| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

The United States brought a case against John P. Gratiot, Robert Burton, Charles S. Hempstead and Dickerson B. Moorehouse for the alleged violation of an act of Congress that prohibited any person from engaging in trade with foreign nations without first obtaining a license from the President or Secretary of State. The defendants argued that they were exempt from this requirement as citizens of Missouri who had been trading with Spanish-held territories before it became part of the United States under the Louisiana Purchase Treaty in 1803 and therefore did not need to obtain such a license. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that their actions were protected by treaty rights granted to them prior to becoming U.S citizens and thus they did not need to obtain licenses for their activities as required by law at that time.
In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States, Plaintiff in Error vs. John P. Gratiot, Robert Burton, Charles S. Hempstead and Dickerson B. Moorehouse, Defendants in Error (1840), the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would grant exclusive rights to individuals for public works such as canals or roads on navigable waters within a state's boundaries without its consent first being obtained from the state itself. This was because it violated Article I Section 10 Clause 3 of the Constitution which states that “No State shall…without its Consent…grant any Title of Nobility” and this included granting exclusive privileges over public works within their borders without their permission first being granted by them. Furthermore, they argued that even if Congress did have such power then it could not be used retroactively since there were already existing contracts between private parties prior to when this law was passed which should still be honored according to established legal principles at the time; thus making this new law invalid due to lack of Congressional authority or unconstitutionality depending on how one viewed it either way rendering it void ab initio (from inception).