Sec. 9.-Powers Denied to Congress Cl. 6.-Preferences to Ports in any State other than that to or from which they should be proceeding. U. S. v. The William, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16700. See also Cooley v. Philadelphia, 12 How. 313. This clause does not deny the power to Congress to permit the several States to adopt pilotage regulations. Thompson v. Darden, 198 U. S. 315. Clause 7.-APPROPRIATIONS.1 No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. In General Under this clause, money once in the Treasury can only be withdrawn pursuant to an express appropriation by Congress; but the restriction operates only upon the Treasury Department and does not restrain Congress from involving the Government in liabilities to pay money to any extent. Knote v. U. S., 95 U. S. 154. Collins v. U. S., 14 Ct. Cl. 568; 15 Ct. Cl. 22. While Congress has the power to prevent the payment of claims by refusing to appropriate money therefor, an appropriation of a less amount than is specified by a law fixing compensation does not abrogate or suspend such law nor impair the validity of the claim, nor does the fact that the appropriation out of which the claim should have been paid has lapsed constitute a defense to the claim itself. Where an appropriation is insufficient to satisfy a claim, the claimant's remedy is by appeal to Congress. An act appropriating less than the amount recommended by the head of a department to the payment of a claim does not operate as an adoption of the recommendation or a recognition of the amount therein named as due. Hart's case, 16 Ct. Cl. 459. U. S. v. Langston, 118 U. S. 394. Congress may recognize and pay a claim of an equitable, moral, or honorary nature, and whether the facts are such as to authorize relief is for Congress alone to determine, and where Congress directs a specific sum to be paid to a certain person, 1 See Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 12, as to limitation on appropriations for the Army, p. 233. Sec. 9.-Powers Denied to Congress Cl. 7.-Appropriations neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor any court has discretion to determine whether the person is entitled to receive it. U. S. v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 439. U. S. v. Price, 116 U. S. 43. Allen v. Smith, 173 U. S. 393. A pardon by the President can not restore the proceeds of confiscated property already paid into the United States Treasury, and restoration can only be made by action of Congress. Knote v. U. S., 95 U. S. 154. Austin v. U. S., 155 U. S. 427. Where a claim has been audited, allowed, and paid in the usual manner, the Government can not reclaim the money without showing that payment was induced by fraud or by a mistake of fact. U. S. v. Olmstead, 118 Fed. 433. To Pay the Debts of the United States Having power under section 8 of Article I to pay the debts of the United States, it follows that Congress has power when the money is raised to appropriate it to the same object. U. S. v. Realty Co., 163 U. S. 440. No officer, however high, not even the President, is empowered to pay the debts of the United States generally when presented to them. Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272. Proceeds of Confiscated Property A general pardon and amnesty granted by the President will not entitle one receiving their benefits to the proceeds of his property previously condemned and sold under a confiscation act after such proceeds have been paid into the Treasury, as money once in the Treasury can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law. Knote v. U. S., 95 U. S. 154. But see Rice v. U. S., 122 U. S. 611. In U. S. v. Johnston (124 U. S. 236) it was held that the money received from captured and abandoned property, under the construction given by the Treasury Department, is not subject to this provision where the proceeds were merely deposited with the Treasurer and not technically covered into the Treasury, the money involved in the Rice case being held a trust fund. Clause 8.-TITLES OF NOBILITY. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, Sec. 9.-Powers Denied to Congress Cl. 8. Titles of Nobility of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Congress and the States are equally prohibited from granting any title of nobility. Legal Tender Cases, 110 U. S. 421. This prohibition goes to the competency of Congress to grant any title of nobility, and limits its power in legislating for territory acquired by the United States, such as Porto Rico, as well as in legislating for the States. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244. The original draft of the Constitution contained only the prohibition against grants of titles of nobility. The insertion of the remainder of the clause was prompted by a recognition of the "necessity of preserving foreign ministers and other officers of the United States independent of external influence." A United States marshal can not during his tenure of office represent a foreign nation as its commercial agent. Documentary Hist. Const., Vol. III, pp. 450 and 600. 2 Section 10.-POWERS DENIED TO THE STATES. Clause 1.