« AnteriorContinuar »
Chase in Ware vs. Flylton ;: in regard to the authority of that decision, which had been delivered more than eighty years previously, he says: “It shows the views of a powerful legal mind at that early period, when the debates in the convention which framed the Constitution must have been fresh in the memory of the leading jurists of the country.”
In regard to later decisions of the Court, Justice Swayne says: "In Chirac vs. Chirac, it was held by this Court that a treaty with France gave to her citizens the right to purchase and hold land in the United States, removed the incapacity of alienage and placed them in precisely the same situation as if they had been citizens of this country. The State law was hardly adverted to; and seems not to have been a factor of importance in this view of the case. The same doctrine was reaffirmed touching this treaty in Carneal vs. Banks, and with respect to the British treaty of 1794, in Hughes vs. Edwards. A treaty stipulation may be effectual to protect the land of an alien from forfeiture by escheat under the laws of a State. By the British treaty of 1794, "all impediment of alienage was absolutely leveled with the ground, despite the laws of the State. It is the direct constitutional question in its fullest condition. The Supreme Court held that the stipulation was within the constitutional powers of the Union.'
“Mr. Calhoun, after laying down certain exceptions and qualifications which do not affect this case, says: Within these limits all questions which may arise between us and other powers, be the subject-matter what it may, fall within the treaty-making power and may be adjusted by it. If the national government has not the power to do what is done by such treaties, it cannot be done at all, for the States are expressly forbidden to 'enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation. It must always be borne in mind that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws
8 See $$ 324 et seq. of this chap 6 Hughes vs. Edwards, U. S. Sup. ter, ante.
Ct. 1824, 9 Wheaton, 489, WASH4 See § 332, pp. 14, et seq., . ante. INGTON, J., and see p. 14, ante. 5 See note under $ 332, pp. 14,
7 The italics are the author's. et seq., ante.
and Constitution. This is a fundamental principle in our system of complex national polity.”
$ 335. Geoffroy vs. Riggs ; Justice Field's opinion 1889; the great extent of the treaty-making power.-In 1889 the question of the treaty-making power of the United States was again before the court in the case of Geoffroy vs. Riggs ; 1 Mr. Justice Field reviewed the cases already cited and held that the seventh article of the treaty with France of 1800,2 by its terms suspended the provisions of the common law of Maryland, and also of the statutes of that State of 1780 and 1791, so far as they prevented citizens of France from taking property within the United States, either real or personal, by inheritance from citizens of the United States.
In the course of his opinion he says in regard to the extent of the power: “That the treaty power of the United States
persons as they shall think proper. 1 Geoffroy vs. Riggs, U. S. Sup. The citizens and inhabitants of Ct. 1890, 133 U. S. 258, FIELD, J., either of the two countries who and see further reference to this shall be heirs of goods, movable under $ 425, post.
or immovable, in the other, shall 2 Convention of Peace, Commerce be able to succeed ab intestato, and Navigation between the Pre- without being obliged to obtain mier Consul of the French Repub- letters of naturalization, and withlic in the name of the people of out having the effect of this proviFrance and the President of the sion contested or inpeded, under United States of America. Con- any pretext whatever; and the said cluded September 30, 1800. Ratifi- heirs, whether such by particular cations exchanged July 31, 1801. title, or ab intestato, shall be exProclaimed December 21, 1801. U. empt from any duty whatever in S. Treaties and Conventions, edi- both countries. It is agreed that tion 1889, p. 322. See also p. 324. this article shall in no manner der
ogate from the laws which either " ARTICLE VII.
State may now have in force, or “ The citizens and inhabitants of hereafter may enact, to prevent the United States shall be at lib- emigration; and also that in case erty to dispose by testament, dona- the laws of either of the two States tion, or otherwise, of their goods, should restrain strangers from the movable and immovable, holden exercise of the rights of property in the territory of the French Re- with respect to real estate, such public in Europe, and the citizens real estate muy be sold, or otherof the French Republic shall have wise disposed of, to citizens or inthe same liberty with regard to habitants of the country where it goods, movable and immovable, may be, and the other nation shall holden in the territory of the be at liberty to enact similar laws. United States, in favor of such
extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations is clear.
• The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. But with these exceptions, it is not perceived that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter which is properly the subject of negotiations with a foreign county.” 4
$ 336. The Chinese influx; legal questions and treaty rights involved.—The occasions, however, for rendering the most far-reaching decisions in regard to State laws and Federal treaties arose from the attempts made by the Pacific States to prevent, by means of State legislation, the immigration of the Chinese into those States, or, after their arrival, to so discriminate against them in their lives and occupation that they would either return to China, or leave the States which were unfriendly to them.
