founded. Opinion of the Court. What obstacle was in the way of legislation to supply the omission to make provision for such cases in the original act? If it comes within the category of retrospective legislation, as has been argued, we find nothing in the Constitution limiting the power of Congress to amend or correct omissions in previous acts. It is well settled that where there is no direct constitutional prohibition, a State may pass retrospective laws, such as, in their operation, may affect suits pending, and give to a party a remedy which he did not previously possess, or modify an existing remedy, or remove an impediment in the way of legal proceedings. . . Such acts are of a remedial nature, and are the peculiar subject of legislation. They are not liable to the imputation of being assumptions of judicial power." The power of a legislature to pass laws giving validity to past deeds which were before ineffectual is well settled. Thus in Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 100, the title to land in controversy was originally in Margaret Mercer, the wife of James Mercer. For the purpose of transferring the title to the husband, they conveyed to a third person, who immediately conveyed to James Mercer. The deed of Mercer and wife bore date of May 30, 1785. It was fatally defective as to the wife, in not having been acknowledged by her in conformity with the provisions of the statute of Pennsylvania of 1770, touching the conveyance of real estate by femmes covert. She died without issue. James Mercer died leaving children by a former marriage. After the death of both parties, her heirs sued his heirs in ejectment for the premises, and recovered. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the judgment. In 1826 the legislature passed an act which cured the defective acknowledgment of Margaret Mercer, and gave the same validity to the deed as if it had been well executed originally on her part. The heirs of James Mercer thereupon sued her heirs and recovered back the same premises. This judgment was also affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, and that judgment of affirmance was affirmed by this court. Watson v. Mercer was cited and followed by this court in Randall v. Kreiger, 23 Wall. 137, where it was held that it was VOL. CLXXXV-33 Opinion of the Court. competent for the legislature to validate a defective power of attorney to convey land. Similar principles were recognized in Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405; Baker's Executors v. Kilgore, 145 U. S. 487; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285. The case of Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420, was cited in the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals. There a mortgage improperly acknowledged had been placed of record, which by reason of the defective acknowledgment was not notice to subsequent purchasers or lienors. Afterwards the mortgaged property was attached under a writ against the mortgagor, and thereafter the legislature validated the record of the mortgage. The mortgagee having proceeded in replevin to recover the attached property from one who claimed it under the attachment, it was held by the Supreme Court of Arkansas that the interest of the attaching creditor in the attached property was not vested, but could be, and that it was in fact displaced by the subsequent enactment validating the record of the mortgage. Without pursuing the subject further, our conclusion is that no property rights of the plaintiffs in error were impaired by the act of February 3, 1897. Their judgment against Blocker remained unaffected, and the lien of the writ of attachment was not destroyed, but continued to hold any surplus that might have remained after the satisfaction of the mortgage liens. They have no just ground in constitutional law to complain of the action of Congress in giving legal effect to the equitable lien of the mortgages. Approving the careful opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reported in vol. 105 Fed. Rep. 293, the judgment of that court is Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE GRAY and MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the decision. See volume 186 for decisions without opinions for the time covered by this volume. INDEX. ALIENS. 1. The power to exclude or expel aliens is vested in the political depart- 2. By the treaty between the United States and China, of 1894, the priv- 3. The treaty, in recognizing the privilege and providing that it should con- 4. Under existing regulations the action of the collector of customs in re- 5. Fok Yung Yo ante, 296, followed. Lee Gon Yung v. United States, 306. APPEAL. Where the decree of a Circuit Court and the order allowing an appeal both CASES DISTINGUISHED. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3. CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 1. The facts and law of this case were so fully and satisfactorily discussed 2. That court held that the claimant Borcherling was entitled, on the facts 3. Section 19 of the act of May 28, 1896, c. 252, providing that "the terms (515) missioners shall then deposit all the records and other official papers COAL MINES. 1. It is within the power of a state legislature to provide for the appoint- 2. A law providing for the inspection of coal mines is not unconstitutional 3. Where the law provided for an inspection of coal mines at least four 4. A law providing that the fees for each inspection shall not be less than Ib. 5. The act of Congress, approved June 28, 1898, known as the Curtis Act, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 1. Giving to the statute of Tennessee the same meaning that was given to 2. All the cases cited in the opinion of the court deny the right of a State Ib. 3. Ficklen v. Shelby County Taxing District, 145 U. S. 1, distinguished from Ib. 4. Although a State has general power to tax individuals and property 5. The seventh section of the act of Pennsylvania of April 27, 1855, is as that period by the owner of the premises, subject to such ground rent, 6. By the act of March 18, 1886, the city of Vicksburg was authorized to 8. This cause presents a controversy so arising under the laws and Consti- 9. As the remedies resorted to by independent States for the determination 10. Where a State on behalf of her citizens and in vindication of her alleged 11. If it is a case of circumstances in which a variation between them as |