rest　it　is　a　nonentity。　But　the　inference　to　be　drawn　is；　that　in　the　laws　relating　to　these　matters　the　Union　possesses　all　the　rights　of　absolute　sovereignty。　　The　difficulty　is　to　know　what　these　matters　are；　and　when　once　it　is　resolved　（and　we　have　shown　how　it　was　resolved；　in　speaking　of　the　means　of　determining　the　jurisdiction　of　the　Federal　courts）　no　further　doubt　can　arise；　for　as　soon　as　it　is　established　that　a　suit　is　Federal　…　that　is　to　say；　that　it　belongs　to　the　share　of　sovereignty　reserved　by　the　Constitution　of　the　Union　…　the　natural　consequence　is　that　it　should　come　within　the　jurisdiction　of　a　Federal　court。
  ＇Footnote　h：　This　principle　was　in　some　measure　restricted　by　the　introduction　of　the　several　States　as　independent　powers　into　the　Senate；　and　by　allowing　them　to　vote　separately　in　the　House　of　Representatives　when　the　President　is　elected　by　that　body。　　But　these　are　exceptions；　and　the　contrary　principle　is　the　rule。＇
  Whenever　the　laws　of　the　United　States　are　attacked；　or　whenever　they　are　resorted　to　in　self…defence；　the　Federal　courts　must　be　appealed　to。　Thus　the　jurisdiction　of　the　tribunals　of　the　Union　extends　and　narrows　its　limits　exactly　in　the　same　ratio　as　the　sovereignty　of　the　Union　augments　or　decreases。　　We　have　shown　that　the　principal　aim　of　the　legislators　of　1789　was　to　divide　the　sovereign　authority　into　two　parts。　　In　the　one　they　placed　the　control　of　all　the　general　interests　of　the　Union；　in　the　other　the　control　of　the　special　interests　of　its　component　States。　　Their　chief　solicitude　was　to　arm　the　Federal　Government　with　sufficient　power　to　enable　it　to　resist；　within　its　sphere；　the　encroachments　of　the　several　States。　As　for　these　communities；　the　principle　of　independence　within　certain　limits　of　their　own　was　adopted　in　their　behalf；　and　they　were　concealed　from　the　inspection；　and　protected　from　the　control；　of　the　central　Government。　　In　speaking　of　the　division　of　authority；　I　observed　that　this　latter　principle　had　not　always　been　held　sacred；　since　the　States　are　prevented　from　passing　certain　laws　which　apparently　belong　to　their　own　particular　sphere　of　interest。　　When　a　State　of　the　Union　passes　a　law　of　this　kind；　the　citizens　who　are　injured　by　its　execution　can　appeal　to　the　Federal　courts。
  Thus　the　jurisdiction　of　the　Federal　courts　extends　not　only　to　all　the　cases　which　arise　under　the　laws　of　the　Union；　but　also　to　those　which　arise　under　laws　made　by　the　several　States　in　opposition　to　the　Constitution。　　The　States　are　prohibited　from　making　ex　post　facto　laws　in　criminal　cases；　and　any　person　condemned　by　virtue　of　a　law　of　this　kind　can　appeal　to　the　judicial　power　of　the　Union。　　The　States　are　likewise　prohibited　from　making　laws　which　may　have　a　tendency　to　impair　the　obligations　of　contracts。　*i　If　a　citizen　thinks　that　an　obligation　of　this　kind　is　impaired　by　a　law　passed　in　his　State；　he　may　refuse　to　obey　it；　and　may　appeal　to　the　Federal　courts。　*j
  ＇Footnote　i：　It　is　perfectly　clear；　says　Mr。　Story　（〃Commentaries；〃　p。　503；　or　in　the　large　edition　Section　1379）；　that　any　law　which　enlarges；　abridges；　or　in　any　manner　changes　the　intention　of　the　parties；　resulting　from　the　stipulations　in　the　contract；　necessarily　impairs　it。　　He　gives　in　the　same　place　a　very　long　and　careful　definition　of　what　is　understood　by　a　contract　in　Federal　jurisprudence。　　A　grant　made　by　the　State　to　a　private　individual；　and　accepted　by　him；　is　a　contract；　and　cannot　be　revoked　by　any　future　law。　A　charter　granted　by　the　State　to　a　company　is　a　contract；　and　equally　binding　to　the　State　as　to　the　grantee。　　The　clause　of　the　Constitution　here　referred　to　insures；　therefore；　the　existence　of　a　great　part　of　acquired　rights；　but　not　of　all。　　Property　may　legally　be　held；　though　it　may　not　have　passed　into　the　possessor's　hands　by　means　of　a　contract；　and　its　possession　is　an　acquired　right；　not　guaranteed　by　the　Federal　Constitution。＇
