bligation of contracts." This collocation cannot be
objected to, if they refer to the same subject-matter; and that they do
refer to the same subject-matter we have the authority of this court for
saying, because this court solemnly determined, in _Sturges v.
Crowninshield_, that this prohibition on the States did apply to systems
of bankruptcy. It must be now taken, therefore, that State bankrupt laws
were in the mind of the Convention when the prohibition was adopted, and
therefore the grant to Congress on the subject of bankrupt laws, and the
prohibition to the States on the same subject, are properly to be taken
and read together; and being thus read together, is not the intention
clear to take away from the States the power of passing bankrupt laws,
since, while enacted by them, such laws would not be uniform, and to
confer the power exclusively on Congress, by whom uniform laws could be
established?

Suppose the order of arrangement in the Constitution had been otherwise
than it is, and that the prohibitions to the States had preceded the
grants of power to Congress, the two powers, when collated, would then
have read thus: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of
contracts; but Congress may establish uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcies." Could any man have doubted, in that case, that the
meaning was, that the States should not pass laws discharging debts
without payment, but that Congress might establish uniform bankrupt
acts? And yet this inversion of the order of the clauses does not alter
their sense. We contend, that Congress alone possesses the power of
establishing bankrupt laws; and although we are aware that, in _Sturges
v. Crowninshield_, the court decided that such an exclusive power could
not be inferred from the words of the grant in the seventh section, we
yet would respectfully request the bench to reconsider this point. We
think it could not have been intended that both the States and general
government should exercise this power; and therefore, that a grant to
one implies a prohibition on the other. But not to press a topic which
the court has already had under its consideration, we contend, that,
even without reading the clauses of the Constitution in the connection
which we have suggested, and which is believed to be the true one, the
prohibition in the tenth section, taken by itself, does forbid the
enactment of State bankrupt laws, as applied to future as well as
presen