I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 315 



into that body we now know as constitutional law, the recognition of 

 treaties as embodying the supreme law of the land is seen as uni- 

 versal. The assumption of this principle of interpretation underlies 

 every argument, every decision, every reason enunciated as the 

 ground of decision. The query in some minds, as for example, 

 those of counsel in Foster & Elam z's. Neilson quoted above, was 

 quite different. They questioned the effectiveness of an act of Con- 

 gress in conflict with a prior treaty. 



Following The Cherokee Tobacco case came The Head Money 

 Cases ;^'^ and the question therein was whether an act of Congress 

 was valid which imposed on ship owners a small tax for each immi- 

 grant brought into the United States, and provided that the proceeds 

 should be used for the benefit of immigrants as a class. The Court 

 remarked : 



" We had supposed that the question here raised was set at rest in this 

 Court by the decision in The Cherokee Tobacco.'"^ 



And the Court held : 



" We are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States 

 with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the 

 Courts of this Country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for 

 its enforcement, modification, or repeal.""* 



On the subject of the status of treaties under the Constitution, the 

 Court lays down the following controlling principles : 



" A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It 

 depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the 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 judicial Courts have 

 nothing to do and can give no redress. But a treaty may also contain pro- 

 visions 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 which are capable of enforcement as between 

 private parties in the Courts of the country. ... 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 citizen or subject may be determined. And 



'==112 U. S., 584 (1884). 

 '== Ibid., p. 597- 

 '=^Ibid., p. 599- 



