8 Op. Att'ys-Gen. 417. 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." Treat. on the Const. and Gov. of the U. S. 204.

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." Const., art. 1, sec. 10.

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 and constitution. This is a fundamental principle in our system of complex national polity. See also Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242; Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 2 id. 253; The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616; Mr. Pinkney's Speech, 3 Elliots' Constitutional Debates, 231; The People, ex rel. v. Gerke & Clark, 5 Cal. 381.

We have no doubt that this treaty is within the treaty-making power conferred by the Constitution. And it is our duty to give it full effect. We forbear to pursue the topic further. In the able argument before us, it was insisted upon one side, and not denied on the other, that, if the treaty applies, its efficacy must necessarily be complete. The only point of contention was one of construction. There are doubtless limitations of this power as there are of all others arising under such instruments; but this is not the proper occasion to consider the subject. It is not the habit of this court, in dealing with constitutional questions, to go beyond the limits of what is required by the exigencies of the case in hand. What we have said is sufficient for the purposes of this opinion.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, so far as it concerns the claim of the plaintiffs in error, will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion; and it is So ordered.1

1 As to the effect of treaties upon the special provisions of inheritance laws with respect to aliens, see Rixner's Succession, 48 La. Ann. 552; Opel v. Shoup, 100 Iowa, 407; Wunderle v. Wunderle, 144 Ill. 40. As to the treaty making power of the United States in such cases, see People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381, infra, p. 583, and note.

DAVIS v. ELMIRA SAVINGS BANK.

161 United States, 275. 1895.

IN March, 1893, the Elmira National Bank, a banking association organized under the laws of the United States, and doing business in the State of New York, suspended payment, and the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States appointed Charles Davis, plaintiff in error, the receiver thereof. The Elmira Savings Bank, which was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, from November, 1890, kept a deposit account with the Elmira National Bank, and at the time of the appointment of the receiver of the latter corporation there was to the credit of this account of the Savings Bank the sum of $42,704.67. The opening of the deposit account by the Savings Bank was sanctioned by the general banking laws of the State of New York.

In the process of liquidating the affairs and realizing the assets of the National Bank all its circulating notes were provided for, and the receiver had on hand in cash for distribution among its creditors a sum exceeding the amount due as aforesaid to the Savings Bank. Thereupon the latter demanded of the receiver payment of the sum to the credit of its deposit account in preference to the other creditors of the National Bank, basing its demand on a provision of the general banking law of the State of New York, which [gives savings banks a preference in the distribution of the assets of any insolvent bank, to the extent of its deposits, so far as such deposits are authorized].

The receiver, under the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States, declined to accede to this demand, predicating his refusal on the provisions of sections 5236 and 5242 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which [direct ratable distribution of the assets of an insolvent National Bank among all creditors].

In consequence of this refusal the Savings Bank brought an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York to enforce the payment by preference, which action was resisted by the receiver. Ultimately the case was taken to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, where the claim of preference, asserted by the Savings Bank, was maintained. The case is reported in 142 N. Y. 590. To that judgment the present writ of error is prosecuted.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

National banks are instrumentalities of the Federal government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States. It follows that an attempt, by a State, to define their duties or control the conduct of

their affairs is absolutely void, wherever such attempted exercise of authority expressly conflicts with the laws of the United States, and either frustrates the purpose of the national legislation or impairs the efficiency of these agencies of the Federal government to discharge the duties, for the performance of which they were created. These principles are axiomatic, and are sanctioned by the repeated adjudications of this court.

The question which the record presents is, does the law of the State of New York on which the Savings Bank relies conflict with the law of the United States upon which the Comptroller of the Currency rests to sustain his refusal? If there be no conflict, the two laws can coexist and be harmoniously enforced, but if the conflict arises, the law of New York is from the nature of things inoperative and void as against the dominant authority of the Federal statute. In examining the question it is well to put in juxtaposition a summary statement of the Federal and State statutes. The first directs the Comptroller "from time to time, after full provision has been made for the refunding to the United States of any deficiency in redeeming the notes of such association, . . . to make a ratable dividend of the money paid over to him . . on all such claims as may have been proved." The second, the State law, directs "the trustee, assignee or receiver" of "any bank or trust company which shall become insolvent" to apply the assets received by him, "in the first place to the payment in full of any sum or sums of money deposited therewith by any savings bank, but not to an amount exceeding that authorized" by law.

It is clear that these two statutes cover exactly the same subjectmatter. Both relate to insolvent banks; both ordain that the right of preference on the one side and the duty of ratable distribution on the other shall only result from insolvency; both cover the assets of such banks coming, after insolvency, into the hands of the officer or person authorized to administer them. It is equally certain that both statutes relate to the same duty on the part of the officer of the insolvent bank; the one directs the representative to make a ratable distribution; the other requires, if necessary, the application of the entire assets to payment in full, by preference and priority over all others of a particular and selected class of creditors therein named. We have, therefore, on the one hand, the statute of the United States, directing that the assets of an insolvent national bank shall be distributed by the Comptroller of the Currency in the manner therein pointed out, that is, ratably among the creditors. We have on the other hand, the statute of the State of New York giving a contrary command. To hold that the State statute is operative is to decide that it overrides the plain text of the act of Congress. This results, not only from the fact that the two statutes, as we have said, cover the same subject-matter, and relate to the same duty, but also because there is an absolute repugnancy between their provisions,

that is, between the ratable distribution, commanded by Congress, and the preferential distribution directed by the law of the State of New York.

The conflict between the spirit and purpose of the two statutes is as pronounced as that which exists between their unambiguous letter. It cannot be doubted that one of the objects of the national bank system was to secure, in the event of insolvency, a just and equal distribution of the assets of national banks among all unsecured creditors, and to prevent such banks from creating preferences in contemplation of insolvency. This public aim in favor of all the citizens of every State of the Union is manifested by the entire context of the national bank act.

Judgment reversed and case remanded to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York with instructions to remit the cause to the court in which it originated with directions to dismiss the action.

CHAPTER III.

DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT.

SECTION I.-THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

TAYLOR v. PLACE.

4 Rhode Island, 324. 1856.

AMES, C. J. The substance of this case is, that after the plaintiffs had, in the regular course of judicial proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas for the County of Providence, obtained a verdict against the defendants for a sum sufficient to pay their first judgment against the Oneco Manufacturing Company, and within the amount ascertained to be in the hands of the defendants by their affidavits as garnishees, the General Assembly interfered by their vote; ordered the judgments in the former suits to be opened for the purpose of allowing, and allowed the defendants to make new affidavits as garnishees therein with effect, on the ground that the old ones were incorrectly made through accident or mistake; and set aside the verdict. in this cause, and granted a new trial therein, in order that the garnishees might avail themselves of their new affidavits upon the new trial thus granted to them. By force of this vote of the Assembly, the verdict of the plaintiffs was set aside; a new trial of this cause was had by the defendants; new affidavits were filed by them, exonerating themselves from the liability which they had incurred by the old ones; and the consequence has been, that the same court under whose direction, and according to law, a verdict in this cause was obtained by the plaintiffs, has been obliged to render a judgment. therein for the defendants.

It is hardly necessary, perhaps, after stating the purpose and effect of this vote, to use arguments or to cite authorities to show that thus to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial in a suit at law, which the frame of statutes, or even binding rules of practice place beyond the power of the court in which the cause is pending, or of any court of law, is the exercise of judicial power; that to deprive one party