  ＇Footnote　j：　A　remarkable　instance　of　this　is　given　by　Mr。　Story　（p。　508；　or　in　the　large　edition　Section　1388）：　〃Dartmouth　College　in　New　Hampshire　had　been　founded　by　a　charter　granted　to　certain　individuals　before　the　American　Revolution；　and　its　trustees　formed　a　corporation　under　this　charter。　　The　legislature　of　New　Hampshire　had；　without　the　consent　of　this　corporation；　passed　an　act　changing　the　organization　of　the　original　provincial　charter　of　the　college；　and　transferring　all　the　rights；　privileges；　and　franchises　from　the　old　charter　trustees　to　new　trustees　appointed　under　the　act。　　The　constitutionality　of　the　act　was　contested；　and；　after　solemn　arguments；　it　was　deliberately　held　by　the　Supreme　Court　that　the　provincial　charter　was　a　contract　within　the　meaning　of　the　Constitution　（Art。　I。　Section　10）；　and　that　the　emendatory　act　was　utterly　void；　as　impairing　the　obligation　of　that　charter。　　The　college　was　deemed；　like　other　colleges　of　private　foundation；　to　be　a　private　eleemosynary　institution；　endowed　by　its　charter　with　a　capacity　to　take　property　unconnected　with　the　Government。　　Its　funds　were　bestowed　upon　the　faith　of　the　charter；　and　those　funds　consisted　entirely　of　private　donations。　　It　is　true　that　the　uses　were　in　some　sense　public；　that　is；　for　the　general　benefit；　and　not　for　the　mere　benefit　of　the　corporators；　but　this　did　not　make　the　corporation　a　public　corporation。　　It　was　a　private　institution　for　general　charity。　　It　was　not　distinguishable　in　principle　from　a　private　donation；　vested　in　private　trustees；　for　a　public　charity；　or　for　a　particular　purpose　of　beneficence。　　And　the　State　itself；　if　it　had　bestowed　funds　upon　a　charity　of　the　same　nature；　could　not　resume　those　funds。〃＇
  This　provision　appears　to　me　to　be　the　most　serious　attack　upon　the　independence　of　the　States。　　The　rights　awarded　to　the　Federal　Government　for　purposes　of　obvious　national　importance　are　definite　and　easily　comprehensible；　but　those　with　which　this　last　clause　invests　it　are　not　either　clearly　appreciable　or　accurately　defined。　　For　there　are　vast　numbers　of　political　laws　which　influence　the　existence　of　obligations　of　contracts；　which　may　thus　furnish　an　easy　pretext　for　the　aggressions　of　the　central　authority。
  Chapter　VIII：　The　Federal　Constitution　…　Part　IV
  Procedure　Of　The　Federal　Courts
  Natural　weakness　of　the　judiciary　power　in　confederations　…　Legislators　ought　to　strive　as　much　as　possible　to　bring　private　individuals；　and　not　States；　before　the　Federal　Courts　…　How　the　Americans　have　succeeded　in　this　…　Direct　prosecution　of　private　individuals　in　the　Federal　Courts　…　Indirect　prosecution　of　the　States　which　violate　the　laws　of　the　Union　…　The　decrees　of　the　Supreme　Court　enervate　but　do　not　destroy　the　provincial　laws。
  I　have　shown　what　the　privileges　of　the　Federal　courts　are；　and　it　is　no　less　important　to　point　out　the　manner　in　which　they　are　exercised。　　The　irresistible　authority　of　justice　in　countries　in　which　the　sovereignty　in　undivided　is　derived　from　the　fact　that　the　tribunals　of　those　countries　represent　the　entire　nation　at　issue　with　the　individual　against　whom　their　decree　is　directed；　and　the　idea　of　power　is　thus　introduced　to　corroborate　the　idea　of　right。　　But　this　is　not　always　the　case　in　countries　in　which　the　sovereignty　is　divided；　in　them　the　judicial　power　is　more　frequently　opposed　to　a　fraction　of　the　nation　than　to　an　isolated　individual；　and　its　moral　authority　and　physical　strength　are　consequently　diminished。　　In　federal　States　the　power　of　the　judge　is　naturally　decreased；　and　that　of　the　justiciable　parties　is　augmented。　　The　aim　of　the　legislator　in　confederate　States　ought　therefore　to　be　to　render　the　position　of　the　courts　of　justice　analogous　to　that　which　they　occupy　in　countries　where　the　sovereignty　is　undivided；　in　other　words；　his　efforts　ought　constantly　to　tend　to　maintain　the　judicial　power　of　the　confederation　as　the　representative　of　the　nation；　and　the　justiciable　party　as　the　representative　of　an　individual　interest。
  Every　government；　whatever　may　be　its　constitution；　requires　the　means　of　constraining　its　subjects　to　discharge　their　obligations；　and　of　protecting　its　privileges　from　their　assaults。　　As　far　as　the　direct　action　of　the　Government　on　the　community　is　concerned；　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　contrived；　by　a　master…stroke　of　policy；　that　the　federal　courts；　acting　in　the　name　of　the　laws；　should　only　take　cognizance　of　parties　in　an　individual　capacity。　　For；　as　it　had　been　declared　that　the　Union　consisted　of　one　and　the　same　people　within　the　limits　laid　down　by　the　Constitution；　the　inference　was　that　the　Government　created　by　this　Constitution；　and　acting　within　these　limits；　was　invested　with　all　the　privileges　of　a　national　government；　one　of　the　principal　of　which　is　the　right　of　transmitting　its　injunctions　directly　to　the　private　citizen。　　When；　for　instance；　the　Union　votes　an　impost；　it　does　not　apply　to　the　States　for　the　levying　of　it；　but　to　every　American　citizen　in　proportion　to　his　assessment。　　The　Supreme　Court；　which　is　empowered　to　enforce　the　execution　of　this　law　of　the　Union；　exerts　its　influence　not　upon　a　refractory　State；　but　upon　the　private　taxpayer；　and；　like　the　judic