177 U.S.

66
20 S.Ct. 545
44 L.Ed. 673

HOUSTON & TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, et

al., Plffs. in Err.,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS.
No. 81.
Argued December 13, 14, 15, 1899.
Decided March 26, 1900.

This proceeding was commenced by the state of Texas against the

defendant, the Houston & Texas Central Railroad Company (hereafter
called the company), to recover the amount due on certain bonds issued to
the state, and to foreclose the lien which existed upon its property as
security for the payment of such bonds. The company is the legal
successor of the two companies which received the loans and gave their
bonds, and no question of liability arises on that ground. Judgment was
given in the trial court for the amount found due, and a lien was declared
and a sale of the property of the company ordered. From this judgment the
company appealed to the court of civil appeals for the state, where it was
modified, and then affirmed. The company brings the case here on writ of
error.
The petition of the state by which the proceeding was commenced showed
that the predecessors of the plaintiff in error borrowed money from the
school fund of the state, and gave their bonds therefor. These bonds were
not paid according to their tenor and effect, and the legislature therefore,
on August 13, 1870, passed a general act for the relief of railroad
companies indebted to the state, by which it was provided that if any
company should on the 1st day of November, 1870, pay six months'
interest on the aggregate amount of the loan which, on the 1st day of May,
1870, was due from it to the state, and 1 per centum of the principal, and
thereafter should make similar semiannual payments, the state would not
exact any other payments.
(What was the aggregate amount of the loans due on the 1st of May, 1870,

from the two companies of which the present company is the successor, is
the question in controversy, and its answer depends upon the validity of
certain payments made by the companies to the state in treasury warrants
during the war. Part of the discussion rests upon the meaning and effect of
this act, and it is therefore given in full in the margin.) Subsequently,
semiannual payments of interest and sinking fund were made by or on
account of the Washington County Railroad Company (one of the
predecessors of the plaintiff in error), up to and including the 1st of May,
1879, but no payment was made on November 1, 1879, or at any time
thereafter. Similar payments were made by or on account of the Houston
& Texas Central Railway Company (the other of such predecessors) up to
and including the 1st day of May, 1893, but a portion only of the
semiannual interest claimed to be due in November, 1893, was paid, and
nothing has been paid since November 1, 1893. Judgment was prayed for
the sums of money stated to be due, with interest, for the foreclosure of
the lien, and for a sale of the property under execution, the proceeds to be
applied to the payment of the sum due with interest, and for such other
relief as might be necessary.
To this petition the defendant filed an answer, and therein, among other
things, alleged that after the commencement of the civil war the various
railroad companies were unable to fulfil their obligations to the state, and
therefore the legislature of Texas, on the 11th day of January, 1862,
passed an act for their relief, extending the time of payment of interest and
sinking fund amounts until the 1st of January, 1864.
The state legislature, on December 16, 1863, passed the first act in
relation to receiving treasury warrants from railroad companies, which
reads as follows:
'Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas, that the
comptroller of the state be, and he is hereby, authorized to receive from
the railroad companies in this state who are indebted to the special school
fund, all interest on their bonds that may now be or hereafter become due,
provided the same is tendered in state bonds or in state treasury warrants,
previous to the meeting of the next regular session of the state legislature.
'Sec. 2. That for all sums so paid in the comptroller and treasurer shall
issue to the special school fund the bonds of the state bearing 6 per cent
interest.'
The legislature also passed another act on May 28, 1864, which reads as
follows:

'Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas, that the

provisions of the act of which it is amendatory shall not apply to railroad
companies that fail or refuse to receive state bonds or state treasury
warrants at par for freight or passage at the prices or rates established by
law.
'Sec. 2. That whenever satisfactory evidence is produced or furnished to
the comptroller of the state that any railroad company has failed or refused
to receive the state bonds or state treasury warrants at par for freight or
passage at the rates established by law, he is required to refuse to receive
the state bonds or treasury warrants for the interest due by said railroad
upon its bond.
'Sec. 3. That the president of any railroad in this state be, and is hereby,
required to post in a conspicuous place in the railroad offices and in the
passenger cars the provisions and terms of this act, under a penalty of
$100, to be recovered for the benefit of the state by suit before any court
of competent jurisdiction, upon information of any party.'
On November 16, 1864, still another act was passed by the legislature
which reads as follows:
'Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas, that the railroad
companies of this state that are indebted to the special school fund shall
continue to be allowed the privilege of paying the interest due said fund in
the treasury warrants and bonds and coupons of the state, and may also
discharge the whole or any part of the principal of their indebtedness to
that fund (in the same manner), provided such railroad companies shall
satisfy the comptroller that the treasury warrants and bonds and coupons
of the state are received by them at par with specie for freight and
passenger travel.
'That all treasury warrants and bonds and coupons of the state, so received
into the state treasury, shall be canceled; and the comptroller shall issue
the bonds of the state, bearing 6 per cent interest, to the special school
fund for the amount so paid in; and this act take effect from its passage.'
Upon the passage of these various acts and in reliance upon the agreement
and obligation of the state, as evidenced thereby, the two companies
acquired treasury warrants upon good consideration, and after the passage
of the act of May, 1864, they received treasury warrants at par in payment
of freight and passenger services rendered by them to the various people
who demanded the same, and they subsequently paid treasury warrants to
the comptroller of the state in payment of interest due on their

indebtedness (the amounts of such payments are set forth in the answer);
and upon such payment and receipt of the warrants by the comptroller and
treasurer they were canceled as authorized and required by the
abovementioned act; and thereupon the comptroller and treasurer issued
the bonds of the state bearing 6 per centum interest to the special school
fund for the amount so paid by the railroad companies in treasury
warrants. By reason of all which it was alleged that a valid and binding
contract between the state and the railroad companies was made, that the
payments in treasury warrants should be valid payments, at their par
value, upon the various loans made by the state to the companies; and it
was further alleged that the payments by treasury warrants had been
received by the authorities of the state and canceled, and a credit for the
amount thereof as payment given to the companies on the books of the
state, and that the transaction thereby became fully executed, and the state
could not thereafter dispute or question the validity of such payments or
the right of the company to the credits given it by the state.
It is also alleged that after the passage of the act of August 13, 1870, and
about the 1st of November, 1870, the comptroller of the state, with the
concurrence and approval of the governor, wrongfully and without
authority of law, recharged each of the railroad companies respectively
upon the books of the comptroller's office with the several amounts
theretofore paid by them respectively in treasury warrants, and there was
demanded from the respective companies on the 1st day of November,
1870, six months' interest and 1 per cent for the sinking fund on the
aggregate amount of the loan, as made up by the comptroller, after
striking out the payments made by the company with the treasury
warrants. These amounts were paid under protest, as being illegally
demanded and resulting in a violation of the contract existing between the
companies and the state. Payments on the same basis were continued
semiannually from that time, accompanied by a protest similar to the one
first mentioned, until, as the company contends, the full amount due by it
to the state had been paid, provided the payments in treasury warrants
were credited as valid payments. Since that time the company has refused
to make further payments. It claimed that the act of August 13, 1870, as
construed by the state authorities, impaired the obligation of the contract
existing between the state and itself, and thereupon it prayed for
judgment.
To this pleading the plaintiff filed its first supplemental petition, and
therein specially set up that the three several acts of the legislature of the
state, mentioned in the defendant's answer as the authority for the
payment upon the bonds of the company in treasury warrants, were

