private contracts of citizens. "It is against all reason and justice," it was added, "for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." 3 Dallas, 388. And Mr. Madison in one of the articles in the Federalist, declared that laws impairing the obligation of contracts were contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. Yet this court holds that a measure directly operating upon and necessarily impairing private contracts, may be adopted in the execution of powers specifically granted for other purposes, because it is not in terms prohibited, and that it is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. From the decision of the court I see only evil likely to follow. There have been times within the memory of all of us when the legal tender notes of the United States were not exchangeable for more than one-half of their nominal value. The possibility of such depreciation will always attend paper money. This inborn infirmity no mere legislative declaration can cure. If Congress has the power to make the notes a legal tender and to pass as money or its equivalent, why should not a sufficient amount be issued to pay the bonds of the United States as they mature? Why pay interest on the millions of dollars of bonds now due, when Congress can in one day make the money to pay the principal? And why should there be any restraint upon unlimited appropriations by the government for all imaginary · schemes of public improvement, if the printing press can furnish the money that is needed for them? Statement of Facts. FIVE PER CENT. CASES. IOWA v. MCFARLAND, Commissioner. ILLINOIS v. MCFARLAND, Commissioner. ORIGINAL. Argued November 1st, and 2d, 1883.-Decided March 3d, 1884. Military Land Warrants—Five per cent. Act. Under the act of March 3d, 1845, ch. 76, relating to the admission of Iowa into the Union, or the act of April 18th, 1818, ch. 67, for the admission of the State of Illinois into the Union, by which "five per cent. of the net proceeds" of public lands lying within the State, and afterwards "sold by Congress," shall be reserved and appropriated for certain public uses of the State, the State is not entitled to a percentage on the value of lands disposed of by the United States in satisfaction of military land warrants. These were petitions filed in this court by each of the States of Iowa and Illinois, at the relation of its governor, relying upon the provision of an act of Congress relating to its admission into the Union, by which it was agreed that "five per cent. of the net proceeds" of lands lying within the State, and afterwards "sold by Congress," should be appropriated for certain public uses of the State; contending that the State was thereby entitled to five per cent. of the value, computed at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, of lands disposed of by Congress in satisfaction of military land warrants; and praying for a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, to compel him, in accordance with section 456 of the Revised Statutes, to state an account between the United States and the State, for the purpose of ascertaining the sum of money so due to the State, and to transmit the account to the Comptroller of the Treasury for his examination and action, to the end that that sum might be allowed and paid by the United States. The provisions of the acts of Congress, on which the petitioners relied were as follows: The sixth section of the act of Congress of March 3d, 1845, Statement of Facts. ch. 76, supplemental to the act of the same day by which the State of Iowa was admitted into the Union, contained, among the propositions offered to the legislature of the State for its acceptance or rejection, and which, if accepted under the authority conferred on the legislature by the convention which framed the Constitution of the State, should be obligatory upon the United States, the following: "Fifth. That five per cent. of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within the said State, which have been or shall be sold by Congress from and after the admission of said State, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be appropriated for making public roads and canals within the said State, as the legislature may direct: Provided, That the five foregoing propositions herein offered are on the condition that the legislature of the said State, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the convention which framed the Constitution of the said State, shall provide, by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that the said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents; and that the bounty lands granted, or hereafter to be granted, for military services during the late war, shall, while they continue to be held by the patentees or their heirs, remain exempt from any tax laid by order or under the authority of the State, whether for State, county, township, or any other purpose, for the term of three years from and after the date of the patents, respectively." 5 Stat. 790. The sixth section of the act of Congress of April 18th, 1818, ch. 67, to enable the people of the Illinois Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of the State of Illinois into the Union, contained among the propositions offered to the convention of the Territory, and which, if accepted by the convention, should be obligatory upon the United States, the following: |