[200] McCrackin _v._ Hayward, 2 Howard, 608 (1844). All legal remedies for the enforcement of a contract belonging to it at the time and place when and where it is made are a part of its obligation. Any provision of a State law or constitution impairing such remedies are void. Gunn _v._ Barry, 15 Wallace, 610 (1872); Mitchell _v._ Clark, 110 U. S. (1884). But the prohibition, in the Constitution, of any State to make any law impairing the obligation of contracts “did not give to Congress power to provide laws for the general enforcement of contracts; nor power to invest the courts of the United States with jurisdiction over contracts, so as to enable parties to sue upon them in those courts. It did, however, give the power to provide remedies by which the impairment of contracts by State legislation might be counteracted and corrected: and this power was exercised.” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3 (1883). [201] Juilliard _v._ Greenman, 110 U. S., 421 (1884), and see note _supra_, p. 92. [202] Consult Mitchell _v._ Clark, 110 U. S., 633 (1884) from which the quotation is taken. [203] This raises the whole question of national sovereignty. [204] Amendment V.; XIV. [205] Missouri Pacific Ry. _v._ Nebraska, 164 U. S., 403 (1896). [206] Pennoyer _v._ Neff, 95 U. S., 714 (1877); Arndt _v._ Griggs, 134 U. S., 316 (1890). [207] Cunnius _v._ Reading School District, 198 U. S., 458 (1905), sustaining a Pennsylvania statute that provided for administration upon estates of persons presumed to be dead by reason of long absence from the State. Mattingly _v._ District of Columbia, 97 U. S., 687 (1878); that which a State Legislature may have dispensed with by a prior statute it may dispense with by a subsequent one; an irregularity or defect which might be made immaterial by prior law, the Legislature has power to make immaterial by a subsequent law. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 371. [208] License Cases, 5 Howard, 588. [209] Bartemeyer _v._ Iowa, 18 Wallace, 129. [210] Foster _v._ Kansas, 112 U. S., 201. [211] Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U. S., 623 (1887). [212] _Idem._ [213] Amendment V. [214] Pumpelly _v._ Green Bay Co., 13 Wallace, 166 (1871). [215] _Idem._ [216] Preceding case and Central Bridge Corporation _v._ City of Lowell, Gray (Mass.), 474 (1855). [217] Pierce _v._ Drew, 136 Mass., 75 (1883). The case grew out of plaintiff’s claim for damages because the town had granted a telegraph company the right to erect its poles, wires, etc., along the highway abutting plaintiff’s land. The highway being land in public use, plaintiff claimed indirect or consequential damages because of the erection of the poles, wires, etc., of the duly franchised telegraph company. Plaintiff’s complaint was (_inter alia_) that said poles, wires, etc., disfigured and depreciated his property. See also Bedford _v._ U. S., 192 U. S., 217 (1904); the principle therein further examined. [218] Kohl _v._ United States, 91 U. S., 367 (1875).