in which State laws have been upheld, including statutes establishing quarantine and health regulations, succession ercise cannot be affected by any | language of cl. 1, sec. 9, of the treaty stipulations. Salus Populi same article, where, in regard to Supema Lex." But see contra: People vs. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1882, 107 U. S. 59, MILLER, J. This was one of the passenger cases in which a law of the State of New York imposed a tax on alien passengers coming into the New York port. Reviewing the passenger cases previously decided, the court held the act unconstitutional for the reasons stated in the syllabus, as follows: the admission of persons of the African race, the word 'migration' is applied to free persons, and importation' to slaves." 8 Compagnie Francaise, etc. vs. State Board of Health, Sup. Ct. Louisiana, 1899, 51 La. Ann. 645, NICHOLS, Ch. J. In this case the plaintiff attacked the constitutionality and validity of an act of the State of Louisiana establishing a state board of health and authorizing regulations as to immigration. The question involving treaties as expressed in the opinion, p. 597, is as follows: "1. The statute of New York of May 31, 1881, imposing a tax on every alien passenger who shall come by vessel from a foreign coun- "Appellants maintain that the try to the port of New York, and act of the general assembly is vioholding the vessel liable for the lative of the constitution of the tax, is a regulation of foreign com- United States and in contravention merce, and void. Henderson vs. of its treaties with France and Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259, Italy and its immigration laws. and Chy Lung vs. Freeman, id. 275, We are not of that opinion. It is cited, and the rulings therein made the right and duty of the different reaffirmed. states to protect and preserve the "2. The statute is not relieved public health. This right is not from this constitutional objection | held by the states by permission by declaring in its title that it is to of the federal government nor is raise money for the execution of its legitimate and proper exercise the inspection laws of the State, controlled by that government simwhich authorize passengers to be ply by reason of the existence of a inspected in order to determine who power in the latter to regulate are criminals, paupers, lunatics, commerce.' As a matter of course orphans, or infirm persons, without state legislation which would means or capacity to support them- cross the boundary line which selves and subject to become a pub- separates the state's police power lic charge, as such facts are not to of protecting the public health to be ascertained by inspection alone. really interfere with and invade "3. The words, 'inspection laws,' the right and power of the general 'imports,' and 'exports,' as used in government to regulate commerce, cl. 2, sec. 10, art. 1, of the Constitu- would be set aside; but it is not tion, have exclusive reference to every restriction upon commercial property. operations, remotely and incident"4. This is apparent from the ally brought about by the passage taxes, punishment of crimes, and proving title to grants in States carved out of ceded territory. of state health laws, which can properly be designated as such interference or invasion." (Citing In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 554). Minn. & S. P. R. R. Co. vs. Milner, U. S. Cir. Ct. 1893, W. D. Mich. 57 Fed. Rep. 276, PER CURIAM. Phila. Southern S. S. Co. vs. Pennsylvania, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1887, 122 U. S. 326, BRADLEY, J. Morgan S. S. Co. vs. Louisiana Bd. of Health, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1886, 118 U. S. 455, MILLER, J. 4 Prevost vs. Greneaux, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1856, 19 Howard 1, TANEY, Ch. J. In this case the plaintiff disputed the right of the State of Louisiana to impose a tax of ten per cent on the value of property inherited in that state by a person not domiciliated there and not being a citizen of any state or territory of the United States, on the ground that it was in violation of and inconsistent with the treaty with France of 1853, the seventh article New York vs. Miln, U. S. Sup. of which provides for a reciprocal Ct. 1837, 11 Pet. 102. Right of right of inheritance of the citizens State to compel returns of alien of one country in the territory of passengers sustained. Smith vs. the other on the same terms as Turner, Norris vs. City of Boston, the citizens of that country it7 How. 283. Right of State to tax alien passengers held unconstitutional. Questions of treaty rights not involved. In re Wong Yung Quy, U. S. Cir. Ct. Cal. 1880, 6 Sawyer, 237; 2 Fed. Rep. 624, SAWYER, J. (The Chinese Dead Body Case.) United States vs. Quong Woo, U.S. Cir. Ct. Cal. 1882, 13 Fed. Rep. 229, and extract therefrom under § 342, p. 28, ante. But see also Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1886, 118 U. S. 356, MATTHEWS, J. Chinese Laundry Case. A municipal ordinance of San Francisco, so framed that it discriminated against Chinese laundries, was held under the Fourteenth