unconstitutional and void, because (1) the warrants in which paym

payments were authorized to be were issued for the purpose of being
circulated as money and were in violation of the state Constitution; (2)
also because they were bills of credit emitted by the state, and therefore in
violation of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States;
and (3) because the acts under which the warrants were authorized to be
paid, together with other acts passed at or about the same time, plainly
indicated that the treasury warrants and other obligations in which
payments were authorized to be made, and which were made by the
defendant, were issued in aid of the Rebellion against the United States of
America, and were therefore void.
Upon these pleadings a motion was made by the company to remove the
case to the United States circuit court, on the ground that by the filing of
the plaintiff's last abovementioned pleading it became apparent for the
first time, from plaintiff's statement of its own claim, that the case was
one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and
defendant was therefore entitled to a removal. The motion was denied, and
although further pleadings were thereafter served on each side they are not
material to the matters discussed in the opinion.
The case was tried without a jury, there being no dispute as to the facts.
The trial court held that the payments in treasury warrants were illegal
because they were issued to circulate as money, in violation of the
Constitution of the state. It also held that they were issued, or at least
some of them were issued, in direct aid of the Rebellion, and were
therefore void; that the burden rested with the defendant to show, if it
could, which, if any, of the warrants were valid. Judgment was given in
favor of the state.
The company then appealed to the court of civil appeals for the third
supreme judicial district of the state, where the judgment was modified so
as to render no personal judgment against the company, and to foreclose
the lien of the state only upon that part of the road which the findings
showed was in existence on August 13, 1870, and as thus modified it was
affirmed, solely on the ground that the warrants were issued in violation of
the state Constitution, as paper intended to circulate as money. A writ of
error was applied for to the supreme court of Texas, and by that court
refused. The company then brought the case here by writ of error to the
court of civil appeals. The defendant in error has made a motion to dismiss
the writ on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction, for reasons stated
in the opinion.

Messrs.R. S. Lovett, John G. Carlisle, J. P. Blair, Maxwell Evarts, and

Joseph H. Choate for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Charles A. Culberson, T. S. Smith, and M. M. Crane for defendant
in error.
Mr. Justice Peckham, after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the
opinion of the court:

The motion to dismiss the writ of error must be denied. The case involves a
Federal question under the contract clause of the Constitution.

The claim on the part of the defendant in error, the plaintiff below, is that the
state court decided the case under the provisions of the state Constitution only,
and without reference to the act of 1870, which the plaintiff in error (the
railroad company) alleges to be an impairment of the contract set up by it in the
pleadings. Although the state court held that the payments in dispute were made
by means of state treasury warrants issued to circulate as money, which were
therefore void as in violation of the Constitution of the state, and that the
delivery of the warrants by the company amounted to no payment whatever, the
question still remains whether by that decision any effect was given to the act
of 1870. We think the judgment of the state court did give effect to that act.

It will be seen that the 3d section provides that the state will not exact of any
railroad company not thereafter in default, the payment of the principal of the
debt, excepting as paid by the payments due the sinking fund under the
provisions of the act; it also provides in the 2d section that if a railroad
company failed to pay the amount required to be paid in section 1, at the times
designated thereby or within ten days thereafter, then the whole debt of such
company, principal and interest, should become due, and the governor was
directed to proceed as therein stated.

The first thing to be done in order to be able to carry out the provisions of the
act was to ascertain what the aggregate amount of the loan was, as that amount
stood on the 1st day of May, 1870, because it was upon that amount that
interest semiannually was to be paid, and also 1 per cent of principal to the
sinking fund. The authorities of the state determined what the aggregate amount
was as it stood on the 1st day of May, 1870, and they arrived at that amount by
refusing to recognize as valid any payment which the company had made in
treasury warrants, and in that way they made the aggregate amount larger by
those sums than that made by the company, which claimed to be credited with

the amount of its payments in those warrants. Upon the aggregate amount as
determined by the authorities of the state, payment of the interest and for the
sinking fund was demanded under the act. This demand was complied with by
the company under protest, and accompanied by a claim on its part that the
aggregate amount due on the loan was less than that stated by the authorities of
the state by just the amount of the payments which the company had made in
these treasury warrants. The protest was overruled and the claim denied, and
thereafter the same protest and the same claim were made and the same action
taken upon the part of the state authorities on each semiannual occasion when
payments were due and made. This lasted until the payments made by the
company in cash and in the treasury warrants, upon the basis of the legality of
the payments in such warrants, paid the indebtedness due from the company to
the state, and from that time it has refused to make further payments. The state
did not acknowledge that full payment had been made of that indebtedness, and
thereupon commenced the present proceeding to recover the amount it claimed
to be due, and to foreclose its lien against the company. This it could not do
under the statute of 1870 unless the company had defaulted in respect to the
payments required under that act.
5

It is admitted that the company had not so defaulted, provided the payments in
treasury warrants were duly credited to it; nor is it denied, on the other hand,
that if those payments were not valid payments and ought not to be credited to
the company, then it had defaulted in respect to the payments required by the
act before the commencement of these proceedings. When the state court,
therefore, decided that these warrants were issued in violation of the
Constitution of the state, and that payments in them were in fact and in law no
payments, and gave judgment accordingly, the effect of that decision was
necessarily to hold that the company had defaulted in respect to the payments
required under the act, and that the proceedings of the state to collect the sum
due were permitted by the act, and effect was thus given to such act, although
not one word was spoken in regard to it in the opinion delivered in the state
court.

If the railroad company had not failed to pay any amount required to be paid in
section 1 of the act, then the proceeding herein could not have been taken, by
reason of the provision contained in the 3d section, and it is only after a failure
to pay for ten days that the 2d section permits the proceedings to be taken to
collect the amount. In giving judgment for the plaintiff, therefore, the court has
in effect determined that the plaintiff was proceeding rightly under the act of
1870, and effect was thus given to its provisions.

The judgment of the court of civil appeals gives an additional effect to the act,

because by its judgment there is struck out the provision in the judgment of the
trial court in regard to the lien of the state, and it has limited that lien in
accordance with the 3d section of the act, so that it should not attach to any
extension of the railroad which had been constructed since its passage.
Although that modification may be a favor to the company, it nevertheless
gives effect to the act. The company has not accepted that act so that it cannot
draw in question its validity as construed by the state court, and hence no
reason is shown for the granting of the motion to dismiss on that ground. The
only acceptance consists in the payments made by the company to the state
after its passage. The very first payment made by the company, under the act,
namely, on the 1st day of November, 1870, was, however, made while
asserting the claim that payments in treasury warrants were valid and should be
acknowledged and credited to the company; and upon the refusal of the state
authorities to admit those payments the company paid the interest and
percentage on the larger sum demanded by the state, under protest that such
demand was illegal and improper, and every subsequent payment was made
under the same protest by the company. Payments so made show no such
acceptance of the act as to prevent the company from thereafter drawing in
question its validity as construed by the state authorities.
8

Thus we see that, although the decision of the state court was based upon the
ground that the warrants in which these payments were made had been issued in
utter violation of the state Constitution, and were hence void, and that no
payments made with such warrants had any validity, and although this ground
of invalidity was arrived at without any reference made to the act of 1870, yet
the necessary consequence of the judgment was that effect was thereby given to
that act, and in a manner which the company has always claimed to be illegal
and unwarranted by the act when properly construed. The company has never
accepted such a construction, but on the contrary has always opposed it, and
raises the question in this proceeding at the very outset. Upon these facts this
court has jurisdiction, and it is its duty to determine for itself the existence,
construction, and validity of the alleged contract, and also to determine
whether, as construed by this court, it has been impaired by any subsequent
state legislation to which effect has been given by the court below. Proprietors
of Bridge v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. 1 Wall. 116, 17 L. ed. 571;
Northwestern University v. People, 99 U. S. 309, 25 L. ed. 387; Fisk v.
Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U. S. 131, 29 L. ed. 587, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 329; New
Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Ref. Co. 125 U. S. 18, 31 L. ed.
607, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 741; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 109, 40
L. ed. 91, 93, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 216, 41 L.
ed. 132, 136, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1023; McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102, 43
L. ed. 382, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 134.

