« AnteriorContinuar »
JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN REGARD TO THE RELATIVE EFFECT OF
TREATY STIPULATIONS AND STATE LAWS.
SECTION 318-Subject reviewed thus far 331–Fairfax vs. Hunter ; Justice from historical and not
Story's opinion; State law from judicial standpoint.
and treaties, 1812. 320_Views of members of Consti- 332–Chirac vs. Chirac; Chief Justutional Convention not al
tice Marshall's opinion, ways followed by courts.
1817. 321-Construction and effect of 333—The Pollard Case ; Justice constitutional provisions
Baldwin's opinion; 1840. to be determined by courts; 334—Hauenstein Lynham; President Jackson's views
Justice Swayne's opinion; as to personal construction.
1879. 322—Views of publicists and 335—Geoffroy vs. Riggs; Justice courts as to extent and
Field's opinion 1889; the scope of treaty-inaking
great extent of the treatypower.
making power. 323—Treaty-making power to be 336—The Chinese influx; legal considered as to scope aud
questions and treaty rights extent, its effect on State
involved. legislation, and the rela- 337—This chapter devoted to State tive effect of treaties and
legislation and treaty Congressional statutes.
rights. 324—First iinportant eaty ca: 338--Anti-Chinese legislation in Ware vs. Hylton.
Pacific Coast States. 325-Far-reaching effect of deci- 339—Interference of Federal judision in Ware vs. Hylton ;
ciary to protect treaty five opinions delivered.
rights of aliens. 326—Opinions of Justices Chase 310—Oregon statute prohibiting and Patterson.
employment of Chinese 327-Opinions of Justices Wilson
laborers declared void. and Cushing.
341—California's constitution of 328—Justice Iredell's dissenting
1879; anti-Chinese proviopinion.
sions declared void. 329-John Marshall's defeat ; per- 342–California anti-Chinese statsonnel of the court.
utes declared void. 330—Ware vs. Hylton the leading 343—Justice Field's opinion in authority for over a cen
the Chinese Queue Case; tury.
SECTION 34+-State statutes upheld; Chi- 352—The rule in Tennessee.
nese Laundry Cases. 353—The rule in Kentucky and 345–Numerous other decisions
Michigan. involving Chinese treaties 354—The rule in Pennsylvania. and statutes.
355—The rule in Massachusetts. 346—Great practical advantages 356—State laws sustained, as not
of Federal Judiciary as a conflicting with treaty stipforum for settling disputes ulations, by State and Fedas to treaty rights.
eral courts. 347—Treaties with Indians; Chief 357—Police aud taxing powers of
Justice Marshall's opinion the State sustained; The as to their sanctity; Indian
Slaughter House Cases; treaties and State laws.
Justice Miller's opinion. 348—Decisions of State courts as 358--California decisions in conto State laws and treaties.
flict with general rules. 349—The rule in New York. 359-General rule, State statutes 350_-The rule in Illinois.
must give way when in 351-The rule in Iowa and Ne
conflict with treaty stipubraska.
$ 319. Subject reviewed thus far from historical and not from judicial standpoint.--So far the treaty-making power of the United States has been reviewed from historical and extra-judicial standpoints and not from the record of deci. sions of the courts. In deciding the extent and scope of that power the Federal and State courts have considered all of these historical points and, undoubtedly, have rendered their decisions in the light which history throws upon the subject; the opinions, however, of publicists, legislators, and even of framers of the instrument itself, have not always been adopted as the views of the courts.
$ 320. Views of members of Constitutional Convention not always followed by courts.--Even the views of those authors of the Federalist who participated so prominently in framing, and procuring the adoption of, the Constitution, have not always been accepted by the courts as the exact interpretation of the instrument which they themselves had assisted in framing;' in this respect, it must be borne in mind that the interpretation of instruments framed by conventions necessarily depends upon the exact wording finally $ 320,
Federalist and comment thereon in 1 See Alexander Hamilton's views $ 247, p. 384, Vol. I, and 8 313, p. 449, as expressed in No. LXXV of The Vol. 1.
adopted, and not upon the personal views, of the meaning thereof, of any members of the convention. This rule
applies, not only to opinions subsequently expressed but also, in a large measure, to opinions expressed in the convention, although courts have decided that the record of debates may, to some extent, be taken into consideration in deciding the effect of a statute or resolution.
