Dissenting Opinion: Field, J.

vent by force the operation of the treaty with that nation, which stipulates that its subjects shall have that privilege. And in all other cases where a clause of a treaty conferring rights or privileges operates by its own terms and does not require congressional legislation to give it effect, a conspiracy to prevent by force their enjoyment is a conspiracy to prevent by force the execution of a law of the United States; that is, to prevent its having, with respect to the rights and privileges stipulated, any effectual operation. I do not see how Congress could improve the matter, or do more than it has already done, by declaring that those who thus conspire by force to deprive parties of the rights or privileges conferred by a treaty should be punished. Its declaration to that effect would be no more than what the present law provides.

The last clause of § 5508 declares that "if two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured, [by the Constitution or laws of the United States,] they shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not more than ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

I do not agree with the majority of the court that this clause is limited in its application only to offences against citizens. The first clause of the section is thus limited, but, in my judgment, the last is more extensive, and reaches an invasion of the premises of any one, whether citizen or alien, by two or more persons for the unlawful purposes mentioned. But I am not clear that the qualification of going "in disguise" on the highway does not also extend to the going on the premises of another and thus render the clause inapplicable to the case before the court; though there is much force in the view of Mr. Justice Harlan, that the clause should be read as though its words were: "If two or more persons go on the highway in disguise, or on the premises of another, with the intent," &c., thus making the words "in disguise" apply only to the offence on the highway. If his view be correct, the last pro

Syllabus.

vision of the clause would describe the exact offence charged against the plaintiff in error and his co-conspirators that they went on the premises of the Chinese with the intent to deprive them of rights and privileges conferred by the treaty the law of the land—an intent which they carried out by forcibly expelling the Chinese from the town and county of their residence aud business. But without adopting or rejecting his view, I prefer to place my dissent upon what I deem the erroneous construction by the court of the third clause of § 5336, in holding that it does not cover this case, but applies only to cases where there has been a forcible resistance to measures adopted by Congress for the execution of a law, or a treaty of the United States.

The result of the decision is, that there is no national law which can be invoked for the protection of the subjects of China in their right to reside and do business in this country, notwithstanding the language of the treaty with that empire. And the same result must follow with reference to similar rights and privileges of the subjects or citizens resident in this country of any other nation with which we have a treaty with like stipulations. Their only protection against any forcible resistance to the execution of these stipulations in their favor is to be found in the laws of the different states. Such a result is one to be deplored.

VITERBO v. FRIEDLANDER.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

Submitted January 4, 1886.—Decided March 7, 1887.

The Civil Code of Louisiana, following the civil law of Rome, Spain, and France, and differing from the common law, regards a lease for years as a mere transfer of the thing leased; and holds the landlord bound, without any express covenant, to keep it in repair and otherwise fit for the use for which it is leased, even when the want of repair or the unfitness is caused by an inevitable accident; and if he does not do so, authorizes the tenant to have the lease annulled or the rent abated.

Statement of Facts.

In construing those articles of the Civil Code of Louisiana, which were originally enacted both in French and in English, the French text may be taken into consideration for the purpose of clearing up obscurities or ambiguities in the English text.

The breaking of a crevasse in the levees by the waters of the Mississippi River is a fortuitous or unforeseen event, within the meaning of the Civil Code of Louisiana; and if in consequence thereof a sugar plantation, leased for five years, with the buildings, mules and implements necessary for the cultivation of sugar cane, and with the growing crop of cane (which the lessee agrees to cut and plant as seed cane, and, by way of reimbursing the lessor for, to leave a certain amount of growing cane on the plantation at the end of the lease), is overflowed for three months, all the cane destroyed, the canals and ditches necessary for drainage filled up, the bridges swept away, and a deposit from three to six inches deep left over the whole ground, making it necessary, in order to cultivate it as a sugar plantation the following year, to spend large sums of money to dig out canals and ditches, repair bridges, and buy seed cane, the plantation is partially destroyed, or ceases to be fit for the use for which it was leased, within the meaning of articles 2697 (2667) and 2699 (2669) of that code, and the lessee is entitled to have the lease annulled; notwithstanding the provision of article 2743 (2714) that the tenant of a predial estate cannot claim an abatement of rent for a destruction of the whole or a part of his crop by inevitable accidents, unless they are of such a nature that they could not have been foreseen by either party when the lease was made.