In this case we think we have shown that the judgment did give effect to
subsequent legislation, which, as construed by the state court, the company
claims has impaired the obligation of the contract between itself and the state.
The writ of error was therefore well brought.

10

The motion for the removal of this case to the United States circuit court was
properly denied. The statement of the cause of action as contained in plaintiff's
first petition did not show that the suit was one arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.

11

The suit, as it appears upon the face of the petition of plaintiff, was upon the
bonds given by the company for the loan of a portion of the school fund, and to
foreclose the lien of the state upon the property of the company, and in the
petition reference was made to the act of 1870 for the purpose of stating the
amount due on the bonds for principal and interest. Nothing upon the face of
this petition showed any fact upon which Federal jurisdiction could be based.
The company answered by alleging certain payments in treasury warrants,
which, if properly credited, would show that, with the other payments that had
been made, there was nothing due the plaintiff on the bonds. As an answer to
this defense the plaintiff set up the invalidity of the laws providing for
payments in treasury warrants; that the warrants were issued by the state in
violation of both the state and Federal Constitutions, and that the payments
were therefore illegal and void. This was no part of the plaintiff's cause of
action upon which suit was brought, and that cause of action did not in any way
involve a question arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
The defendant therefore made out no case for a removal to the United States
circuit court. Oregon Short Line & U. N. R. Co. v. Skottowe, 162 U. S. 490,
494, 40 L. ed. 1048, 1049, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 869; Tennessee v. Union & P.
Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 38 L. ed. 511, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 654; Galveston, H. & S. A.
R. Co. v. Texas, 170 U. S. 226, 235, 42 L. ed. 1017, 1020, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep.
603.

12

The result of the authorities is that the Federal character of the suit must appear
in the plaintiff's own statement of his claim, and that where a defense has been
interposed, the reply to which brings out matters of a Federal nature, those
matters thus brought out by the plaintiff do not form a part of his cause of
action, but are merely a reply to the defense set up by the defendant. The
review of the Federal question by this court is not thereby precluded, for, it
having been properly raised in the state court and decided against the
contention of the party setting it up, this court may review it on error to the
highest court of the state.

13

This brings us to the question, What, if any, contract existed between the state
and the company consequent upon the payments by the company to the
comptroller of the state in the treasury warrants heretofore mentioned? The
company contends that by the passage of the acts of December 16, 1863, May
28, 1864, and November 16, 1864, and by its compliance with such acts, and its
payment of treasury warrants to the comptroller, and their receipt by him, and
his cancelation thereof, there was an executed transaction, and an implied
contract thereupon arose that such payments should remain and be regarded as
valid and effectual, and that this implied contract was entitled to the protection
of the Constitution of the United States, and its obligation could not be
impaired by any subsequent act of the legislature of the state.

14

These acts have been already set forth. The company alleges that it fully
complied with all of them, and that, relying upon the offers thus made, it paid
to the State the warrants mentioned, which were received by the comptroller
and canceled, and bonds of the state for a like amount, bearing 6 per cent
interest, were issued by him to the school fund.

15

The provision in the state Constitution, which it is alleged was violated by the
issuing of these warrants, is contained in the 8th section of article 7 of the
Constitution of 1845, in which among other things, it was provided, '. . . and in
no case shall the legislature have the power to issue 'treasury warrants,'
'treasury notes,' or paper of any description intended to circulate as money.' The
same provision is found in the Constitution of Texas adopted in 1861.

16

It is contended on the part of the state that these warrants were issued in
violation of that section of the Constitution, inasmuch as they were treasury
warrants intended to circulate as money.

17

It is stated in the opinion delivered in the court of civil appeals, 'that the
warrants of the state issued during the period of the war after January 1, 1862,
were intended to be used and circulated as money. And in this connection it is
well to say that we are of the opinion, from all that is shown by the record,
together with various acts of the legislatures during that time, that the payments
made in warrants by the railway companies upon the obligations sued upon
were in warrants issued after the time we have declared they were intended to
circulate as money.' The question whether the legislature so intended is one to
be decided by an inspection of the act under which they were issued, and
possibly by reference to the text of other acts of the legislature enacted at or
about the same time. Whether an act provides for the issuing of warrants that
were intended to circulate as money is in reality a question of law arising upon

the construction of the legislative act; and a finding by the court that warrants
issued under and by virtue of certain acts of the legislature were issued with
such intention is in the nature of a legal conclusion, and not a finding of fact,
and therefore it can be reviewed by this court.
18

To prove that these warrants were so issued, reference is made to various acts
of the legislature (in addition to those above mentioned under which the
payments were made by the company), among which are the following:

19

The act approved February 14, 1860, provided that when an account was
presented for payment for which an appropriation had been made it was the
duty of the comptroller to audit it if legal, and to issue his warrant for the
amount, and if there were any money in the treasury to pay the demand the
comptroller was directed to issue his warrant upon the treasurer for the amount,
with 10 per cent per annum interest, and those warrants were to be signed by
the governor and indorsed by the treasurer. The act further provided that these
warrants should not circulate as money, but might be assigned.

20

It is said that the warrants issued under this act were few, and they are not
classed among the warrants in which any payments were made to the school
fund. It is, of course, not contended that these warrants were intended to
circulate as money, but the act was repealed in 1862, and the repealing act,
while containing other provisions, omitted the provision that the warrants to be
issued should not circulate as money, and that omission is regarded by counsel
as suggestive of the intention of the legislature that the warrants issued under
the act of 1862 should so circulate.

21

By the 2d section of that act it was provided that the comptroller on

presentation of any warrant bearing interest, as well as on presentation of any
other legal claim for which an appropriation had been made, should draw a
warrant on the treasury for the amount, and payment was to be made if there
were any money in the treasury; but if not, the comptroller was authorized to
issue one or more warrants for the amount that might be due and payable to the
party entitled to payment, or bearer, 'and said warrants shall be of such
proportions of the claim as may be expressly required by the holder; provided,
that not more than one tenth of the whole amount may be issued in warrants of
$1 each and the balance of $5 or more each, and said warrants shall be indorsed
by the treasurer, and every interest-bearing warrant that is superseded shall be
canceled by the comptroller.'

22

The 3d section of the act provided that when the warrants were presented at the

treasury and paid they should be canceled, and should not be reissued.

23

By the act of January 11, 1862, it was provided that treasury warrants not
bearing interest, in addition to the other provisions made for their reception in
payment for lands (including certificates therefor), should be receivable as
money in the payment of office fees, including fees for patents and land dues
payable in the general land office, taxes, and all other dues to be collected for
the state or in its name, with exceptions therein stated.

24

By another act passed on the same day, January 11, 1862 (General Laws,
Texas, 1862, page 38), the treasurer and every other officer of the state and of
counties, who had received as public money, among other things, the treasury
warrants of the state, were directed to disburse or transfer the same as money, at
par, if the person or persons entitled to have a disbursement or transfer would
receive such warrants as money; and officers who were authorized to receive
public money were authorized and directed to receive these warrants as money,
except when expressly prohibited by some other law. Treasury warrants of the
state received by the treasurer thereof were not to be reissued.

25

Also on December 16, 1863, another act was passed, section 2 of which reads
as follows:

26

'A tax of 1/2 of 1 per cent shall be levied and collected in kind on all specie,
treasury notes of the Confederate States of America, treasury warrants of the
state of Texas, and bank notes held or owned in this state, and all foreign bills
of exchange and certificates of deposit, and other evidences of money upon
deposit or secured beyond the limits of the state, owned by persons residing
therein, shall be known as specie, and thereon shall be levied a tax of 1/2 of 1
per cent in specie.'

