In the cases cited and the opinions and statements

quoted above, the inference is that the only limitations on the treaty-making powers are the limitations expressed and implied in the constitution for the maintenance and integrity of our republican form of government. tensive than any act of confress and invalidates state laws

It is more ex

and state constitutions where the two are in conflict. The enforceability of treaties as laws of the land, binding upon all courts al ike, has been brought out in the authorities given above but the following cases show more clearly, if possible, the binding character of treaties as laws of the land to be enforced by judicial procedure.

Justice Miller in the Head Money Caseзl says :"A treaty, then, is a law of the land as an act of Congress is, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizens or subjects may be determined. And when such are of a nature to be enforced in a court of justice, the court resorts to a treaty for a rule of decision for the case before it as it would to a statute.

"It must always be born 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 consti

1. Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 599

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

In a case before the circuit Court involving a

law of the Oregon legislature prohibiting the employment of Chinese, and which, it was alleged, was in conflict with the existing treaty, the court said: "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."

In a California case 2 where a similar law was

called in question as being in violation of the federal constitution and the existing treaty, the court said: "It is the declared duty of the state judges to determine any constitution or law of any state contrary to that treaty, or any other made under the authority of the United States, null and void. National or federal judges are bound by duty and oath to the same conduct." This same doctrine was expressed in the case In re Ah Chong.3

1.

Baker v. City of Portland,5 saw. 566.

In re Parrott, 6 Saw. 349

2.

3.

6 Saw. 451.

The extent to which the Federal government can go

in enforcing treaty provisions and punish for their violation, is expressed in dicta in the case of Baldwin v. Franks where the court held "That the United States have the power under the constitutionto provide for the punishment of those who are guilty of depriving Chinese subjects of any of the rights, privileges, immunities or exemptions guaranteed to them by the treaty, we have no doubt.'

State courts have not hesitated to declare null and void state laws where they have been in conflict with treaty provisions. In the case of Tellefson v.Fee 2, the Supreme Court of the state of Mass. Said:" On examination of the treaty and authorities above cited, makes it plain that the court has no discretion in the matter, and local authorities have no right to intefere." In the Louisana case of The Succession of Rabossa3 the court held that "The power of the court to appoint an attorney for the absent heirs," (as provided for in the statutes), "was displaced by a treaty" which make provision in such cases.

The California Supreme Court on pass ing on a state

law which was in conflict with the Prussian treaty said: "The