In every convention antagonistic views exist on almost every subject. In construing the meaning of terms used to express the opinion of the body as finally adopted, the court must take into consideration the fact that many members must have voted without expressing their views and that they cannot be considered as having acquiesced in anything beyond the exact terms used; the interpretation therefore of all clauses must necessarily rest with the court as it is derived from the language itself in the final form adopted, and the court cannot be bound to interpret any clause in any instrument in accordance with the views contemporaneously or subsequently expressed either verbally or in writing by one or several members of the body adopting it.?
2 Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan & 4. (Referring to the Hylton Carriage Trust Co., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1895, 157case) that whether the tax on carU. S. 429, FULLER, Ch. J. In this riages was direct or indirect was case (pp. 556-574) the debates of disputed, but the tax was sustained the Constitutional Convention are as a tax on the use and an excise. reviewed for the purpose of arriv- 5. That the original expectation ing at what the expressions direct was that the power of direct taxaand indirect taxes meant. The tion would be exercised only in exconclusion reached is stated on traordinary exigencies. pp. 573-574 as follows:
See also Field vs. Clark, U. S. "From the foregoing (review of Sup. Ct. 1892, 143 U. S. 649, HARdebates and decisions) it is appar- LAN, J., in which the effect of the ent: 1. That the distinction be- entries in the Journal of the Houses tween direct and indirect taxation of Congress is considered. was well understood by the framers In speaking of the debate in Conof the Constitution and those who gress in regard to the purchase of adopted it. 2. That under the Louisiana, the Supreme Court says: state systems of taxation all taxes i “ It is unnecessary to enter into the on real estate or personal property details of this debate. The arguor the rents or income thereof were ments of individual legislators are regarded as direct taxes. 3. That no proper subject for judicial comthe rules of apportionment and of ment. They are so often influenced uniformity were adopted in view of by personal or political considerathat distinction and those systems. I tions, or by the assumed necessi
8 321. Construction and effect of Constitutional provisions to be determined by courts; President Jackson's views as to personal construction.—The construction of Article VI, of the Constitution of the United States, therefore, together with all other cognate clauses must be accepted only as it has been finally construed and become binding upon all the courts of the country, both Federal and State, as well as upon the various Departments of the Government. President Jackson, indeed, declared that it was the duty of each officer of the United States to interpret the Constitution according to his own conscience and to act according;' that theory, however, might possibly lead to confusing, even disastrous, results, and at the present time, it can hardly ties of the situation, that they can the whole sanctioned by judicial hardly be considered even as the authority. deliberate views of the persons who The rules as stated by Black in make them, much less as dictating regard to legislative debate on the construction to be put upon the pages 224-230 are summarized in Constitution by the courts. U. S. the captions as follows: vs. Un. Pac. R. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, "91. In aid of the interpretation p. 79.” Opinion of Mr. Justice of an ambiguous statute, or one Brown in Downes vs. Bidwell (In- which is susceptible of several difsular Canes), U. S. Sup. Ct. May, ferent constructions, it is proper 1901, 182 U. S. 244.
for the courts to study the history The rule is stated in Black on of the bill in its progress through Interpretation of Laws, Hornbook the legislature, by examining the Series, St. Paul, 1896, as follows, on legislature journals. page 28, in regard to "extraneous "92. Opinions of individual memaids in construction of constitu-bers of the legislature which passed tions. If ambiguity exists a statute, expressed by them in which cannot be cleared up by a debate or otherwise, as to the meanconsideration of the constitution ing, scope, or effect of the act, canitself, then, in order to determine not be accepted by the courts as its meaning and purpose, resort authority on the question of its inmay be had to extraneous facts, terpretation, and if received at all such as the prior state of the law, are entitled to but little weight. the evil to be remedied, the circum- “93. In the interpretation of stances of contemporary history or statutes, it is not proper or perthe discussions of the Constitu- missible to inquire into the motives tional Convention." In regard to which influenced the legislative the last point he cites on page 30 body, except in so far as such monumerous authorities, Dwarris on tives are disclosed by the statute Statutes; and Endlich on Interpre- itself." tation of Statutes, sec. 510, in which
$ 321. that author declares that it is a 1 President Jackson's “Protest" great stretch of principle but on