27

The court below has construed these various acts, in connection 'with wellknown matters of history relating thereto,' and considering also the character of
legislation during the period of the war, as establishing the intention of the
legislature that the warrants should circulate as money. It is stated in the
opinion that the legislation, providing the purpose for which they could be used
and the small amounts for which they could be issued, and also the size, shape,
and color of the warrants, together with the history of the times and the wellknown depleted condition of the treasury during that period, and the scarcity of
existing, reliable, and available circulating medium, as money, all showed that
the purpose of the various acts of the legislature was to give to the warrants
issued during that time as much as possible a standing and character as money.

The court therefore held that the warrants were void, as issued in violation of
the Constitution of the state; the payment made in them was in law no payment;
that no contract arose between the state and the company by reason of the use
made of the warrants in surrendering them to the comptroller, and that therefore
no defense to plaintiff's cause of action was established.
28

These warrants were issued pursuant to appropriations made by the legislature

and in payment of debts existing at the time in favor of the individuals to whom
they were delivered. They were payable at once, and if there had been funds of
the state in the treasury they would have been immediately paid and canceled.
It was only because there was no money in the treasury that they were not paid.
The state therefore provided that they might be received in payment of taxes or
dues to the state, and that its officers might disburse them in payment of its
debts to any person who would consent to receive them, but that when
presented to the treasurer of the state and received by him they should be
canceled.

29

We have been referred to no act making provision for the size, shape, or color
of the paper to be used for the warrants, and such size, etc., cannot be regarded
as evidence of any weight as to the intent on the part of the legislature that they
should circulate as money; nor does the depleted condition of the treasury or
the scarcity of a circulating medium necessarily or properly induce to that
conclusion. That the size of the warrant, both as to amount and shape, might
somewhat facilitate a holder, upon occasion, to discharge a debt and in that way
use it as money, is not at all sufficient, or indeed any proper, evidence of an
unlawful intent on the part of the legislature. The act of December 16, 1863, is
not the slightest evidence on the subject. It simply provided for taxing specie,
treasury notes of the Confederate States, treasury warrants of the state, and
bank notes held or owned in the state. It also provided a tax upon foreign bills
of exchange and other evidences of money on deposit or secured beyond the
limits of the state and owned by persons residing therein, and provided that
they should be known as specie. The fact that treasury warrants were mixed up
in such an act for the purpose of taxation with specie, bills of exchange,
certificates of deposit, etc., has not the slightest tendency to prove the intent that
the warrants should circulate as money.

30

It does not seem to us that this legislation shows that the warrants were thus
issued within the meaning either of the state or the Federal Constitution. The
only provision looking towards a treatment of the warrants in any manner as
money is the direction to the state's own officers to receive them as payment for
taxes and dues to the state, and to pay them as money to such persons as would
receive then in payment of the indebtedness of the state to them.

31

The fact that a creditor of the state, willing to receive payment in these
warrants, might demand that they should be issued to him in small sums, and
not in one single warrant, does not bear with great force upon the intent of the
legislature that the warrants should thereafter circulate as money. It does not
show that those warrants were intended to so circulate between individuals for
the ordinary purposes of society and in the general transactions of business
between citizens. For the state to say that the warrants should be transferred or
disbursed by its own officers as money, if the person entitled to a transfer or
disbursement from the state would receive them as money, simply amounts to a
declaration that the warrants should be issued to all such persons as would
accept them in payment of the debts due them from the state. To encourage
such willingness the provision was made that these warrants should be
receivable as money; that is, as payment for certain debts due the state, as for
taxes, etc. This use of the words 'as money' has, in our judgment, no further
significance, and has no force for the purpose of showing the intention of the
legislature to have the warrants circulate generally as money and to form a
circulating medium of that kind of paper.

32

It must not only be that they are capable of sometimes being used instead of
money, but they must have a fitness for general circulation in the community as
a representative and substitute for money in the common transactions of
business. This is what is meant by the expression 'intended to circulate as
money.' These warrants were payable to the individual to whom the state was
indebted, or to bearer, and were issued to a creditor of the state. That the
legislature may have desired to facilitate the use of the warrants by these
provisions is perhaps true. But the members of the legislature knew that to
issue the warrants to circulate as money would be to condemn them from the
start. That the promise should be made to receive them in payment of debts due
the state would add to their usefulness and to the willingness of people to take
them in payment of debts due them from the state, and that while in their hands
others might receive them in payment of debts, was a possibility or probability
depending upon whether the person taking them had opportunity to use them to
pay some of his own debts to the state. That he might on some occasion be able
to so use the warrant as to enable him to thereby discharge an obligation from
himself to a third person who was willing to accept it does not bring the warrant
so used within the ordinary meaning of the term 'money.' It is not money in that
sense.

33

The provision in the state is substantially the same as that in the Federal
Constitution, in that the legislature is prohibited from issuing treasury warrants,
treasury notes, or paper of any description intended to circulate as money,
while in the Federal Constitution the prohibition is against a state's emitting

bills of credit; and the necessity exists in both that the paper shall be issued to
circulate as money, in order to be in violation of either instrument. It has been
held that the bills of credit prohibited by the Federal Constitution are those
which were intended to circulate as money, and hence the authorities as to the
meaning of that expression, when so used, are applicable here.
34

In Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410, 7 L. ed. 903, Chief Justice Marshall, in

referring to the meaning of the clause in the Constitution prohibiting a state
from emitting bills of credit, said (page 432, L. ed. p. 911):

35

'The word 'emit' is never employed in describing those contracts by which a

state binds itself to pay money at a future day for services actually received, or
for money borrowed for present use; nor are instruments executed for such
purposes, in common language, denominated 'bills of credit.' To 'emit bills of
credit' conveys to the mind the idea of issuing paper intended to circulate
through the community for its ordinary purposes, as money, which paper is
redeemable at a future day. This is the sense in which the terms have been
always understood.'

36

It is true the court in the Craig Case held that the certificates authorized by the
state of Missouri were void because they were in effect bills of credit. They
were issued on account of loans made from time to time to the state, and were
held to have been issued to circulate as money. The court then consisted of
seven members, and Mr. Justice Johnson, Mr. Justice Thompson, and Mr.
Justice McLean did not concur in the judgment. Mr. Justice Johnson thought
that the term did not extend to certificates that bore interest and the value of
which varied with each passing day; that they approximated to bills drawn upon
a fund, not to be withdrawn by any law of the state; that the promise was also to
receive in payment of debts and taxes due the state, and the certificates did not
depend for value upon the faith of the state only, and hence they were not bills
of credit.

37

Mr. Justice Thompson thought they were not bills of credit, for the reason,
among others, that the act did not profess to make them a circulating medium or
a substitute for money; it made them only receivable for taxes, etc., due the
state, and those were special and limited objects not sufficient to enable the
certificates to answer the purpose of a circulating medium to any considerable
extent.

38

Mr. Justice McLean thought that to constitute a bill of credit it must be issued
by a state, and its circulation as money enforced by statutory provisions. At

page 454, L. ed. p. 918, he said: 'Where a warrant is issued for the amount due
to a claimant, which is to be paid on presentation to the treasurer, can it be
denominated a bill of credit?' He thought not.
39

In the subsequent case of Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257, 9 L. ed.

709, the same question as to the meaning of the term 'bills of credit' arose, and
Mr. Justice McLean delivered the opinion of the court.

40

The question was whether bank notes issued by the Bank of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, declared by the state act of incorporation to be
exclusively the property of the commonwealth, were bills of credit. In the
course of the opinion the judge stated, page 312, L. ed. p. 731: 'The terms 'bills
of credit' in their mercantile sense comprehend a great variety of evidences of
debt, which circulate in a commercial country. . . . But the inhibition of the
Constitution applies to bills of credit in a more limited sense. It would be
difficult to classify the bills of credit which were issued in the early history of
this country. They were all designed to circulate as money, being issued under
the laws of the respective colonies.'

