191--.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 321 



and iinqiialifiedly that the treaty operated of its own force to snper- 

 sede the Act of Congress. 



In Nishimura Ekiu z's. United States/*'' the constitutionahty of 

 an Act of Congress forbidding certain classes of ahens to land, was 

 challenged, but was sustained. The Court in its opinion recognized 

 the adequacy of the treaty-making power to deal with the subject. 



"It belongs," the Court said, "to the political department of the govern- 

 ment, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the President and 

 Senate, or through Statutes enacted by Congress, upon whom the Constitu- 

 tion has conferred power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, includ- 

 ing the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of 

 persons into the ports of the United States.""' 



The case of United States vs. Lee Yen Tai^*- arose out of the 

 treaty with China of 1894, and the contention was made that that 

 treaty repealed or superseded the existing Acts of Congress. The 

 Court recited with approval the authorities analyzed above, and held 

 that the purpose to abrogate a treaty by a statute must clearly 

 appear, that in the case at bar the statute and treaty were " in abso- 

 lute harmony " and consequently that interpretation was certified to 

 the lower court. ^*^ Is it possible for one moment to maintain that 

 this decision is consistent with the thought that the treaty could not 

 have superseded the prior acts? The Court say: first, if the treaty 

 be inconsistent with the continued existence of the acts, they are to 

 be regarded as repealed ; second, there is no inconsistency. The first 

 proposition is as absolutely a decision of the Court as the latter. 

 Again, in the very recent case of Johnson z'S. Browne,^** we have 

 again the question presented of whether a treaty has operated to 

 repeal a prior statute. The decision was to the effect that they were 

 readily reconcilable. It was a case of extradition, but there is no 

 hint of distinction upon this ground. 



In DeLima z's. Bidwell, in the opinion reported as that of the 

 Court, w'e have an emphatic modern reiteration and approval of the 

 authorities just analyzed. After quoting from the constitutional 

 provision, the Court say : 



" It will be observed that no distinction is made as to the question of 



'*" 142 U. S.. 651 (1892). "'18s U. S., 213 (1902). 



"' Ibid., p. 659- 



"'205 U. S., 309 (1907). 



