He here asserts that "the supreme power in a State"--that is, the legislature of a State--has "the _right_" to "_deem_ it _mischievous_" to allow men to exercise their natural right to make their own contracts! Contracts that have a natural obligation! And that, if a State legislature thinks it "mischievous" to allow men to make contracts that are naturally obligatory, "_its right to prohibit them is unquestionable_." Is not this equivalent to saying that governments have all power, and the people no rights? On the same principle, and under the same definition of law, the lawmakers of a State may, of course, hold it "mischievous" to allow men to exercise any of their other natural rights, as well as their right to make their own contracts; and may therefore prohibit the exercise of any, or all, of them. And this is equivalent to saying that governments have all power, and the people no rights. If a government can forbid the free exercise of a single one of man's natural rights, it may, for the same reason, forbid the exercise of any and all of them; and thus establish, practically and absolutely, Marshall's principle, that the government has all power, and the people no rights. _In the same case, of Ogden vs. Saunders, Marshall's principle was agreed to by all the other justices, and all the lawyers!_ Thus Thompson, one of the justices, said: Would it not be within the legitimate powers of a State legislature to declare _prospectively_ that no one should be made responsible, upon contracts entered into before arriving at the age of _twenty-five_ years? This, I presume, cannot be doubted.--_p. 300._ On the same principle, he might say that a State legislature may declare that no person, under fifty, or seventy, or a hundred, years of age, shall exercise his natural right of making any contract that is naturally obligatory. In the same case, Trimble, another of the justices, said: If the positive law [that is, the statute law] of the State declares the contract shall have no obligation, _it can have no obligation, whatever may be the principles of natural law in regard to such a contract. This doctrine has been held and maintained by all States and nations. The power of controlling, modifying, and even taking away, all obligation from such contracts as, independently of positive enactions to the contrary, would have been obligatory, has been exercised by all independent sovereigns._--_p. 320._ Yes; and why has this power been exercised by "all States and nations," and "all independent sovereigns"? Solely because these governments have all--or at least so many of them as Trimble had in his mind--been despotic and tyrannical; and have claimed for themselves all power, and denied to the people all rights.