17781 a Frenchman died intestate, seized of certain real estate in Maryland, which he had acquired after naturalization; as his only heirs were French citizens the State of Maryland claimed that the lands were escheatable, and pursuant to some arrangement conveyed them to a natural son of the deceased who resided in this country. The legitimate heirs brought suit against the grantee of the State, who answered that they could not claim the property in view of the anti-alien laws, then existing in the State of Maryland. The State of Maryland had passed an act permitting the lands of a French subject to descend to his next of kin, provided they should be conveyed to a citizen of Maryland within ten years. The heirs of Chirac pleaded the treaty, claiming that they could inherit regardless of State laws and that notwithstanding the subsequent abrogation of the treaty they were not compelled to convey the property to a citizen within ten years. The Supreme Court sustained their contention; in affirming the judgment of the lower court below Chief Justice Marshall, referring to the effects of the treaty, said as follows: of Harden vs. Fisher, (1 Wheat. Rep. 300,) and Orr vs. Hodgson, (4 Wheat. Rep. 453,) it was decided that, under this treaty, it was not necessary for the alien to show that he was in the actual possession or seisen of the land, at the time of the treaty; because the treaty applies to the title, whatever that may be, and gives it the same legal validity as if the parties were citi zens. Gordon vs. Kerr, U. S. Cir. Ct. Penna. 1806, 1 Washington, C. C. 322, Fed. Cas. 5611, WASHINGTON, J., and see extract under § 354 of this chapter, p. 47, post. As to when stipulations in the British treaty did not affect State titles, see Blight vs. Rochester, U. S. Sup. Ct. 7 Wheaton, 535, MARSHALL, Ch. J., 1822. Carver vs. Jackson, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1830, 4 Peters, 1, STORY, J. Brown vs. Sprague, N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1848, 5 Denio, 545, BEARDS- Fox vs. Southack, Sup. Ct. Mass. 1 Treaty of Amity and Commerce, between the Most Christian King and the thirteen United States of North America, concluded February 6, 1778, Ratified by the Continental Congress, May 4, 1778, U. S. Treaties and Conventions, edition 1889, p. 296. The full text of Article XI (p. 297) is as follows: "The subjects, people and inhabitants of the said United States, or any one of them, shall not be reputed aubains in France, and consequently shall be exempted from the droit d'aubaine, or other similar duty, under what name soever. They may by testament, donation or otherwise, dispose of their goods, movable and immovable, in favor of such per "It is unnecessary to inquire into the consequences of this state of things, because we are all of opinion that the treaty between the United States and France, ratified in 1778, enabled the subjects of France to hold lands in the United States. That treaty declares that 'The subjects and inhabitants of the United States, or any one of them, shall not be reputed aubains (that is aliens) in France.' They may, by testament, donation, or otherwise, dispose of their goods, movable and immovable, in favor of such persons as to them shall seem good; and their heirs, subjects of the said United States, whether residing in France or elsewhere, may succeed them ab intestat, without being obliged to obtain letters of naturalization. The subjects of the most christian king shall enjoy, on their part, in all the dominions of the said states, an entire and perfect reciprocity relative to the stipulations contained in the present article.' 2 shall remain in all their force aud vigor, and the United States on their part, or any of them, shall be at liberty to enact such laws relative to that matter as to them shall seem proper." 2 Chirac vs. Chirac, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1817, 2 Wheaton, 259, MARSHALL, CH. J. The extracts quoted from the opinion will be found at p. 270 and p. 277. See also Dawsons' Lessee vs. Godfrey, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1808, 4 Cranch, 321, JOHNSon, J. sons as to them shall seem good, | France against emigrations which and their heirs, subjects of the said United States, residing whether in France or elsewhere, may succeed them ab intestat, without being obliged to obtain letters of naturalization, and without having the effect of this concession contested or impeded under pretexts of any rights or prerogative of provinces, cities or private persons; and the said heirs, whether such by particular title, or ab intestat, shall be exempt from all duty called droit detraction, or other duty of the same kind, saving nevertheless the local rights or duties as much and as long as similar ones are not established by the United States, or any of them. The subjects of the most Christian King shall enjoy on their part, in all the dominions of the said States, an entire and perfect reciprocity relative to the stipulations contained in the present article, but it is at the same time agreed that its contents shall not affect the laws made, or that may be made hereafter in In this case it was held, as stated in the syllabus, that a person born in England before the year 1775 and who always resided there, and was never in the United States, was an alien, and could not in the year 1793 take lands in Maryland by descent from a citizen of the United States. Owings vs. Norwood's Lessee, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1809, 5 Cranch, 344, MARSHALL, Ch. J. Smith vs. State of Maryland, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1810, 6 Cranch, 286, WASHINGTON, J. "Upon every principle of fair construction, this article gave to the subjects of France a right to purchase and hold lands in the United States. "It is unnecessary to inquire into the effect of this treaty under the confederation, because, before John Baptiste Chirac emigrated to the United States, the confederation had yielded to our present constitution, and this treaty had become the supreme law of the land. "The repeal of this treaty could not affect the real estate acquired by John Baptiste Chirac, because he was then a naturalized citizen, conformably to the act of Congress; and no longer required the protection given by treaty." As to the effect of the original Chirac dying after the treaty had expired, the Chief Justice, in his opinion, says: "If, then, the treaty between the United States and France still continued in force, the defendant would certainly be entitled to recover the land for which this suit is instituted. But the treaty is, by an article which has been added to it, limited to eight years, which have long since expired. How does this circumstance affect the case? "The treaty was framed with a view to its being perpetual. Consequently, its language is adapted to the state of things Jackson vs. Clark, U. S. Sup. Ct. | The Chief Justice disposed of that 1818, 3 Wheaton, 1, MARSHALL, objection on p. 189 as follows: Ch. J. Morris vs. