irginia, 135
U.S. 662 (1890); Mobile & Ohio R.R. Co. _v._ Tennessee, 153 U.S. 486
(1894); Bacon _v._ Texas, 163 U.S. 207 (1896); McCullough _v._ Virginia,
172 U.S. 102 (1898).
[1592] Gelpcke _v._ Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, 206 (1864); Havemeyer _v._
Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294 (1866); Thompson _v._ Lee County, 3 Wall. 327
(1866); Kenosha _v._ Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 (1870); Olcott _v._ Fond du Lac
County, 16 Wall. 678 (1873); Taylor _v._ Ypsilanti, 105 U.S. 60 (1882);
Anderson _v._ Santa Anna, 116 U.S. 356 (1886); Wilkes County _v._ Coler,
180 U.S. 506 (1901).
[1593] Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. _v._ Jones, 193 U.S. 532, 548
(1904).
[1594] Sauer _v._ New York, 206 U.S. 536 (1907); Muhlker _v._ New York &
H.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544, 570 (1905).
[1595] Tidal Oil Company _v._ Flanagan, 263 U.S. 444, 450, 451-452
(1924).
[1596] Walker _v._ Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314 (1873); Wood _v._ Lovett, 313
U.S. 362, 370 (1941).
[1597] 4 Wheat. 122, 197 (1819); _see also_ Curran _v._ Arkansas, 15
How. 304 (1853).
[1598] 4 Wheat. 518 (1819).
[1599] Ibid. 627.
[1600] 290 U.S. 398 (1934).
[1601] Ibid. 431.
[1602] Ibid. 435.
[1603] "The _Blaisdell_ decision represented a realistic appreciation of
the fact that ours is an evolving society and that the general words of
the contract clause were not intended to reduce the legislative branch
of government to helpless impotency." Justice Black, in Wood _v._
Lovett, 313 U.S. 362, 383 (1941).
[1604] Wright, The Contract Clause of the Constitution, 95 (Cambridge,
1938).
[1605] Farrand, Records, III, 548.
[1606] The Federalist, No. 44.
[1607] Works of James Wilson, I, 567, (Andrews, ed., 1896).
[1608] 2 Dall. 410 (1793).
[1609] Ogden _v._ Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 338 (1827).
[1610] 6 Cr. 87 (1810).
[1611] In Ware _v._ Hylton, 3 Dall. 199 (1797) the Court had earlier set
aside an act of Virginia as being in conflict with the Treaty of Peace,
of 1783, with Great Britain.
[1612] As given by Professor Wright in his treatise, The Contract Clause
of the Constitution, 22. Professor Wright dates Hamilton's pamphlet,
1796.
[1613] 6 Cr. 87, 139 (1810). Justice Johnson, in his concurring opinion,
relied exclusively on general principles. "I do not hesitate to declare,
that a State does not possess the power of revoking its own grants. But
I do it, on a general principle, on the reason and nature of things; a
principle which will impose laws even on the Deity." Ibid. 1
|