Ohio has erred in its construction of them. It is the peculiar province and privilege of the state courts to construe their own statutes; and it is no part of the functions of this court to review their decisions, or assume jurisdiction over them on the pretence that their judgments have impaired the obligation of contracts. The power delegated to us is for the restraint of unconstitutional legislation by the States, and not for the correction of alleged errors committed by their judiciary." A like question was presented, and similarly disposed of, in New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18, 30, where it was said: "In order to come within the provision of the Constitution of the United States which declares that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, not only must the obligation of a contract have been impaired, but it must have been impaired by a law of the State. The prohibition is aimed at the legislative power of the State, and not at the decisions of its courts, or the acts of administrative or executive boards or officers, or the doings of corporations or individuals." And in Brown v. Smart, 145 U. S. 454, 458, where a decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, expounding a statute of that State, was challenged as impairing the obligation of a contract made after the statute came into existence, it was held that the decision "was not a law" within the meaning of the provision against the impairment of contractual obligations by state laws. Many other cases give effect to this ruling, but it will suffice to cite, from among them, Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 109; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 220; Hanford v. Davies, Ibid. 273, 278; Turner v. Wilkes County, 173 U. S. 461; Cross Lake Shooting & Fishing Club v. Louisiana, 224 U. S. 632, 638.

But whilst thus uniformly holding that the provision is directed against legislative, but not judicial, acts, this court with like uniformity has regarded it as reaching

every form in which the legislative power of a State is exerted, whether it be a constitution, a constitutional amendment, an enactment of the legislature, a by-law or ordinance of a municipal corporation, or a regulation or order of some other instrumentality of the State exercising delegated legislative authority. New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., supra; St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142, 148; Davis & Farnum Manufacturing Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 216; Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 221 U. S. 400, 403. Of course, the ruling here in question was by an instrumentality of the State, but as its purpose was, not to prescribe a new law for the future, but only to apply to a completed transaction laws which were in force at the time, it is quite plain that the ruling was a judicial act and not an exercise of legislative authority. As was said in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 226: "A judicial inquiry investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist. That is its purpose and end. Legislation, on the other hand, looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power."

The plaintiff in error cites the cases of Kring v. Missouri, 107 U. S. 221; Muhlker v. New York & Harlem Railroad Co., 197 U. S. 544; Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. 278; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, and Butz v. City of Muscatine. 8 Wali. 575, as holding that a judicial decision may be a law in the sense of the constitutional provision which he invokes. But none of those cases, when rightly considered, sustains that position. The first was a criminal case in which a provision in a new constitution was held to be an ex post facto law as to an offense theretofore committed; the second presented the question whether a state statute of 1892 impaired contractual obligations

created by deeds of a much earlier date; the third and fourth were explained in Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 111-112; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 221223, and Turner v. Wilkes County, supra, and were there shown not to be in conflict with other cases on the subject, and the fifth is in no wise distinguishable from the fourth. We conclude that no Federal right was involved in the ruling respecting the construction of the depository act.

The prosecution was instituted by an information conformably to a law of the State in force at the time. Bellinger & Cotton's Codes, § 1258. Following the judgment of conviction, and while the case was pending on appeal, a constitutional amendment was adopted, declaring: "No person shall be charged in any circuit court with the commission of any crime or misdemeanor defined or made punishable by any of the laws of this State, except upon an indictment found by a grand jury." The plaintiff in error thereupon advanced the contention that the constitutional amendment worked a repeal of the statute under which the information was filed and made it impossible to enforce the judgment against him without depriving him of his liberty without due process of law, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The state court ruled that the amendment to the state constitution was prospective and did not affect pending cases. Error is now assigned upon that ruling. But it involved nothing more than the construction of the constitutional amendment, which was a question of local law, and its decision by the state court is not reviewable here.

As the record presents no Federal question, we are without jurisdiction to review the judgment, and therefore cannot enter into the merits of the questions that were presented and determined in the state court.

Writ of error dismissed.

227 U. S.

Counsel for Parties.

UNITED STATES v. HARVEY STEEL COMPANY.

MIDVALE STEEL COMPANY v. HARVEY STEEL COMPANY.

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Nos. 615, 616. Submitted January 6, 1913.—Decided February 3, 1913. The construction given to a contract by this court is either authoritatively controlling or conclusively persuasive in a subsequent suit between the same parties; and so held that the contentions relied on in this case as to the contract heretofore construed in United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310, are, in the light of that decision, so frivolous that the judgment of the Court of Claims following it should be affirmed without further argument.

United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310, followed to effect that the Government is liable for royalties on the Harvey process even though every element thereof was not used on the plates involved in this action, and even though the contractor furnishing the plates and who used the process by permission of the United States was not specifically required to use it.

46 Ct. Cl. 298, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the construction of a contract with the United States for use of a steel hardening process and the effect of the prior construction thereof by this court in a suit between the same parties, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. James R. Sheffield and Mr. James J. Cosgrove for appellee, in support of motion to affirm.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson and Mr. Philip M. Ashford for the United States, appellant in No. 615, in opposition to the motion.

Mr. A. H. Wintersteen, Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. Frank S. Busser for Midvale Steel Company, appellant in No. 616, also in opposition to the motion.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

These appeals are from a judgment in favor of the Har vey Steel Company and against the United States for $123,467.23. This was the amount of royalty found to be due to the Harvey Steel Company under a contract, dated April 12, 1893, to pay royalty on all armor plate treated by the Harvey process and used by the United States. The armor plate under which the royalty in question was allowed was manufactured for the United States under four contracts with the Midvale Steel Company. 46 Ct. Cls. 298. The Midvale Steel Company, for the protection of its interests under the contracts, was permitted to intervene, and it was also allowed to appeal from the judgment. The case is before us on a motion to affirm under paragraph 5 of rule 6.

The questions for decision involve the construction of the contract between the United States and the Harvey Steel Company. As the meaning of that contract was passed upon by this court in a previous case between the same parties (196 U. S. 310) and the construction then given to the contract is here either authoritatively controlling or conclusively persuasive, we recur to that case and what was decided in it as the most direct means of not only analyzing and disposing of the issues here presented for decision, but moreover of causing it to be apparent that whatever may have been the original force of the contentions relied on, they are, in the light of the previous decision, "so frivolous as not to need further argument."

Following tests of armor plate treated by the Harvey process an option was given to the Government, at the request of the Navy Department, for the purchase of the right to use the process upon vessels the construction of which had at that time been authorized by Congress. The