^912.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 355 



trines which had their end in the Civil War. This case, however, 

 has full and controlling authority as constitutional precedent today. 



Many years passed before the effect of treaties upon State laws 

 respecting inheritance again came before the Supreme Court. Ac- 

 cordingly, in Hauenstein I's. Lynham,--* decided in 1879, the Court 

 carefully reviews the preceding cases. Therein, a resident of Vir- 

 ginia, but presumably a citizen of Switzerland, had died intestate. 

 The claimants were admittedly aliens. The Virginia court held 

 against their claims on the ground that the provisions of the treaty 

 with Switzerland did not, properly construed, operate to change the 

 \^irginia law, which barred the right of aliens to inherit. The Su- 

 preme Court held that this was an error in construction, and that the 

 treaty did so operate. The Court said : 



" It remains to consider the effect of the treaty thus construed upon the 

 rights of the parties. That the laws of the State, irrespective of the treaty 

 would put the fund into her coffers, is no objection to the right or the remedy 

 claimed by the plaintiffs in error. The efficacy of the treaty is declared and 

 guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. That instrument took 

 effect on the 4th day of March, 1789.""" 



The Court then quotes with approval-'^" the language and the deci- 

 sions in Ware t'S. Hylton, Chirac z's. Chirac, Carneal z's. Banks, 

 Hughes z's. Edwards, and Orr z's. Hodgson ; and concludes thus : 



" We have no doubt that this treaty is within the treaty-making power 

 conferred by the Constitution, and it is our duty to give it full effect."''" 



In the case of Maiorano vs. B. & O. R. R. Co.,-'- the Supreme 

 Court of Pennsylvania had held that the proper construction of an 

 Act of that State providing that a right of action in favor of relatives 

 should exist for damages for death by negligence did not extend its 

 benefits to alien relatives. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, that Court said : 



" The only question for our decision is whether a proper interpretation 

 and effect were allowed to the treaty. 



" We do not deem it necessary to consider the constitutional limits of the 

 treaty-making power. A treaty, within those limits, by the express words of 



=='100 U. S., 483 (1879). ""'Ibid., p. 490. 



^'^Ibid., p. 488. '''213 U. S., 268 (1909). 



^See note 13. 



