1912.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 309 



earliest case in which the Supreme Court interpreted and applied 

 the Sixth Article of the Constitution to an existing treaty. Therein, 

 in accordance with the Act of Congress of July 9th, 1798, a decree of 

 condemnation had been pronounced by the Circuit Court on Sep- 

 tember 23rd, 1800. On October 2nd, 1800, a writ of error was 

 allowed to the Supreme Court. A treaty with France was signed 

 September 30th, 1800. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the 

 opinion of the Court, and held that the treaty operated at once 

 propriorc v-igorc to set aside the condemnation, which had not, while 

 the writ of error was pending, become definitive within the meaning 

 of the treaty. The Chief Justice said: 



" The Constitution of the United States declares a treaty to be the 

 supreme law of the land. Of consequence, its obligation 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, in the general, 

 superintended by, the executive of each nation; and, therefore, whatever the 

 decision of this Court may be relative to the rights of parties litigating before 

 it, the claim upon the nation, if unsatisfied, may still be asserted. But yet 

 where a treaty is the law of the land, and as such affects the rights of parties 

 litigating in Court, that treaty as much binds those rights, and is as much to 

 be regarded by the Court, as an act of Congress.'""^ 



It will be observed that the Act of 1798 was passed by Congress 

 in the exercise of either or both of its powers to declare war and 

 to regulate commerce. The treaty with France therefore was de- 

 clared by this case to operate as a repeal of an act upon a subject 

 expressly committed to Congress. 



In Foster & Flam vs. Neilson,"'^ the question of the effect to be 

 given a treaty provision under Article VI. of the Constitution came 

 again before the Supreme Court. It was a case of great importance, 

 argued by Mr. Webster, among others, and resulted in an unani- 

 mous decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall. The argu- 

 ments are reported at length, and the assumptions underlying them 

 have also their significance. The action was one in the nature of 

 ejectment seeking to recover lands lying east of the ]\Iississippi in 

 what was at one time known as West Florida. The defendant 

 relied on want of title in the plaintiff. He had set up a title derived 



'""Ibid., p. 109. 



"'2 Peters, 253 (1829). 



