Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ceedings in regard to a bill of attainder against a defendant contravened an express article in the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain, a suggestion filed by the Attorney-General could not be entertained. In 1806 the point was raised in the Circuit Court of the United States for Pennsylvania and the paramountcy of the treaty of Great Britain over a provision in the Constitution of Pennsylvania sustained.2

§ 355. The rule in Massachusetts.-There were several early cases in Massachusetts in which the rights of British subjects were sustained under the provisions of the treaty with Great Britain notwithstanding State laws which would in the absence of such provisions have defeated the claims.1

ica and Great Britain, for which | peace, which is supreme. The fifth reason they could not sustain the suggestion filed by the Attorney General, and the defendant was accordingly discharged.

2 Gordon vs. Kerr, U. S. Cir. Ct. Pa. 1806; 1 Wash. C. C. 322; Fed. Cas. 5611, WASHINGTON, J.

In this case held in regard to the effect of the Great Britain treaty of 1783 on the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania,. that "the Constitution of the State must yield to the treaty of peace which is supreme." On p. 325, the court says:

"This opinion, in the present cause, has been combated by an argument not thought of, or used in the former, which is, that if there was in fact no misnomer, the attainder was complete, and the sale of Gordon's estate under it so entirely valid, that the Legislature could not, in 1783, defeat it directly, or by the declaration of an opinion, which was solely of a judicial nature. This objection, I suppose, is founded upon the Constitution of the State, though it was not read, nor referred to. But be this as it may, even that Constitution must yield to the treaty of

article stipulates, that Congress
should earnestly recommend to the
States, a revision of their confisca
tion laws, so as to render them
consistent with justice and equity,
etc., and should also recommend to
them the restitution of confiscated
estates. This was not considered
as an idle provision, but was in-
tended to be effectual; provided
the different States, or any of them,
felt disposed to comply with the
recommendation. If the States
thought proper to restore, their
power to do it grew out of this
treaty; and so far neutralized any
article of their Constitution, which
prohibited, in other cases, the ex-
ercise of such a right. The State
would no doubt feel itself com-
pelled to make compensation to
the purchasers, but their power to
restore could not, I think, be ques-
tioned. If they could restore ab-
solutely, they could do any other
act short of that, and tending to
better the situation of those whose
estates had been confiscated."
$355.

1 Commonwealth vs. Sheafe, Sup. Ct. Mass. 1810, 6 Mass. 441.

§ 356. State laws sustained, as not conflicting with treaty stipulations, by State and Federal courts.-While these cases show that State courts and Judges have felt the binding authority of the United States treaties and have acted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Article VI of the Constitution in that respect, there are still numerous cases in which both State and Federal courts have refused to construe a treaty so that it renders State legislation inoperative.

The New York Court of Appeals held that a statute preventing intrusions on Indian lands within the State did not interfere with the obligations of the treaty of 1812 with the Seneca Indians, but that it was within the police power of the State, and that the State could not be barred from the proper exercise of police powers to maintain and to preserve the peace. The Supreme Court of the United States sustained the Court of Appeals in this case.1

In a suit brought to entitle the commonwealth to certain lands on the ground that the purchaser was an alien and unlawfully held them under the laws of the State, the defendant claiming the property pleaded the British treaty of 1794, and the court expressed itself in that regard as follows:

"By the ninth article of the treaty of 1794, it was agreed that British subjects, who then held lands within the United States, and American citizens, who then held lands within the British dominions, should continue to hold them, according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and might grant, sell or devise, the same to whom they pleased, in like manner as if they were natives. It is stated that O'Neil was a British subject, and held the premises in fee within the meaning of that article, when the treaty was made and ratified; and that afterwards he granted and

sold the same to the defendant in fee, to secure the payment of a sum of money; and that the defendant lawfully entered for condition broken. Under the article cited, his title cannot now be questioned by the commonwealth."

Hutchinson vs. Brock, Sup. Ct. Mass. 1814, 11 Mass. 119, SEWALL, Ch. J.

$ 356.

Cutler vs. Dibble, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1858, 21 Howard, 366, GRIEr, J., (affirming same case N. Y. Court of Appeals, 1857, 16 N. Y. Rep. 203, BROWN, J.).

The question involved in this action was whether a statute passed by the New York Legislature in 1821 respecting intrusions on Indian lands was in violation of the constitution or the treaties between the United States and the Seneca Indians. In sustaining the state act the opinion says (page 370):

"The only question which this court can be called on to decide is,

It was also held that the State Dispensary Statute of South Carolina did not interfere with the rights of Italian citizens to freely carry on business in this country, under the stipulations in the treaty of 1871 with Italy. There are other cases

whether this law is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, or any treaty or act of Congress, and whether this proceeding under it has deprived the relators of property or rights secured to them by any treaty or act of Congress.

"The statute in question is a police regulation for the protection of the Indians from intrusion of the white people, and to preserve the peace. It is the dictate of a prudent and just policy. Notwithstanding the peculiar relations which these Indian nations hold to the Government of the United States, the State of New York had the power of a sovereign over their persons and property, so far as it was necessary to preserve the peace of the Commonwealth, and protect these feeble and helpless bands from imposition and intrusion. The power of a State to make such regulations to preserve the peace of the community is absolute, and has never been surrendered.

We are of the opinion, therefore, that this statute and the proceeding in this case are not in conflict with the treaty in question, or with any act of Congress, or with the Constitution of the United States."

2 Cantini vs. Tillman, U. S. Cir. Ct. So. Car. 1893, 54 Fed. Rep. 969, SIMONTON, J.

[ocr errors]

The opinion says, on page 976: "It is urged on behalf of these complainants that they are Italian subjects, and are protected by the treaty stipulations between Italy and the United States. The lan

[ocr errors]

guage of the treaty on this point is as follows:

666

"Art. 2. The citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall have liberty to travel in the states and territories of the other; to carry on trade, wholesale and retail; to hire and occupy houses and warehouses; to employ agents of their choice; and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade, upon the same terms as the natives of the country, submitting themselves to the laws there established.

"Art. 3. The citizens of each of the high contracting parties shall receive in the states and territories of the other the most constant protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or shall be granted to the natives, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon the natives.'

"Under these articles the complainants have the same rights as citizens of the United States. It would be absurd to say that they had greater rights. We have seen that the right to sell intoxicating liquors is not a right inherent in a citizen, and is not one of the privileges of American citizenship; that it is not within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment; that it is within the police power. The police power is a right reserved by the states, and has not been delegated to the general government. In its lawful exercise, the states are absolutely sovereign. Such ex

in which State laws have been upheld, including statutes establishing quarantine and health regulations, succession

ercise cannot be affected by any treaty stipulations. Salus Populi 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:

language of cl. 1, sec. 9, of the same article, where, in regard to 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 the inspection laws of the State, which authorize passengers to be inspected in order to determine who are criminals, paupers, lunatics, orphans, or infirm persons, without state legislation which would means or capacity to support themselves and subject to become a public charge, as such facts are not to be ascertained by inspection alone.

its legitimate and proper exercise controlled by that government simply by reason of the existence of a power in the latter to regulate commerce.' As a matter of course

cross the boundary line which separates the state's police power of protecting the public health to 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

4

taxes, punishment of crimes,5 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.
6 For note 6, see p. 56.

« AnteriorContinuar »