1912.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 385 



Ex parte Clarke"^- arose in Ohio and involved constitutional 

 questions similar to those decided in Ex parte Siebold. It is dis- 

 tinguished by a strong dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Field. 



These three cases present precisely and completely the doctrine 

 they enunciate. On the one hand, Tennessee I'S. Davis determines 

 the ineffectiveness of State laws when attempted to be enforced 

 against Federal laws; on the other hand, Ex parte Siebold illustrates 

 the effectiveness of Federal law when opposed to State law. Such 

 are the decisions in cases where crimes were charged and criminal 

 proceedings begun. However the definition of the State police power 

 be narrowed, it must include its agencies for the defining and the 

 punishment of crime. Yet, in the one case, the State was held 

 powerless to try the party whom it had indicted, and in the other, 

 powerless to save the party acting under its authority. And the 

 Court fully appreciated the significance of its decision. 



" It is argued," says the opinion of the Court, " that the preservation of 

 peace and good order in society is not within the powers confided to the 

 government of the United States, but belongs exclusively to the States. 

 Here again we are met with the theory that the government of the United 

 States does not rest upon the soil and territory of the country. We think 

 that this theory is founded on an entire misconception of the nature and 

 powers of that government. We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle, 

 that the government of the United States may, by means of physical force, 

 exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of American soil 

 the powers and functions that belong to it. This necessarily involves the 

 power to command obedience to its laws, and hence the power to keep the 

 peace to that extent. 



" This power to enforce its laws and to execute its functions in all places 

 does not derogate from the power of the State to execute its laws at the 

 same time and in the same places. The one does not exclude the other, 

 except where both cannot be executed at the same time. In that case, the 

 words of the Constitution itself show which is to yield."^'^ 



In Baldwin vs. Franks,^^* the power of the Federal government 

 to provide for the punishment of those who violate treaty provisions 

 is unanimously enunciated in positive terms. The case, however, 

 did not require the determination of this question, because the acts 



^'=Ibid., 399 (1879). 

 '"Ibid., pp. 394-5-' 

 ^"120 U. S.. 678 (1878). 



