624 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



United States, although, absolutely necessary for the support of 

 the sovereign power, there is no liability ; and if the claim is on 

 contract, it must be shown to have been made with an officer 

 authorized by statute to enter into the particular agreement. 

 Although the claimant has been wrongfully kept out of his own 

 for years, and finally recovers a judgment, the United States 

 calmly tells him that it never pays interest on its debts (United 

 States vs. Bayard, 127 United States Reports, 251) ; yet if it has a 

 claim against a citizen who is insolvent it demands every dollar 

 of it, with interest, before any other creditor can be allowed a 

 cent (Brent vs. Baule, 10 Peters, 596). An action of ejectment for 

 land taken by the Government will not lie. The officers who 

 committed the act may be liable, but a judgment against them 

 does not bind their principal (Carr vs. United States, 98 United 

 States Reports, 433). The States are prohibited from passing any 

 laws impairing the obligations of contracts, but the United States 

 still reserves the power to itself of doing such wrongs (Evans vs. 

 Eaton, Peters C. C, 323). The contracts with the Indian tribes 

 are sad examples of this fact. Treaty after treaty of the most 

 solemn kind, founded upon considerations of money and the deep- 

 est morals, has been violated with as much indifference as a man 

 would brush a fly from his body. So the Supreme Court of the 

 United States has declared that, notwithstanding the prohibition 

 on the States, they may violate those contracts at will that they 

 have made with the citizen, or by laws framed to protect his 

 health, morals, education, good order, or the public safety. The 

 elasticity of these words, as stretched by the judges, is greater 

 than any lexicographer could have supposed them capable of. 

 The injustice is not so much in the decisions on this point, how- 

 ever, as in the results not so much in the wrongs done to the 

 individual, that are often necessary but in the failure of the 

 state to provide any compensation for the injuries. 



For example, the various prohibitory or high -license laws have 

 had the direct effect, in countless instances, of taking the property 

 of the individual and wrecking his life and business, yet leave 

 him without redress. It has happened innumerable times that 

 men who have spent enormous sums in enterprises connected 

 with the manufacture and sale of liquor, in States which by their 

 laws encouraged them, have been deprived of every dollar by sub- 

 sequent legislation. In Pennsylvania, under the recent license 

 act, property to the value of millions of dollars was destroyed, the 

 future of many good citizens was ruined, and some were driven 

 insane and committed suicide. These were engaged in a traffic 

 made lawful by the State laws, and in many instances there was 

 not a word of complaint as to the moral character of the appli- 

 cants. The Supreme Court of the United States has sustained 