Our treaties with China contain reciprocal provisions for the right of immigration, travel and daily pursuit of business and labor of American citizens in China and of Chinese subjects in the United States; it must be admitted, therefore, that until the abrogation of those treaty provisions, or the enactment of Congressional legislation superseding them, Chinamen had as much right to come to the United States and engage in labor and business, as our citizens had, and still have, to go to China and carry on their trade and business in that country.
8 See $$ 426, 474, post, for views of vs. Bidwell (Insular Cases), 182 Chancellor Kent in regard to the U. S. 244; referred to in $ 475, post. extent of treaty-making power as 4 Extract is at pp. 266-267, 133 to alienation of territory belonging U. S. Rep. to a State. See also views of Jus $ 336. tice WHITE expressed in Downes 1 This chapter relates only to the
Undoubtedly the influx of the Chinese into California and the other States on the Pacific slope was wholly uncontemplated by the negotiators of the treaty, and the subsequent satisfactory adjustment of all differences in regard to such immigration with the Celestial Empire, shows that the Chinese Government did not desire, nor did it expect, that general permission should be given to empty entire provinces of their most undesirable and lowest class of laborers into this country.
All that the Chinese Government desired or asked in regard to immigration was that their merchants, traders and scholars should be allowed the same access to our shores that they afforded to our merchants, travelers, scholars and missionaries; all of these points were very satisfactorily settled by the treaty of 1894, and the United States was relieved from even any imputation of breaking faith with another nation by wilfully violating treaty stipulations.:
$ 337. This chapter devoted to State Legislation and treaty rights.—The effect of congressional action upon the treaties with China will be considered in a succeeding chapter. We will refer in this chapter only to the attempts made by the States in their individual capacities to check the evil of immigration; the numerous Chinese Treatment Cases in which State statutes were held void demonstrates beyond peradventure the legal proposition which has already been stated, that no matter what grievance any State may have in regard to any international matter, it can obtain relief only through the Central Government, and that it not only has no power to deal with the foreign nation interested, but it has no power to legislate within its own territory in any way which affects a foreign power, or citizens of a foreign power at peace, and having treaty relations, with the United States, so far as such legislation violates in any manner whatever any existing treaty stipulations or provisions.
$ 338. Anti-Chinese legislation in Pacific Coast States. -The Chinese immigration into California commenced in relative effect of treaty stipulations 8 Treaty of 1894. See U. S. Treaand State laws. The relative effect ties in Force, edition, 1899, p. 122, of treaty stipulations and the anti- 29 U. S. Stat. at L. 1210. Chinese Congressional legislation is treated separately in § 378, post, chap. XII.
the latter sixties or early seventies while the Pacific Railroads were being built and there was a great demand for cheap labor.
At first the few ship loads of Chinamen that were landed in the Pacific ports facilitated the more rapid and economical construction of those great iron links between the East and the West; so far from menacing the welfare of the Pacific slope, this Chinese element materially assisted its development; when, however, instead of arriving in occasional hundreds, they began to pour in by thousands every month, the Chinese question assumed far different, and very dangerous, conditions; there can be no doubt that the final action taken by Congress in response to the demand of the Pacific States was wise and prudent and that the exclusion of the lower class of Chinamen was beneficial, not only to the Pacific slope, but to the whole community. Prior, however, to Congressional action, the States took the matter into their own hands and attempted, by local legislation, without the sanction of Congress, to discriminate against Chinamen; in doing this the legislators did not reckon upon the far-reaching strength of the second clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which makes treaties made by the United States the supreme law of the land and binding upon the judges in every State, "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding."
$ 339. Interference of Federal judiciary to protect treaty rights of aliens.-As soon, therefore, as these anti-Chinese laws were passed questions were raised in the State and Federal Courts as to their validity; in almost every instance the strong power of the Federal Judiciary had to be exercised in declaring these laws to be null and void; the jurisdiction existed because they were in conflict with treaty provisions, which, under the Constitution, were paramount and protected the subjects of the Chinese Emperor, notwithstanding the effort of the States to deprive them of rights which the United States Government, alone, could control.
No attempt will be made to enumerate all of the antiChinese laws passed by the Pacific States; a few instances will be given of the most important cases in which the conflict of State statutes and Federal statutes was raised, and