e FEDERAL REPORTER. �Company in this state, building or proposing to build a rail- road into, through or near" the township voting the subscrip- tion. The act was adopted as a new and indepeudent meana of facilitating "the construction of railroads in the state of Missouri." Besides, the tax was to be, "to meet the paymenta on account of the subscription to the stock according to its terms, or to pay the interest and principal on any bond which may be issuedon account of such subscription." The plain meaning is that the tax shall be suffieient for these purposes. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the tax to be levied is not limited to one-twentieth of 1 per cent, but is a tax sufBcient to pay relator's judgment. �It remains to consider the second question. The act of 1868, under which the bonds were issued, provides for a levy of taxes, to pay the same, upon real estî^te only. This act entered into and became part of the contract, and the legis- lature could not, by subsequent repeal, deprive relator of his rights under it. The provision of the constitution, that no state shall pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts, is a limitation upon the taxing power of a state, as well as upon ail its legislation, whatever form it may assume, There- fore, a legislative act which assumes to repeal any tax law in force when relator's bond was issued, and under which he was entitled to enforce payment, is, as to him, unconstitutional and void. Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432. �This much is conceded. But, by an act of the general assembly of Missouri, approved March 10, 1871, (several years after the issue of the bonds in controversy,) it was provided that taxes to pay such bonds should be levied "on ail real estate and personal property, including ail statements of mer chants doing business," within the township. Aets of 1871, p. 55. �It is claimed that this latter act lias been repealed by being omitted from theilevised Statutes of Missouri recently enacted. It is not suggested by counsel for relator that this act is kept alive by any general saving clause of the Eevised Statutes,- and I assume that it is no longer in force ; and that being so^ the question is whether it was in its nature a contract between ����
