| 
1. Art. l. sec. 10.
2. 3 Dallas, 386.
3. 6 Cranch, 138.
4. 5 Cranch, 115.
5. 7 Cranch, 279
6. 2 Wheaton, 1.
7. 6 Wheaton, 596.
8. 18 Johnson, 7.
9. The decision in Mills v. Martin was reversed on error to the Supreme Court of the United States, and its doctrine overthrown. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19.
10. 3 Hall's Law Journal, 128.
11. United States v. Hart, 1 Peters' Rep. 390.
12. 4 Cranch, 179.
13. 2 Swanston, 330.
14. 6 Cranch, 87.
15. 7 Cranch, 164.
16. 9 Cranch, 43.
17. 4 Wheaton, 518.
18. 8 Wheaton, l.
19. 4 Wheaton, 122.
20. 16 Johnson's Rep., 233.
21. 13 Mass. Rep. 1.
22. 7 Johnson's Ch. Rep. 297.
23. 4 Wheaton, 209.
24. 32 G. II. and 33 G. III.
25. Code, 7. 71. 1. Dig. 42. 3, 4. & 6. Voet ad Pand. 42. 3. 8. Heineccii Opera, tom. 5. p. 620. tom. 6. 384, 387. Code de Commerce, No. 568. Repertoire Universel et Raisonne de Jurisprudence, par Merlin, tit Cession de Biens. Esprit des Loix, tom. 1. 114. 16 Johnson's Rep. 244. note.
26. Hub. Praelec. tom. 2. 1454. Heinecc. Elem. Jur. Civ. secund. ord. Pand. p. 6. 1. 42. tit. 3. Elem.,Jur. Ger. lib 2. tit. 13. sec. 387.
27. 2 Dallas, 294.
28. United States v. Villato, 2 Dallas, 370.
29. Golden v. Prince, Wharton's Digest, tit. Constitutional Law, 26.
30. 2 Wheaton, 269.
31. 5 Wheaton, 49.
32. 4 Wheaton, 316.
33. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton, 738.
34. Const. art. 1. sec. 8.
35. 2 Mason, 69.
36. 6 Wheaton, 426-429.
37. Commonwealth v. Clary, 8 Mass. Rep. 72. Sane v. Young, 1 Hall's Journal of Jurisprudence, 53.
38. 17 Johnson, 225.
39. 1 Hall's Journal of Jurisprudence, 47.
40. 2 Hall's Law Journal, 255.
41. 9 Wheaton 1.
42. Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johnson's Rep. 507.
43. 4 Johnson's Ch. Rep. 150.
44. 17 Johnson, 488.
45. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, l.
46. In Brown v. The State of Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 419, the Supreme Court of the United States decided, that a state law requiring every importer of goods by bale or package, and all others selling such goods by wholesale, bale, or package, to take out a license and pay for it, under certain penalties or forfeitures for neglect or refusal, was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and void, for it belonged to the congress to regulate foreign commerce, and no state can lay a duty on imports.