THIS was a petition, filed October 2, 1884, by a citizen of France against a citizen of Louisiana, to annul a lease of a sugar plantation from the defendant to the petitioner for five years; and alleging that by an extraordinary rise of the Mississippi River, which could not have been foreseen, and without any fault of the lessee, a crevasse was made in the levees of a neighboring plantation, the leased plantation overflowed, all the cane destroyed, and the plantation rendered wholly unfit for the purpose for which it had been leased; and that the petitioner requested the defendant, as soon as the water from the crevasse should have withdrawn, to put back the plantation in the same condition as when leased, and to replace the plant cane and stubble, and the defendant refused to do so. By direction of the Circuit Court, the case was transferred to the chancery side, and the petitioner filed a bill in equity, containing similar allegations, and praying for like relief.

The lease in question was dated October 27, 1883, and was

Statement of Facts.

of "a sugar plantation, situated in the parish of St. Charles in this state, known as Friedlander's plantation," and "all the buildings, outhouses, fences, sugar-houses, and other appurtenances thereof,” (particularly described,) from September 27, 1883, to December 15, 1888, at an annual rent of $5000, which the lessee agreed to pay; and contained the following provisions:

"And the said lessor further declared that he does hereby give unto said lessee all of the growing cane crop of 1883 now standing in the field, which the said lessee expressly binds himself to plant as seed cane on said plantation. And to reimburse said lessor for said cane crop, said lessee binds himself to leave on said plantation for the sole use and benefit of said lessor, at the termination of this lease, December 15, 1888, eighty-five acres of full-standed seed cane (such as is usually called first year's stubble) which has been thoroughly cultivated, cut at the proper time for saving seed, and carefully windrowed, especially for seed; and in addition thereto, said lessee shall also leave on said plantation for said lessor not less than two hundred acres of stubble from what is called plant cane, which shall be properly protected in the ground."

"And said lessee binds himself to deliver said plantation at the expiration of this lease, with the ditches in a good draining condition, sufficiently so for the proper cultivation of as much land as may have been under cultivation by said lessee during his fourth year's occupancy of said plantation; and the foregoing clause means that said lessee shall not neglect nor allow the filling up of said ditches during the last year of this lease any more than ditches usually fill up in one year on a well managed sugar plantation in good cultivation."

"And the said lessor further declared that he leaves with said lessee, to be used in the culture of sugar cane on said plantation, thirty-four mules," valued at $3700, and implements of husbandry and sugar culture, (particularly enumerated,) valued at $500; all of which the lessee agrees to return in kind or value at the expiration of the lease.

The answer admitted the execution of the lease; and that in March, 1884, when the waters of the Mississippi River were

Statement of Facts.

at their usual spring rise or flood, the levees along its banks near the leased property gave way, and inundated the country to some extent; and the demand and refusal to restore the plantation to its original condition and to replace the cane; but denied the other allegations of the bill.

After the filing of a general replication, the case was referred to a master, who reported the facts as follows:

"The lessee, on entering upon the lease, according to the evidence, found the ditches in a bad condition, and no canal into which to drain the fields, except one on the lower side of the plantation. In order to prepare the ground for cultivation of sugar cane, he decided that a more perfect system of drainage was necessary, and he caused a canal to be dug through the centre of the plantation from the front to the swamp, and enlarged and deepened the ditches, securing thereby a better system of drainage."

"In March, 1884, a crevasse occurred upon what is known as the Davis plantation, the back waters from which crevasse overflowed a large portion of the Friedlander plantation, especially that portion used for cultivation, and it was under water for several months.

"The damage caused by this overflow I find from the evidence to be as follows: The lessee lost, by reason of said overflow, the entire crop of sugar cane of 1884; that is, the 200 acres of stubble cane and the 85 acres of plant cane were destroyed; the ditches were partially, and in some places entirely, filled; the canals, especially the one dug by the lessee, were partially filled, and the bridges generally swept away; the water remained over the land until July, 1884; a deposit was left over the land of from three inches to six inches. To cultivate the land as a sugar plantation the following year (1885), it would require ditches to be redug, the canals to be opened or cleaned out, the bridges replaced, and seed cane to be obtained and planted, all at considerable expense, to put the plantation in the condition it was at date of the crevasse."

"The plaintiff admits the plantation would grow a crop of cane. But it would require a considerable sum of money and labor to put it in good condition for the growing of cane; that