41

Reference is made in the course of the opinion to Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410,
7 L. ed. 903, and to the views of the two dissenting judges (besides himself) as
to the meaning of the expression, and he ends the discussion of that part of the
question by referring to what Chief Justice Marshall had said, and adding: 'The
definition, then, which does include all classes of bills of credit emitted by the
colonies or states, is a paper issued by the sovereign power containing a pledge
of its faith and designed to circulate as money.'

42

It was held that the bank notes in question did not fill that definition. In
Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190, 205, 13 L. ed. 383, the question was again
referred to by Mr. Justice McLean in delivering the opinion of the court, and he
said that the notes of the banks therein mentioned were not bills of credit, upon
the authority of the Briscoe Case. To the same effect is Darrington v. Branch
of The Bank of Alabama, 13 How. 12, 14 L. ed. 30, the opinion being also
delivered by Mr. Justice McLean. The state creating the bank in that case was
the only stockholder and its credit was pledged for the ultimate redemption of
the notes of the bank.

43

The court said it was impossible to hold that bills issued by the bank came
within the definition of bills of credit. Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257,
9 L. ed. 709, was again referred to, and the definition approved, that the paper
must be issued by a state, upon its faith, designed to circulate as money, and to

be received and used as such in the ordinary business of life.

44

In Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 283, 29 L. ed. 185, 190, 5 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 903, 962, the coupons in question were in the ordinary form, and one of
them was set out in the opinion of the court, and is as follows:

45

'Receivable at and after maturity for all taxes, debts, and demands due the
State.

46

'The Commonwealth, of Virginia will pay the bearer thirty dollars interest, due
1st January, 1884, on bond No. 2,731.

47

'Coupon No. 20.'

48

'Geo. Rye, Treasurer.'

49

It was contended that this coupon was a bill of credit in the sense of the
Constitution, because receivable in payment of debts due the state, and
negotiable by delivery merely, and intended to pass from hand to hand and to
circulate as money.

50

It was in consequence of unrestrained is sues of paper money by the colonial

and state governments, based alone upon credit, said the court, that this clause
in the Constitution prohibiting the emission of bills of credit by the states was
adopted, and the proper definition of the term was not founded on the abstract
meaning of the words so as to include everything in the nature of an obligation
to pay money, reposing on the public faith and subject to future redemption, but
was limited to those particular forms or evidences of debt that had been so
abused to the detriment of both private and public interests.

51

Speaking of these particular coupons the court said:

52

'They are issued by the state, it is true. They are promises to pay money. Their
payment and redemption are based on the credit of the state, but they were not
emitted by the state, in the sense in which a government emits its treasury
notes, or a bank its bank notesa circulating medium or paper currencyas a
substitute for money. And there is nothing on the face of the instruments nor in
their form or nature, nor in the terms of the law which authorized their issue,
nor in the circumstances of their creation or use, as shown by the record, on
which to found an inference that these coupons were designed to circulate, in

the common transactions of business, as money, nor that in fact they were so
used.'
53

The fact that the coupons were receivable in payment of taxes and other dues to
the state, and hence might circulate from hand to hand as money, was held to
fall far short of showing their fitness for general circulation in the community
as the representative and substitute for money in the common transaction of
business, which the court held was necessary to bring them within the
constitutional prohibition against bills of credit. This reasoning applies with
equal force to treasury warrants. Both classes of paper must be intended to
circulate as money, and the same conditions regarding such intention, and the
same evidence to prove it, would be necessary in each case.

54

In the light of these authorities, it seems to us that it cannot be properly said that
the treasury warrants violated the Constitution, either of the state or of the
United States, because there is no evidence that they were intended to circulate
as money within the meaning of that term as already given. The record does not
show that the legislature intended that these warrants should or that they could
be so used as to circulate among the people as money, to be used by them as a
paper currency or a circulating medium in their dealings with each other. Small
denominations of the warrants would certainly facilitate their retirement
through their use for payment of taxes and other debts due the state, and would
increase their convenience for paying freight or passenger fare to the
companies, which would then have an opportunity to present them to the state
in payment of interest; and as the laws did not provide for their circulation as
money, but only to be received or paid by the officers of the state between the
state and its debtors and creditors and to the railroad companies, as stated, it
cannot be supposed from such evidence that it was the intention of the
legislature that these warrants should be circulated as money, and should thus
violate the provisions of the Constitution.

55

A warrant drawn by the state authorities in payment of an appropriation made

by the legislature, where the warrant is payable upon presentation if there be
funds in the treasury, and which has been issued to an individual in payment of
the debt of the state to him, cannot, as it seems to us, be properly called a bill of
credit or a treasury warrant intended to circulate as money. Although the state
directed its officers to receive the warrants as money, in payment of certain
dues to the state, and to deliver them to those who would receive them as
money in payment of dues from the state to such persons, yet, as we have
already remarked, this direction was only another mode of expressing the idea
that, as between the state and the individual, the delivery of the warrant should
operate as a payment of the debt for which the delivery was made. When the

warrants once came back to the treasurer of the state they were not to be
reissued. The decisions of this court have shown great reluctance under this
provision as to bills of credit, to interfere with or reduce the very important and
necessary power of the states to pay their debts by delivering to their creditors
their written promises to pay them on demand, and in the meantime to receive
the paper as payment of debts due the state for taxes and other like matters.
56

If any fair doubt could arise, it should be solved in favor of the validity of the
paper. There must be an intention on the part of the legislature that the paper
should circulate as money. There must, in other words, be an intention to
violate the Constitution.

57

A deliberate intention on the part of a legislative body to violate the organic

law of the state under which it exists and to which the members have sworn
obedience is not to be lightly indulged. The existence of such intention should
be proved beyond doubt or cavil, from the very acts themselves which are under
discussion, and, if it be reasonably possible to so construe them as to render
them valid, a proper respect for the legislative department calls for such
construction, rather than one which invalidates them because they were enacted
with a direct purpose to violate the state Constitution.

58

But if for the purpose of this argument it should be assumed that the warrants,
although issued to those who were the creditors of the state and in payment of
the debts due from the state to those creditors, were nevertheless issued to
circulate as money, and therefore in violation of the Constitution, it cannot be
properly held, in our opinion, that the receipt of such warrants, pursuant to
legislative authority and in payment of an indebtedness due the state from the
individual paying them, is an illegal transaction and amounts in law to no
payment whatever.

59

The state was debtor to the individuals to whom the warrants were first issued
in payment of that indebtedness, and all that can be said that it violated the law,
by giving this particular form to the instrument by which it assumed to pay its
debt. Surely if for that reason the delivery of the warrants constituted no
payment, the state would have the right to make such payment in some other
way. If, by reason of the violation of the Constitution, its direction to the
treasurer to pay the warrant was void, and no action could be maintained upon
the warrant by reason of its invalidity (aside from the fact that the state would
not be suable), there is certainly nothing to prevent the state from recognizing
the debt it actually owed and which it assumed to pay by issuing these
warrants. That recognition may be contained in the very law which authorizes
their issue, or in some other law. When, therefore, it passed the statutes

providing that the warrants should be received in payment of taxes and other
dues to it, and also by the comptroller in payment of the interest and sinking
fund due from the railroad companies to the state, and when by virtue of such
authority the state officers actually did receive the warrants for such payments,
we see no illegality in the payments, and it seems to us that credit therefor
should be given accordingly.
60

Suppose that the state, intending to issue these warrants to circulate as money,
had paid them through its officers to its creditors, and had then become
convinced that the warrants were a violation of the Constitution of the state and
ought not to have been issued. Could not the state say to the creditors to whom
these warrants had been paid, if you will give them back we will pay you in a
form that is not a violation of the Constitution? Would anybody suspect that
surrendering these warrants to the state and receiving other warrants in their
stead, in a form which did not violate the Constitution, would be an illegal act
on the part of the state? The original warrants having been issued to various
creditors of the state, and they very likely having transferred them to others,
wherein would consist the illegality if the state offered to and did receive those
warrants from such others, and paid their amount in valid obligations? Instead
of paying their amounts in valid obligations, where is the invalidity if the state
offers to receive them and to cancel obligations which the party owes to it, to an
amount equal to their face value? All this is but another way of paying the
indebtedness which the state originally owed to the individuals to whom it
issued these warrants, and when it cancels obligations due to it of an amount
which equals the face value of the warrants, and receives the warrants in return,
the legal effect is the same as if the warrants had never been transferred by the
persons to whom they were originally issued, and they had brought them back
to the state, and the state had given in exchange for them some valid evidence
of indebtedness.

