and Constitution. This is a fundamental principle in our system of complex national polity."

1

$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 ; 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

§ 335.

1 Geoffroy vs. Riggs, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1890, 133 U. S. 258, FIELD, J., and see further reference to this under § 425, post.

2 Convention of Peace, Commerce and Navigation between the Premier Consul of the French Republic in the name of the people of France and the President of the United States of America. Concluded September 30, 1800. Ratifications exchanged July 31, 1801. Proclaimed December 21, 1801. U. S. Treaties and Conventions, edition 1889, p. 322. See also p. 324.

persons as they shall think proper. The citizens and inhabitants of either of the two countries who shall be heirs of goods, movable or immovable, in the other, shall be able to succeed ab intestato, without being obliged to obtain letters of naturalization, and without having the effect of this provision contested or impeded, under any pretext whatever; and the said heirs, whether such by particular title, or ab intestato, shall be exempt from any duty whatever in both countries. It is agreed that this article shall in no manner derogate from the laws which either 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, movable and immovable, holden in the territory of the French Republic in Europe, and the citizens of the French Republic shall have the same liberty with regard to goods, movable and immovable, holden in the territory of the United States, in favor of such

"ARTICLE VII.

should restrain strangers from the exercise of the rights of property with respect to real estate, such real estate may be sold, or otherwise disposed of, to citizens or inhabitants of the country where it may be, and the other nation shall be at liberty to enact similar laws.

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."

§ 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,1 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 Justice WHITE expressed in Downes

§ 336.

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 3 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

reference will be made in the notes to other decisions in similar cases.

§ 340. Oregon statute prohibiting employment of Chinese laborers declared void. In order to prevent the employment of Chinese labor to as great an extent as possible, the State of Oregon passed a law prohibiting the employment of Chinese laborers on public works. An attempt was made under this statute to enjoin a contractor from employing Chinese labor. Judge Deady, of the United States District Court, held that "the United States court had jurisdiction. under the treaties between the United States and China of 1858 and 1868; that until abrogated or modified these treaties were the supreme law of the land and that the courts were bound to enforce them." In regard to the right to labor while in this country, he declared, that the right to come and reside given by the treaty necessarily implied the right to live and to labor for a living, and that so far as the State was concerned, Chinese subjects had a right to enjoy all the privileges here of the most favored nation.

In regard to State interference with treaty rights, the opinion says: "So far as this court and the case before it is concerned, the treaty furnishes the law, and with that treaty no state or municipal corporation thereof can interfere. Admit the wedge of State interference ever so little, and there is nothing to prevent its being driven home and destroying the treaty and overriding the treaty-making power altogether. But it is not necessary to consider further this feature of the case, because, this demurrer must be sustained upon other grounds.

"

§ 341. California's constitution of 1879; anti-Chinese provisions declared void.-In California the anti-Chinese agitators went further; the constitution adopted in 1879, among other things, prohibited corporations from employing Chinese labor and authorized the enactment of all legislation necessary to enforce the provision; statutes were accordingly passed making such employment a misdemeanor; one Tirburcio Parrott was arrested for violating one of these statutes; he sued out a writ of habeas corpus in the United § 340. U. S. Cir. Ct. 1879, 5 Sawyer, 566.

1 Baker vs. City of Portland, See p. 570, Fed. Cas. 777, DEADY, J.

L