386 BURR— THE TREATY-MAKING POWER [April 20. 



in question, under which the defendant had been prosecuted, were 

 declared to be inappHcable. Said the Court : 



" The precise question we have to determine is not whether Congress has 

 the constitutional authority to provide for the punishment of such an offense 

 as that with which Baldwin is charged, but whether it has so done. 



" That the treaty-making power has been surrendered by the States and 

 given to the United States, is unquestionable. It is true, also that the 

 treaties made by the United States and in force are part of the supreme law 

 of the land, and that they are as binding within the territorial limits of the 

 States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United 

 States. . . . 



" That the United States have power under the Constitution to provide 

 for the punishment of those who are guilty of depriving Chinese subjects of 

 any of the rights, privileges, immunities, or exemptions guaranteed to them 

 by this treaty, we do not doubt. What we have to decide, under the ques- 

 tions certified here from the Court below, is, whether this has been done.''^'" 



It will be observed that although the Court contemplated that it would 

 be by act of Congress that the treaty rights would be protected, yet 

 the authority in Congress to pass such an act could be derived only 

 from the clause giving it the power generally to make all laws 

 necessary for carrying into execution the treaty power. ^^"^ And if 

 the treaty power were incompetent to come into successful conflict 

 with State police power, the act of Congress must logically have been 

 equally powerless to carry into effect an unconstitutional treaty 

 provision. 



The foregoing cases, although they establish generally the effec- 

 tiveness oi Federal law when opposed to State law, without regard to 

 so-called State police power, are cases where an act of Congress was 

 under consideration. In re Neagle'*^' illustrates the extent to which 

 the Supreme Court has recognized and enforced the supremacy over 

 State police power of Federal constitutional provisions. One Terry 

 had been punished by Mr. Justice Field with imprisonment for con- 

 tempt of court committed during the litigation before him. Terry 

 had publicly announced his intention of taking Mr. Justice Field's 



''' Ibid., pp. 682. 683. 



^^^ Article I., Section 8, Last Clause. "To make all laws which shall be 

 necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and 

 all o.ther powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United 

 States, or in any department or officer thereof." 



==•'135 U. S., I (1890). 