Amendment to be unconstitutional and void, and persons arrested thereunder were discharged. self. The state courts had upheld the tax. In affirming this decision, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says (at p. 7): "The plaintiff in error, in his petition to be recognized as heir, claimed title to all the separate property of Francois M. Prevost and his widow, then in the hands of the curator, and of all his portion of the community property, and of all the fruits and revenues of his succession from the day of the death of his brother. And, in adjudicating upon this claim, the court recognized the rights of the appellant, as set forth in his petition, and decided that he became entitled to the property, as heir, immediately upon the death of Fr. M. Prevost. "Now, if the property vested in him at that time, it could vest only in the manner, upon the conditions 5 For note 5, see p. 55. § 357. Police and taxing powers of the State sustained; The Slaughter House Cases; Justice Miller's opinion. -There is also a line of cases which will be found in the authorized by the laws of the State. And, by the laws of the State, as they then stood, it vested in him, subject to a tax of ten per cent, payable to the State. And certainly a treaty, subsequently made by the United States with France, could not divest rights of property already vested in the State, even if the words of the treaty had imported such an intention. But the words of the article, which we have already set forth, clearly apply to cases happening afterwards-not to cases where the party appeared, after the treaty, to assert his rights, but to cases where the right afterwards accrued. And so it was decided by the Supreme Court of the State, and, we think, rightly. The constitutionality of the law is not disputed, that point having been settled in this court in the case of Mager vs. Grima, 8 How. 490. "In affirming this judgment, it is proper to say that the obligation of the treaty and its operation in the State, after it was made, depend upon the laws of Louisiana. The treaty does not claim for the United States the right of controlling the succession of real or personal property in a State. And its operation is expressly limited to the States of the Union whose laws permit it, so long and to the same extent as those laws shall remain in force.' And, as there is no act of the legislature of Louisiana repealing this law and accepting the provisions of the treaty, so as to secure to her citizens similar rights in France, this court might feel some difficulty in saying that it was repealed by this treaty, if the State court had not so expounded its own law, and held that Louisiana was one of the States in which the proposed arrangements of the treaty were to be carried into effect." Frederickson vs. State of Louisiana, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1859, 23 Howard, 445, CAMPBELL, J. In this case a citizen of Louisiana died leaving legacies to certain inhabitants of Wurtemburg. The State of Louisiana claimed a ten per cent tax under a statute which provided that such tax should be paid by every person, not domiciliated in the State and not being a citizen of any other State or Territory of the Union, receiving such legacies. The legatees claimed that under the treaty of 1844 with Wurtemburg they could not be subjected to such a tax. It was held in State vs. Poydras, 9 La. Ann. 165, that any citizen of Louisiana domiciliated abroad is also subject to this tax. The Supreme Court in Mager vs. Grima, 8 Howard, 490, sustained the constitutionality of the ten per cent tax law; in this case it held that the treaty did not apply to cases in which a citizen of this country died, leaving his property to legatees within the jurisdiction of the other country and therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of the tax. The opinion on this point says: "But we concur with the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the opinion that the treaty does not regulate the testamentary dispositions of citizens or subjects of the notes affecting the Louisiana Succession Tax in which the tax was held constitutional, and not in conflict with treaty Our treaty with that country provides in case of death of any citizen of France in the United States, without any testamentary executor by him appointed, the consul shall have the right to appear, personally or by delegate, in all proceedings on behalf of the absent or minor heirs. The stipulation is reciprocal, applying to estates of Americans dying in France. The French consul here appointed a delegate to represent the French heirs, and he applied for recognition to the Civil District Court, in which the succession was being administered. That court denied the application and appointed an attorney for the absent heirs. From the judgment dismissing the intervention of the appellant, claiming recognition as delegate, he prosecutes this appeal. contracting Powers, in reference to | New Orleans, left heirs residing in property within the country of France. their origin or citizenship. The cause of the treaty was, that the citizens and subjects of each of the contracting Powers were