commenting on the litigation that has arisen over the conflict of state laws and treaties said that the subject matter of the treaties have "related to matters regarding whinh Congress had no power to legislate, but upon which, in distribution of legislative power under the constitution, the states, and the states alone, had power to legislate, "l

Many cases have come before the Supreme Court of the United States where rights guaranteed by treaty have been in conflict with state laws. One of the first was Chirac v. Chirac.2 This case arose over the denial of inheritance of real property by the laws of the state of Maryland, but which right was guaranteed in our treaty of 1778 with France: The Court says: " It is unnecessary to inquire into the

con sequences of this state of things, because we are all of the opinion that the treaty between the United States and France, ratified in 1778, enabled the subjects of France to hold land in the United States." This same doctrine was upheld in the case of Orr v. Hodgson.3

In the determination of the title to land guaranteed in

a treaty with Great Britain but denied by the laws of the state of Virginia the court said: "That possession and seizin

continued

up to and after the treaty of 1794, which being

1.

Am. Jo.of Int. Law, vol. I, p.283

the supreme law of the land, confirmed the title to him, his

heirs and assign and protected him from forfeiture by rea

son of alienage."1

The necessity for and the upholding of one supreme treaty making power is ably set forth by J. Chase in the case of Ware v. Hylton2 he says:" It is the declared will of the people of the United States, that every treaty mady by the authority of the United States shall be superior to the constitution and the laws of any state. If a law of a state contrary to a treaty, is not void, but voidable only, by a repeal, or nullification by a state legislature, this certain con sequence follows, that the will of a small part of the United States may control or defeat the will of the whole.--A treaty cannot be the supreme law of the land that is all the United States

if any act of a state legislature can

st and in its way. --- I have already proved that a treaty scan totally annihilate any part of the constitution of any of the individual states that is contrary to the treaty." In another virginia case3 where the state law was

in conflict with a treaty with the Swiss Confederation the court said: "It remains to consider the treaty thus construed upon the right of the parties. That the laws of the state,

irrespective of the treaty, would put the funds into the

cofferes, is no objection to the rights or the remedy claimed by the plaintiffs in error. The efficiency of the treaty is declared and guaranteed by the constitution of the United States."

Judge Story says of the general limitation on the treaty-making power: "A power given by the constitution cannot be construed to authorize the destruction of other powers given by the same instrument. A treaty to change the organization of the government or annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void, because it would destroy what it was designed to fulfill, the will of the people."1 A similar doctrine was expressed by Mr.Root, in the same address quoted from above, at page 279, he said: "Although there is no express limitations upon the treaty making powers granted the National government, there are certain implied limitations arising from the nature of our government and from the provisions of the constitution, but these implied limitations do not in the slightest degree touch the making of treaty provisions relating to the treatment of aliens

within our borders."

1. Story on The Constitution, Sec. 1508