404 BURR— THE TREATY-MAKING POWER [April 20, 



Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other- 

 wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury 

 except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in 

 actual service, in time of war, or public danger; nor shall any person be sub- 

 ject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 

 shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor 

 be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nov 

 shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 



Article VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 

 right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and 

 district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall 

 have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature 

 and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; 

 to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have 

 the assistance of counsel for his defense. 



Article VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy 

 shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and 

 no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the 

 United States than according to the rules of the common law. 



Article VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines 

 imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 



Note 8. — The language of the court is as follows: "That it was com- 

 petent for the two countries by treaty to have superseded a prior Act of 

 Congress on the same subject is not to be doubted; for otherwise the declara- 

 tion in the Constitution that a- treaty, concluded in the mode prescribed by 

 that instrument, shall be the supreme law of the land, would not have due 

 efifect. As Congress may by statute abrogate, so far at least as this country 

 is concerned, a treaty previously made by the United States with another 

 nation, so the United States may by treaty supersede a prior Act of Congress 

 on the same subject. In Foster & Elam fs. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314, it was 

 said that a treaty ' was to be regarded in Courts of justice as equivalent to 

 an Act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of 

 any legislative provision.' In the case of The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall., 

 616, 621, this Court said ' a treaty may supersede a prior Act of Congress, 

 and an Act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty.' So in the Head 

 Money Cases, 112 U. S., 580, 599, this Court said: ' 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.' Again, 

 in Whitney vs. Robertson, 124 U. S., 19O, 194 : ' By the Constitution a treaty 

 is placed on the sarne footing, and made of like obligation, with an Act of 

 legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of 

 the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the 

 two relate to the same subject, the Courts will always endeavor to construe 

 them s"o as to give efifect to both, if that can be done without violating the 

 language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will 



