1 Acceptance of a gift upon certain specified terms creates a contract, and an act of the legislature authorizing the use of the gift upon altered terms is unconstitutional. Cary Library v. Bliss, 151 Mass. 364. A judgment for a cause of action based on a contract is itself a contract, within the constitutional provision, and a law reducing the rate of interest on judgments is unconstitutional so far as it relates to judgments on such causes of action in existence at its passage. Butler v. Rockwell, (Col. Sup.) 29 Pac Rep. 458. See also Bean v. Lorvea, 81 Cal. 151. But a judgment founded on a tort is not a contract within the constitutional provision. Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405.

This must be true, in general; but it must also be subject to some important qualifications. For the exercise of the ordinary powers of government, which it could not have been intended to take away or control by this provision, may often have the effect of diminishing the value of things previously granted. Thus, if a State sold a piece of laud for two dollars an acre, and soon after sold similar and adjoining land, differing in no respect from the first, for one dollar an acre, and anuounced this as its price, the market value of the lands first sold would fall, perhaps, one half; yet no one could doubt that the State had a right to make this second sale. But it is easy to * proceed from this question, to which the answer is obvious, to others in which it is more difficult. And all we can say, on authority, upon the general question, what limits are imposed upon the operation of the clause under consideration, by the necessity of leaving unimpaired all the functions of government and the control by the public of all public interests, would seem to be this: we may say, that the clause is not intended to apply to public property, to the discharge of public duties, to the possession or exercise of public rights, nor to any changes or qualifications in any of these which the legislature of a State may at any time deem expedient (e) This rule seems to spring from an obvious tution viewed, with some apprehension, the violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of the moment; and that the people of the United States, in adopting that instrument, have manifested a determination to shield themselves and their property from the effects of those sudden and strong passions to which men are exposed. The restrictions on the legislative power of the States are obviously founded in this sentiment; and the Constitution of the United States contains what may be deemed a bill of rights for the people of each State." Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 656, per Washington, J.; Rehoboth v. Hunt, 1 Pick. 224; Lowry v. Francis, 2 Yerg. 534; Butler v. Chariton County Court, 13 Mo. 112. So, where the grant is to a corporation, the State cannot revoke it. Ter-rett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 657. See Den d. University of North Carolina v. Foy, 1

Murph. 58; McGee v Mathi*. 4 Wallace, 1, Michel! v. Burlington, id. 27; Von Hoffman, id. 535 In this last case it was held that a mandamus would lie to compel a municipal corporation to levy a tax, from which it had been relieved by a statute declared to be unconstitutional, because impairing the obligation of the corporation to pay certain interest for which the tax was levied. Fletcher v. Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. 39 Vt. 633.

(d) Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga, 190; Planters Bank v. Sharp. 6 How. 301, 327.

(e) Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 629. Marshall, C. J: "That the framers of the Constitution did not intend to restrain the States in the regulation of their civil institutions, adopted for internal government, and that the instrument they have given us is not to be so construed, may be admitted" Philips v. Bury, 2 T. R. 352; Knoup v. The Piqua Bank, 1 Ohio St. 603, 609; necessity; but it rests also upon an obvious and sufficient reason. This is, that in relation to public property there is no grant, -no contract whatever, executed or executory. By such an act, the public, by the legislature, which is its agent, gives something of its own to somebody else, who is also its agent Nothing then, in fact, is given; for nothing goes forth from the public. The whole transaction amounts to no more than a change made by the public, in the manner in which, or the agents by whom, it shall continue to hold and use a certain portion of its property or interests. The very essence of a contract- two parties, with mutual obligations - is wanting; and it is therefore no contract at all. Therefore all political powers conferred by the legislature on a municipal corporation may be revoked, (f)1 But, on the other hand, if private property or franchises are granted to a municipal corporation, this grant cannot be revoked, nor the property or rights conferred by it in any way divested, by the State, (g) Nevertheless, the State does not lose its right of making laws concerning * the things granted, so far as they remain publici juris, or so far as it sees fit to provide for the due exercise of the rights granted, or the proper use of the property granted, for the public benefit and safety. (A) So the salary and tenure of an office prescribed by law, do not constitute a contract which is protected by this clause in the Constitution; and they may, therefore, be modified or reduced unless this is prohibited by the constitution of the State, (i)l a company was authorized to build a bridge and take certain tolls, and their charter declared that it should not be lawful to erect another within two miles of that bridge, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that the charter was a contract, and therefore inviolable. But the chief justice and two side justices dissented, (ii)1

Toledo Bank v. Bond, 1 Ohio St. 657, per Bartley, C. J.

(f} The People v. Morris, 13 Wend. 325; Marietta v. Fearing, 4 Ohio, 427; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43; Bradford v Cary, 5 Greenl. 339, 342; Bush v. Ship-man, 4 Scam. 186; Trustees of Schools, v. Tatman, 13 111. 27; Mills v. Williams, 11 I red. 558; New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co. 142 U. S. 79.