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1899, 174 U. S, 196, SHIRAS, J., as to laws of Maryland as affected by treaty. Dunlop vs. Alexander, U. S. Cir. Ct., D. C. 1808, 1 Cranch C. C. 498. Carneal vs. Banks, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1825, 10 Wheaton, 181, MARSHALL, CH. J. In this case specific performance of contract was asked and a number of objections to title were raised, amongst them that in the plaintiff's claim of title there was a French citizen who could not, under the alienage laws of Kentucky where the land was situated, inherit and transmit real property. The alleged alienage of Lacassaign constitutes no objection. Had the fact been proved, this Court decided, in the case of Chirac vs. Chirac, (reported in 2 Wheat. Rep. 259), that the treaty of 1778, between the United States and France, secures to the citizens and subjects of either power the privilege of holding lands in the territory of the other; and the omission to record the deed in time, may involve the title in difficulty, but does not annul it. That circumstance might oppose considerable obstacles to a decree for a specific performance, if sought by Carneal's heirs, but does not justify a decree to set aside the contract." contemplated by the parties, and no provision could be made for the event of its expiring within a certain number of years. The court must decide on the effect of this added article in the case which has occurred. It will be admitted, that a right once vested does not require, for its preservation, the continued existence of the power by which it was acquired. If a treaty, or any other law, has performed its office by giving a right, the expiration of the treaty or law cannot extinguish that right. Let us, then, inquire, whether this temporary treaty gave rights which existed only for eight years, or gave rights during eight years which survived it. "The terms of this instrument leave no doubt on this subject. Its whole effect is immediate. The instant the descent is cast, the right of the party becomes as complete as it can afterwards be made. The French subject who acquired lands by descent the day before its expiration, has precisely the same rights under it as he who acquired them the day after its formation. He is seized of the same estate, and has precisely the same power during life to dispose of it. This limitation of the compact between the two nations, would act upon, and change all its stipulations, if it could affect this case. But the court is of opinion, that the treaty had its full effect the instant a right was acquired under it; that it had nothing further to perform; and that its expiration or continuance afterwards was unimportant." $333. The Pollard Case; Justice Baldwin's opinion; 1840.-In Lessee of Pollard's Heirs vs. Gaius Kibbé, decided by the Supreme Court in January, 1840, the question involved was the validity of a grant under the treaty with France of 1802, and the treaty with Spain in 1819.1 In a long opinion, Mr. Justice Baldwin says, in regard to the supremacy of treaties, after reviewing the decisions of the Supreme Court in this respect:· "The Constitution of the United States declares a treaty to be the supreme law of the land, of consequence, its obli § 333. 1 Pollard's Lessee vs. Kibbé, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1840, 14 Peters, 353, THомРSON, J. See also Pollard's Lessee vs. Files, U. S. Supreme Ct. 1844, |2 Howard, 591, CATRON, J.; and gation on the Courts of the United States must be admitted. It is certainly true, that the execution of a contract between nations, is to be demanded from, and generally superintended by the executive of each nation. But where a treaty is the law of the land, and, as such, affects the rights of parties litigant in Court, that treaty as much binds their rights, and is as much to be regarded by the Court, as an act of Congress; and on this principle it was held, that a stipulation in a treaty that property (shall be) restored, operated as an immediate restoration, and annulled a judgment of condemnation previously made. The fourth article of the treaty of peace with Great Britain, in 1783, stipulated that creditors shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of debts. The sixth article stipulated, that there (shall be) no future confiscations, and that persons in confinement (shalł be) immediately set at liberty, and prosecutions commenced be discontinued. The ninth article of the treaty of 1794 stipulated, that British subjects, etc., (shall continue to hold lands), etc. In Ware vs. Hylton, it was held, that the treaty of peace repealed and nullified all state laws, by its own operation, revived the debt, removed all lawful impediments, and was a supreme law, which overrules all state laws on the subject, to all intents and purposes; and is of equal force and effect as the Constitution itself. In Hopkirk vs. Bell, the treaty was held to repeal the Virginia statute of limitations. In Пunter vs. Martin, the treaty of 1794 was held to be the supreme law of the land; that it completely protected and confirmed the title of Fairfax, even admitting that the treaty of peace had left him wholly unprovided for; that as a public law, it was a part of every case before the Court, and so completely governed it, that in a case where a treaty was ratified after the rendition of a judgment in the Circuit Court, which was impeachable on no other ground than the effect of a treaty, the judgment was reversed on that ground. "The treaty of 1778, with France, stipulated that the subjects of France shall not be reputed aliens; and it was held, 2 Hopkirk vs. Bell, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1806-7, 3 Cranch, 453, and 4 Cranch, 163. 3 Hunter vs. Martin, same as Martin vs. Hunter, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1816, 1 Wheaton, 304, STORY, J. |