marily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and honor of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the courts have nothing to do and can give no redress. But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and are capable of enforcement as between the parties in the courts of the country. Ex parte Cooper, 143 U. S., 472, 501.

When a question is pending between the government of the United States and a foreign power and negotiations are still going on, the courts should not interfere by process to determine whether the government was right or wrong. Ex parte Cooper, 143 U. S., 472.

Upon the State courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them. Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S., 624, 637; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U. S., 565,

Where one was imprisoned under the warrant of a district judge to abide the order of the President for the purpose of being extradited as a fugitive from the justice of France, under a convention with that country, the Supreme Court will not issue a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of his commitment. In re Metzer, 5 How., 176.

Acts of Congress and treaties.-A treaty is the supreme law of the land and binds courts as much as any act of Congress. U. S. v. The Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103; Strother v. Lucas, 12 Pet., 410; Fellows v. Blacksmith, 19 How., 366. By the Constitution, a treaty and a statute are put on the same footing; and if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control if the treaty be self-executing. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S., 190; Kelley v. Hedden, 124 U. S., 196. A treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress; and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty. The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall., 616. Congress is bound to regard public treaties and has no power to nullify titles confirmed many years before. Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall., 160.

Acts of Congress may abate treaties.-Treaties are subject to such acts of Congress as may be passed for their enforcement, modification or repeal. Edye v. Robertson, 112 U. S., 580; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S., 190; Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S., 581; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S., 238; Horner v.

United States, 143 U. S., 207; Fong Yog Ting v. United States, 149 U. S., 698. Thomas v. Gray, 169 U. S., 264. If a statute is in conflict with a treaty of the United States with a foreign power, the courts are bound to follow the statute. Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S., 238. Where there is a conflict between the treaties with the Cherokees and later statutes, the latter will prevail. United States v. Old Settlers, 148 U. S., 427.

Treaties paramount over State Constitutions and laws. Every treaty, while in force, is superior to the Constitution or laws of a State. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S., 483; Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall., 199.

It is the law of the land, whenever its provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined. Ex parte Cooper, 143 U. S., 472.

A statute of New York giving to Livingston and Fulton exclusive right to navigate all waters in that State by steam or fire, held void, as repugnant to power granted to Congress. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 1. "The nullity of any act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law." Id., 210.

The treaty-making power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between this government and other nations. De Geofrey v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258.

A treaty is the law of the land, and its provisions must

be regarded as equivalent to an act of the legislature, when it operates directly on a subject, yet, if it be merely a stipulation for future legislation, the courts must await the action of the legislature upon it, before they can give it effect. Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet., 253,

314.

Virginia passed an act Oct. 20, 1877, to sequester British property. It provided, "That it shall be lawful for any citizen of Virginia, owing money to a subject of Great Britain, to pay the same, or any part thereof, from time to time, as he should think fit into the loan office, taking thereout a certificate for the same in the name of the creditor, with an endorsement under the hand of the commissioner of said office, expressing the name of the payer; and shall deliver such certificate to the governor and council, whose receipt shall discharge him from so much of said debt."

The fourth article of the definitive treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain of Sept. 3, 1783 (8 Stats. at L., 80), agreed "that creditors of either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value, in sterling money, of all bona fide debts before contracted. It was held that the British creditors of citizens of Virginia could recover debts previously contracted, notwithstanding the debtors had paid the sums due into the loan office under the Virginia law." There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States. By their authority the

State Constitutions were made, and by their authority the Constitution of the United States was established; and they had the power to abolish the State Constitutions, to make them yield to the general government, and to treaties made by their authority. A treaty can not be the supreme law of the land, that is, of all the United States, if any act of a State legislature can stand in its way. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall., 199, 236.

The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the treaty of 1783 in the same manner as that of natural persons, and the act of the legislature of Vermont granting lands in that State, which belonged to The Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, a British corporation, to the respective towns in which the lands lie, is void, and conveys no title. Society for Propagation of Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat., 464.

The treaty power of the United States extends to the protection to be afforded to citizens of a foreign country owning property in this country, and to the manner in which it may be transferred, devised or inherited. De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S., 258.

"A treaty with Switzerland gave the citizens of that country owning lands in fee to whom lands in this country descended the right to recover and sell the lands and withdraw and export the proceeds." This was the supreme law and removed all incapacity to sell imposed