-CONTRACTS, TREATIES, ETC.1 No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. In General This section contains an enumeration of the powers that are denied to the States; that is, the powers that were voluntarily given up by the States when the Constitution was made and adopted. It has been said that: 3 The Constitution confers no express power upon the States collectively or individually. It confers power upon Congress and each branch thereof, upon the President, and the judiciary, but none upon the States. The reason is apparent. The States, before the adoption of the Constitution, were separate and independent governments. Each exercised the power of a distinct sovereignty, except as it was limited by the narrow provisions of the Articles of Confederation. When the Constitution was adopted, each State surrendered most of its power and conferred it upon the General Government, which was the United States. There was no occasion therefore to enlarge the powers of the States, but on the contrary they were lessened; hence, there is no power conferred upon them by the This clause is usually referred to as the "Contracts Clause." "This inhibition is repeated in clause 3 of this section, p. 369. Watson on the Constitution, p. 763. See also Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2, p. 380. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1-——21 Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States. Constitution. The nearest approach to it Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation Nature of State Governments Cl. 1.-Treaties is the duty required A State, in the sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens occupying definite territory and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and the union of such States, under the Constitution forms the United States. With respect to the General Government the States are not sovereign powers but members of the Union, whose Constitution is supreme, but as respects their local government they are sovereign within their own limits and foreign as to each other. The sovereignty of the States in their relations with one another, however, is qualified; they have surrendered their treaty-making powers to the General Government, and they can not declare war or authorize reprisals on other States. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 721. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 136. U. S. Bank v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 54. There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids the legislature of a State to exercise judicial functions. Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 380. The prohibitions raise an obligation on the States not to legislate on the subjects specified. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 349. Surrender of Treaty-Making Power By this clause and section 2 of Article II the States have surrendered the treaty-making power to the General Government and have vested it in the President and Senate. In re Parrott, 1 Fed. 481. No power under the Government can make "any treaty, alliance, or confederation" entered into by a State valid or dispense with the constitutional prohibition. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 724. The Confederate States of America By reason of this clause the confederation formed by Virginia and other States, called the Confederate States of America, could not be recognized as having any legal existence. Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 183. Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States. Cl. 1.-Treaties The States had no right to secede from the Union, and at no time were they out of the Union. Their attempt to separate themselves from the Union did not destroy their identity as States nor free them from the binding force of the United States Constitution; their rights under the Constitution were suspended, not destroyed; but their, constitutional duties and obligations remained the same. White v. Hart, 13 Wall, 651. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 725. Daniels v. Tearney, 102 U. S. 418. Taylor v. Thomas, 22 Wall. 490. For other cases concerning the Confederate States of America see Mauran v. Alliance Ins. Co., 6 Wall. 13. White v. Cannon, 6 Wall. 450. Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall. 200. Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 195. Sprott v. U. S., 20 Wall. 464. U. S. v. Koehler, 9 Wall. 86. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 10. Ford v. Surget, 97 U. S. 605. Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 253. Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 345. Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 465. While the Government of the United States is not bound to recognize as valid any action by a State engaged in rebellion, yet laws were upheld so far as they did not tend to impair the supremacy of the National Government or the constitutional rights of citizens, for example, statutes necessary for the protection of persons and property; laws for the regulation of business transactions; statutes regulating the creation of corporations; and statutes in aid of railroad corporations. Horn v. Lockhardt, 17 Wall, 580. U. S. v. Insurance Cos., 22 Wall. 103. Letters of Marque and Reprisal To grant letters of marque and reprisal would lead directly to war, the power of declaring which is expressly given to Congress. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 249. No State shall * * * emit bills of credit In General This clause of the Constitution first came before the Supreme Court in the case of Craig v. Missouri (4 Pet. 425), in which it was held that the State of Missouri could not issue the so-called |