Page:Hawkins v. Filkins 01.pdf/35

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
320
CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Hawkins vs. Filkins.
[DECEMBER

stand, in this respect, upon the same ground. The obligations imposed, and the rights acquired by virtue of the contract, cannot be impaired by legislative act." Smith's Com. p. 384. Nor are these restrictions upon the state to be evaded, or overridden by any claim of omnipotence by a convention; in this respect, like a state legislature, it is subordinate to the constitution of the United States.

This precise question recently came before the supreme court of the United States, in the case of Cummings vs. The State of Missouri. The state of Missouri had, by a constitutional provision, attempted to abridge the rights of a certain class of her citizens, among which were clergymen, whose right to preach the gospel of Christ was attempted to be fettered by an oath prescribed by the convention, penal and retrospective in its provisions. It was contended that the convention of the state of Missouri was of enlarged powers, in the exercise of which it might prescribe such terms upon the exercise of the rights and privileges of its own citizens, as it might deem best for the public good. Mr. Justice FIELD, who delivered the opinion of the court, in which it was held that the constitutional provision, which placed restrictions upon the rights of ministers and others, was in violation of the constitution of the United States, and, for that reason, inoperative and void, placed his opinion upon principles, which are, to some extent, applicable to this case. He says: "The theory upon which our political institutions rest, is, that all men have certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; all avocations of honor, all positions, are alike open to every one, and in the protection of these rights, all are equal before the law." And in addition to these, are, upon principle, those, also, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, which, by the express language of the declaration of rights in the constitution of Arkansas, are excepted out of the powers of the government, and are declared to be forever inviolate. Perhaps, in the whole history of man, no more sweeping attempt was ever made, to