61

It seems to us that the same principle is involved as was enforced in Hitchcock

v. Galveston, 96 U. S. 341, 350, 24 L. ed. 659, 661, where a city had contracted
with the plaintiffs for the improvement of its sidewalks, and agreed to pay for
the same in bonds which it was beyond the power of the city to issue. It was
held that the invalidity of that promise was no reason why the city should not
pay for the benefits which it had received from the performance of the contract.
The court said: 'If payments cannot be made in bonds because their issue is
ultra vires, it would be sanctioning rank injustice to hold that payments need
not be made at all.'

62

Suppose in that case the bonds had been issued by the city in violation of its
charter. Could not the city thereafter, upon discovering its inability to make

such a contract, receive the bonds back and make payment in some other way?
Or could it not have received the bonds as a payment to that extent of an
indebtedness due from their holder to the city?
63

Unless such transactions be legal, then it follows that the state could obtain the
property or labor of the individual, and pay therefor in an obligation which it
had no right to issue, and which it could on that account subsequently
repudiate, and then deny all liability to pay at all. The character of the
transaction is not altered by the transfer of these warrants from the original
holder to other parties, and the state has full power to recognize in favor of the
bearer of the warrants, the validity of the debt which they originally
represented, and to pay the same by allowing a credit to their bearers up to the
value of the warrants. We see nothing in morals or in law which should prevent
the state from recognizing and liquidating the indebtedness which was due from
it and which was represented by the warrants.

64

The other theory would prevent the state from ever redeeming warrants in form
invalid but which had been issued in payment of debts due from the state to
persons receiving them.

65

If payments such as were made in this case were not valid, but absolute
nullities, then nay person who used the warrants to pay his taxes with, although
they were received by the collector and an acquittance given, was nevertheless
liable to pay those taxes again. Such consequences ought not to follow from the
fact that the form of the warrant in which the payment was made rendered the
warrant itself illegal as issued in violation of the Constitution.

66

Their receipt by the state officers from the railroad company as directed by the
legislature is also justified, as appears by the case of Little Rock v. Merchants'
Nat. Bank, 98 U. S. 308, 25 L. ed. 108. This court held that even if the bonds
mentioned therein were issued in violation of law, yet when the city accepted
their surrender and redeemed them by giving other bonds in lieu of a portion
and a credit on the books of the city for another portion of them so surrendered,
such transaction was valid, and the holder of the bonds so given in lieu of the
illegal ones could recover on them and also upon the credit given on the books
of the city. We preceive no reason why the state could not, if it chose, receive
these warrants in discharge of the debt pro tanto due it from the company.

67

The next question is whether the payments made are void because the warrants
were issued as alleged, in aid of the Rebellion.

68

If by reason of any fact existing at the time these transactions occurred, and
which appears in this record, the payments in question were not valid, and no
valid contract grew out of the same, then the judgment should be affirmed,
notwithstanding we differ with the court below in regard to the effect of the
payment, on the ground taken by that court. Until we are able to say there was a
valid contract subsisting by reason of these transactions, by which payments
were received as payment pro tanto of interest and sinking fund, we cannot be
called upon to discuss the question whether any legislation subsequent to the
making of the alleged contract has impaired its obligation. We must therefore
pursue the inquiry in order to determine the existence and validity of the
contract.

69

It is alleged that at least some of these warrants were issued in aid of the
Rebellion, and were therefore void, and no attempted payments made in them
could be recognized as legal or binding. Various acts of the legislature have
been referred to which provided for the issuing of bonds in return for loans to
the state for military purposes. The findings of the trial court upon the subject
were as follows:

70

'I find that it has not been proved whether the warrants actually used in making
the payments were warrants issued for indebtedness incurred prior to the civil
war, or warrants issued for the state indebtedness incurred after the war began,
or, if of the latter class, whether they were warrants issued for military
purposes or for civil indebtedness; but from the circumstantial evidence I
conclude that neither the railroad company nor the state discriminated as to the
class of warrants the railroads received for carrying services or paid on their
indebtedness, and that some of all kinds were used in making the payments.

71

*****

72

'In reaching the foregoing conclusions of fact I have excluded from my

consideration the statements made in official reports and governors' messages to
the legislature, having concluded that defendant's objections that the statements
contained in these papers were not admissible as evidence proving or tending to
prove the facts therein stated were good. I have also eliminated from
consideration certain other evidence, as shown by explanations attached to
defendant's bills of exception.'

73

Taking these findings, it seems that some of the warrants had been originally
issued for military purposes, while others had been issued for civil
indebtedness. It is also to be inferred from the record that the warrants were in

the hands of various people, residents in the state, from whom they had been
purchased by the company for a fair and adequate consideration, or had been
received by it at par in payment of freight or passenger services over its lines of
road. Assuming that the warrants were invalid as having been issued in
payment for services rendered, or stores received for use in aid of the Rebellion,
yet this contract between the state and the company had no connection with the
purpose for which they were issued, nor was the consideration of the contract
hased in the remotest degree with reference to that purpose. The warrants were
issued to other persons having not the slightest relation to the company, and in
payment of an indebtedness for purposes to which the company was an entire
stranger. The purpose of the company was undoubtedly pursuant to the offers
of the state made in the acts mentioned, to use the warrants in payment of what
might be due for principal or interest on the bonds of the company held by the
state. There is no proof that the company received the warrants for any other
purpose. No inference could properly, as we think, be drawn from the evidence
that there was any intent, design, or wish on its part to aid the Rebellion by the
acquisition of these warrants, and, so far as can be seen, it was a transaction in
the way of the business of the company, entered into for the simple purpose of
paying an indebtedness which it owed the state, and which, by these acts, the
state permitted to be paid in this way. Even though portions of the warrants had
been procured at less than par, of which fact there is no affirmative evidence,
still the transaction on the part of the company did not thereby become one in
aid of the Rebellion, and upon this point we do not see that the prices which
may have been paid for the warrants were material in the inquiry. The contract
between the state and the company did not in any way aid the former in issuing
them, nor did it aid the purpose for which the state may have desired to issue
them.
74

Where the validity of a contract is attacked on the ground of its illegal purpose,
that purpose must clearly appear; and it will not be inferred simply because the
performance of the contract might possibly result in a remote, incidental, and
unintentional aid to an illegal transaction.

75

It is somewhat difficult to see how the offer to receive these warrants, and their
reception pursuant to the offer, can be said to be illegal as based upon a
consideration which looked to aiding the Rebellion by its performance.