or might be subject to onerous taxes upon property possessed by them within the States of the other, by reason of their alienage, and its purpose was to enable such persons to dispose of their property, paying such duties only as the inhabitants of the country where the property lies pay under like conditions. The case of a citizen or subject of the respective countries residing at home, and disposing of property there in favor of a citizen or subject of the other, was not in the contemplation of the contracting Powers, and is not embraced in this article of the treaty. This view of the treaty disposes of this cause upon the grounds on which it was determined in the Supreme Court of Louisiana. It has been suggested in the argument of this case, that the Government of the United States is incompetent to regulate testamentary dispositions or laws of inheritance of foreigners, in reference to property within the States. "The question is one of great magnitude, but it is not important in the decision of this cause, and we consequently abstain from entering upon its consideration." Rabasse's Succession, Sup. Ct. La. 1895, 47 La. Ann. 1452, MILLER, J. "There is a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there is no pecuniary interest involved. There is involved a question of the construction and the execution of our treaty with France in respect to the interest of French heirs in a succession of over one hundred thousand dollars. The motion is denied. "If the treaty is susceptible of the construction of the appellant the result would be to avoid the appointment of the attorney for the absent heirs, and require the recognition of the appellant as the delegate of the French consul. In our view the stipulation in this treaty puts the delegate in the position of an agent of the French heirs, with the same effect as if he The facts and the points decided in this case are fully stated in the opinion which in its entirety is as follows: "The deceased, a resident of held their mandate to represent stipulations with foreign countries, it being shown that citizens of Louisiana were subject to the same tax; in this in them as heirs. That was the man- | reversed, and it is now ordered, ifest purpose, and the language of | adjudged and decreed that said the treaty plainly expresses that delegate be recognized and as such intention. There is no power to delegate, authorized to represent appoint an attorney for absent the absent heirs in this succession, heirs when the heirs are present or and that the succession pay the represented. Civil Code, art. 1210; costs. Robouam's Heirs vs. Robouam's Executor, 12 La. 73; Addison vs. New Orleans Savings Bank, 15 La. 527. "It is idle to call in question the competency of the treaty-making power, nor do we think any question can be raised that the subject of this treaty under discussion here is properly within the scope of the power. That subject is the rights of French subjects to be represented here by the consul of their country. On that subject the treaty provision is plain. The treaty by the organic law is the supreme law of the land, binding all courts, State and Federal. Constitution United States, art. 6, par. 2; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 165; Ware vs. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 197; 19 How. 1; 100 U. S. 483, 488; 133 U. S. 264, 266; Treaty with France, 1853, 10 Stats., 999, sec. 12; Treaty with Belgium, 1880, Art. XV. "The treaty discloses no purpose to require our courts to appoint as the attorney for absent heirs the delegate of the French consul. Its purpose is accomplished by placing the delegate before the court as representing the absent heirs, and precluding the appointment of any attorney to represent them. "It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the lower court, dismissing the intervention of the delegates of the French consul, be avoided and "On application for rehearing. "Our decision in this case affirms that the French heirs of this succession are to be deemed represented by the delegate of the French consul, with the same effect as if the delegate held their power. This view of the treaty to which our decision is confined, displaces the power of the lower court (exerted in ordinary cases) to appoint any attorney to represent the French heirs of this succession. "The hearing is refused." Rixner's Succession, Sup. Ct. La. 1896, 48 La. Ann. 552, WATKINS, J. This is a long opinion in regard to the rights of Italians under the treaty of 1871 as to the succession taxes in Louisiana. The syllabus is as follows: "A citizen and subject of Italy is exempt from the payment of the ten per centum tax levied against foreign heirs, on property situated in this State, under Act 130 of 1894, the title to which is derived by testamentary disposition of his mother's will, she having likewise been a citizen of Italy at the date of her death. "The most favored nation clause' of the treaty between Italy and the United States entitles citizens and subjects of the former to the same tax exemptions as the citizens and subjects of the latter are; and the same right to acquire and dispose of personal and real |