76

It has been held that a contract between parties resident within the lines of
insurrectionary states, stipulating for payment in Confederate notes issued in
furtherance of a scheme to overturn the authority of the United States within
the territory dominated by the Confederate States, was not to be regarded for
that reason only as invalid. Contracts thus made, not designed to aid an

insurrectionary government, it was held, could not therefore, without manifest

injustice to the parties, be treated as invalid. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 19
L. ed. 361; Delmas v. Merchants' Ins. Co. 14 Wall. 661, 20 L. ed. 757.
77

The receipt of these warrants, like the contract to receive payment in

Confederate notes, was not for that reason only unlawful, although the state
was the party that received them. The company was not an agent of the state in
putting them in circulation, nor is there any proof that in fact it circulated any of
them. The company did not take them for the purpose of giving currency to
them, but in order to consummate a transaction which, when consummated, was
simply a business one on the part of the company, and if by any possibility it
could 'indirectly or remotely promote the ends of the de facto government
organized to effect a dissolution of the Union, it was without blame, except
when proved to have been entered into with actual intent to further invasion or
insurrection.' Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 12, 19 L. ed. 361, 364; Baldy v.
Hunter, 171 U. S. 388, 394, 43 L. ed. 208, 210, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 890.

78

A specimen of the contract condemned under the rule is to be found in Sprott v.

United States, 20 Wall. 459, 22 L. ed. 371, where the plaintiff sought to recover
from the defendant the value of certain cotton which he had purchased from
and paid the price in money to the Confederate government, and which the
Union forces took from its possession in the last days of the existence of that
government. The court held that in the transaction the plaintiff gave aid and
assistance to the Rebellion in the most efficient manner he possibly could; that
he could not have aided that cause more acceptably if he had entered its service
and become a blockade runner, or under the guise of a privateer had preyed
upon the unoffending commerce of his country. The plaintiff asked the court to
in effect carry out his void contract with the Confederate government. That is
very different from holding that these warrants were so far void that they could
not form the basis of payment of debts by their holders, who had not received
them from the state, but had taken them in the course of business from other
parties, and who then offered them in payment of their debts due the state.

79

This whole subject has recently been gone over in Baldy v. Hunter, 171 U. S.
388, 43 L. ed. 208, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 890, where many other cases are
commented upon, and the principle of that and the other decisions of this court
therein referred to would seem to hold this contract not unlawful.

80

But suppose these warrants were issued in aid of the Rebellion and were
therefore void, and that the subsequent offer of the state to receive them in
payment of the debt of the company, under the provisions of the legislative acts
already referred to, was, while unexecuted, also void on that ground, still, their

actual receipt and the acquittance given were not, for that reason, void as
between these parties.
81

A contract in aid of the Rebellion has been held illegal because it belonged to
that class of contracts which are mala in se, whose consideration is immoral
and founded upon a criminal purpose. If a state were a party to such a contract it
would not be void on the technical ground that it was ultra vires as beyond the
contract-making power of the state, but because of the illegal nature of its
consideration. The contract would be void for the same reason that it would be
void as between individuals, not because they had no capacity to make it, but
because, being founded upon an illegal consideration, no court would recognize
its validity or enforce its provisions. A state as a sovereignty has power
generally to make contracts, unless there be some constitutional inhibition as to
certain classes of contracts, and if the consideration of a particular contract is
bad or immoral, the contract is illegal because of the character of its
consideration, and not because the contract would be beyond the general scope
and power of the state. Hence, as between the parties to it, the state might, if it
chose, perform all its requirements, and if the acts of its officers were
performed in obedience to legislative authority, their performance in executing
the contract would be the act of the state. If, on the other hand, the Constitution
of the state had prohibited its officers from ever receiving anything but gold in
payment of this debt of the company, a delivery of something else in assumed
payment of the debt, though received as such by its officers under the authority
of the legislature, would be no payment. That would be a case where the
payment would be absolutely void because beyond the capacity of the state to
authorize and equally beyond its capacity to ratify. It would be ultra vires in the
strict sense of the term. In such event, it would be true that the act of the officer
would be his individual act, and in no sense would he represent or bind the state
by his action. Such an attempted payment might therefore be regarded by any
subsequent officer of the state as wholly void and ineffectual for any purpose.

82

The distinction between the two cases is obvious. In the one the contract is void
because of the illegality of the consideration, not because of the legal
incapacity of either party to make the contract, while in the other there is an
entire lack of power to make it under any circumstances. When, therefore, the
officers of the state pursuant to its statutes received the warrants as payment,
they acted for the state in carrying out an offer upon its part which the state had
the legal capacity to make and to carry out, and which it in this manner did
carry out. The state in such case had the same power to carry out its contract (so
far as the parties to it are concerned) as individuals would have had to carry out
the same kind of a contract, and when the warrants were received by the
officers acting for the state in payment of the interest, and the bonds of the state

were issued to the school fund, and acquittance given to the company, the
transaction was finished and completed, in the case of the state, just as it would
have been in like circumstances in the case of the individual, and by such action
(as between the parties) the state is bound; the acts of its officers are its own
acts, and it must be judged in the same way as an individual would be judged.
In other words, the contract having been fully executed by the company and the
state, neither party having chosen to refuse to perform its terms, neither party as
between themselves can thereafter act as if the contract had not been performed,
nor can the state pass any act which shall impair the obligation which springs
from its performance. After the complete execution of the transaction it must be
that each party thereupon and at once became possessed of certain legal rights
arising from its performance. Neither party could undo what had been fully
executed and completed, and the law therefore implies a contract that neither
party will attempt to do so, or, in other words, the law implies a contract that
the payments made shall not be thereafter repudiated or denied. Any subsequent
statute of the state which repudiated or permitted the repudiation of the
payments would impair the obligation of the contract which the law raises from
the transaction itself.
83

That a contract will be implied under such circumstances is stated in Planters'

Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 500, 21 L. ed. 473, 480. There the court
said: 'Some of the authorities show that, though an illegal contract will not be
executed, yet when it has been executed by the parties themselves, and the
illegal object of it has been accomplished the money or thing which was the
price of it may be a legal consideration between the parties for a promise,
express or implied, and the court will not unravel the transaction to discover its
origin.'

84

So in this case. The illegal object was fully executed and accomplished, and
upon its accomplishment and by reason of the whole transaction there arose an
implied contract that the settlement should be conclusive upon all parties to it.
This principle calls for no aid from the court in the enforcement of a void
contract. The parties have already fully complied with all its terms, and by
reason thereof the implied contract has arisen.

85

The state cannot now be permitted to repudiate or set aside the acts of its
former officers, done in pursuance of the direction of the legislature of the
state, and effectually and forever closed long before the present proceeding was
commenced. As between the parties to those transactions this cannot be done.

86

The action of the present officers of the state in bringing this proceeding has
been undoubtedly prompted by the best motives and from a desire to promote

the true interests of their state, but we nevertheless are unable to see how the
proceeding can be successful without overturning those principles of law which
must guide and control our judgment.
87

We are then brought to the question whether the subsequent legislation of the
state has in any manner impaired the obligation of the contracts made by the
state at the times when these various payments were made.

88

We have shown, in the treatment of the motion to dismiss, how the judgment of
the court below gave effect to the subsequent act of 1870. In giving such effect,
was the obligation of the contract between the parties impaired thereby?

89

If the state had passed no act the question of contract could not have been
raised in this court, the payments might have been repudiated, and the court
have held them illegal, and we would have no jurisdiction to review its
judgment. But the state has passed a statute, and said that if the company would
pay interest and a certain proportion semiannually upon the aggregate amount
of the loan as it stood May 1, 1870, no further exaction would be made. The
court has construed this to mean that if the company will pay such proportion
semiannually on the amount of the loan, to be ascertained by striking out the
payments in warrants, then no default will be incurred, but if not, then it will
have made default, and the act of 1870 provides in such case for proceedings to
collect the amount due. We say the court below has so construed the act, and
we say so notwithstanding it has not mentioned it in any such connection. It has
said so, however, by implication necessarily arising from the judgment it has
given, when taken in connection with the provision of the act which permits
proceedings only to be taken on a default, which does not exist in this case if
the company be credited with these warrants as payments. By permitting the
proceedings the court has necessarily construed the act as meaning that there is
a default when payments are not made on the basis of the invalidity of the
payments in warrants. The obligation of the contract which we hold existed
between the state and the company, growing out of the transactions mentioned,
has therefore, by this construction of the act by the state court, been materially
impaired.

90

It is alleged on the part of the state that the acceptance of the treasury warrants
in payment of money loaned from the school fund was a violation of the
Constitution of the state of Texas, as being an illegal diversion of that fund.
Upon that point we agree with the court below, which held that there was no
such diversion for the reasons given by that court.

91

We have examined the various objections of the defendant in error which it has

91

We have examined the various objections of the defendant in error which it has
made because of the alleged failure of the plaintiffs in error to properly bring
the Federal question before the court, but we think they are not well taken.

92

We are of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals should be
reversed, and the case remanded to that court, with directions to remand the
case to the District Court, with directions to reverse its judgment, and for
further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court, and it is so
ordered.
Mr. Justice Brown concurring:

93

I concur in the conclusion of the court, but from so much of the opinion as
holds that the treasury warrants in question were not bills of credit within the
meaning of the Constitution of the United States I am constrained to dissent.

94

It is admitted that these warrants fulfil all the conditions of bills of credit,
except, as it is said, they were not intended to circulate as money. I am unable
to concur in this view of the intent of the legislature. By the act of February 14,
1860, authorizing interest-bearing warrants on the treasury, it was expressly
provided that these warrants should not circulate as money, but might be
assigned. This act was repealed, however, in 1862, by another act providing
that warrants should be drawn for legal claims against the state, and payment
made if there were money in the treasury; but if not, the comptroller was
authorized to issue warrants payable to the party entitled to payment, or bearer,
which warrants should be of such proportions of the claim as were required by
the holder, one tenth of the whole amount of which might be issued in warrants
of $1 each, and the residue in warrants of $5 or more each. There was an
omission in this act, which appears to me extremely significant, of the proviso
of the former act that such warrants should not circulate as money. By another
act, approved the following day, it was provided that treasury warrants of the
state, not bearing interest, should be receivable 'as money' in the payment of
taxes, office fees (including fees for patents), and land dues payable in the
general land office of Texas, and all other dues to be collected for the state,
with certain specified exceptions. By another act of December 16, 1863, the
comptroller was authorized to receive from the railroad companies indebted to
the special school fund all interest on their bonds that might be or might
thereafter become due in state treasury warrants. This act was amended May
28, 1864, by providing that the act of 1863 should not apply to railroad
companies which refused to receive these bonds or treasury warrants at par for
freight or passage, at the prices or rates established by law.

95

The railway companies were thus compelled to receive these warrants as

money from their patrons, in order to be able to avail themselves of them in
payment of interest upon their bonds. In addition to this the warrants were in the
form of bank notes, printed upon peculiar paper, such as is ordinarily used by
banks for their circulating notes, and contained a brief and unconditional
promise of the state to pay the amount to a party named, or bearer, and were
declared on their face to be receivable for public dues.

96

If these facts be not decisive of an intention that these warrants should circulate
as money, it is difficult to say what additional facts were needed to manifest
that intent. Indeed, the opinion of the court seems to me to practically eliminate
from the Constitution the provision that the states shall not emit bills of credit,
as well as to overrule the opinion of this court in Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410,
7 L. ed. 903. In that case the legislature of the state of Missouri authorized the
officers of the state treasury to issue certificates, of denominations not
exceeding $10 nor less than 50 cents, in the following form: 'This certificate
shall be receivable at the treasury of any of the loan offices in the state of
Missouri, in discharge of taxes or debts due to the state, for the sum of _____
dollars, with interest for the same, at the rate of 2 per cent per annum from this
date.' These certificates were receivable at the treasury in payment of taxes or
moneys due to the state or to any municipality, and by all officers, civil and
military, in the discharge of salaries and fees of office. If simple certificates of
the state, containing no promise to pay, are bills of credit, much more, it seems
to me, should these obligations of the state of Texas issued in denominations of
$1 and upwards, in the size, shape, and color of bank notes, and receivable in
discharge of all taxes and debts due the state, to which a forced circulation was
given as between railways and their patrons, be held to be obnoxious to the
same provision of the Constitution. As was said by Chief Justice Marshall in
that case: 'The denominations of the bills, from $10 to 50 cents, fitted them for
the purpose of ordinary circulation; and their reception in payment of taxes and
debts to the government and to corporations, and of salaries and fees would
give them currency. They were to be put into circulation; that is, emitted by the
government. In addition to all these evidences of an intention to make these
certificates the ordinary circulating medium of the country, the law speaks of
them in this character, and directs the auditor and treasurer to withdraw
annually one tenth of them from circulation. Had they been termed 'bills of
credit,' instead of 'certificates,' nothing would have been wanting to bring them
within the prohibitory words of the Constitution.'

97

But I fully concur with the court upon the second point, that the state, having
issued these warrants for a valuable consideration, having put them in
circulation, having expressly authorized the railroad companies to pay them in

discharge of their interest upon their bonds, and having received them without
objection at the time, it is too late now to claim that they did not operate as
payment. Though the warrants may have been issued without authority, it was
competent for the state to recognize them, and to refuse now to admit them as
payment upon these bonds appears to me a plain violation of the public faith.
Upon the theory of the court of civil appeals, I see nothing to prevent the state,
unless there be a statute of limitations operative against it, from bringing suit
against everybody who paid these warrants to the state for taxes or for dues,
and recovering the amount a second time.

An Act for the Relief of Railroad Companies Indebted to the State for Loans
from the Special School Fund.
Whereas, the political disturbances since the year 1860, by unsettling the
business of the country, have largely contributed to prevent compliance on the
part of railroad companies indebted to the state for loans from the special
school fund, with their engagements respecting the payment of the principal
and interest of said loans; and,
Whereas, it is desired to relieve said companies from the liability of their
railroads to saleconsequent upon their noncompliance as aforesaid: Therefore,
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas, that any railroad
company indebted to the state for loans from the special school fund may avoid
the sale of its railroad for the nonpayment of principal or interest by the
payment into the treasury of the state, on the 1st day of November, A. D. 1870,
of six months' interest on the aggregate amount due on acount of said loans,
principal and interest, as said aggregate amount stood on the 1st day of May, A.
D. 1870, and by the payment, in addition, on said 1st day of November of 1 per
cent upon said aggregate amount, to be applied toward the sinking fund
provided for by existing laws in respect to said loans, and by continuing to pay
into the treasury of the state six months' interest, and 1 per cent on account of
said sinking fund semiannually thereafter, to wit, on the 1st day of May and
November in each year.
Sec. 2. That if any railroad company shall fail to pay any amount required to be
paid in section one of this act at the time designated thereby, or within ten days
thereafter, then the whole debt of such company, principal and interest, shall
become due, and the governor shall proceed without delay to cause the railroad
of said company and its franchises and property, so
far as the lien or mortgage of the state covers the same, to be sold, the sale to be

in all respects (when not in conflict with this act) conducted according to the
provisions of the statute of August 13, A. D. 1856: Provided, however, That in
case the governor should (for the protection of the school fund) deem it
necessary, he may buy in any road to be sold under this act, in the name of the
state: Provided, further, That if the whole principal and interest which may
become due as aforesaid, and all costs attending the advertisements and
proposed sale, shall be paid before the day of sale, then the proceedings for sale
shall be stopped.
Sec. 3. That the state of Texas will not exact of any railroad company not
hereafter in default in respect to any of the payments required in this act the
payment of the principal of the debt of said company, excepting said payments
on account of the sinking fund as aforesaid, but that any company may pay the
same in full at any time on thirty days' notice to the governor, and that said lien
or mortgage of the state shall not attach to any extension of its existing road
hereafter constructed by any of said companies.
Sec. 4. That this act shall take effect from and after its passage.
Approved, August 13, 1870.