I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 405 



control the other, provided always that the stipulation of the treaty on the 

 subject is self-executing.' See also Taylor vs. Morton, 2 Curtis, 454, 459; 

 Clinton Bridge Case, i Woolworth, 155; Ropes ts. Church, 8 Blatchf., 304; 

 2 Story on Const., Sec. 1838. Nevertheless, the purpose by statute to abro- 

 gate a treaty or any designated part of a treaty, or the purposes by treaty to 

 supersede the whole or a part of an Act of Congress, must not be lightly 

 assumed, but must appear clearly and distinctly from the words used in the 

 statute or in the treaty." 



Note 9. — The language of the court is as follows : " As was said by 

 Chief-Justice Marshall in The Peggy, i Cranch, 103, no: 'Where a treaty is 

 the law .of the land, and as such affects the rights of parties litigating in 

 Court, that treat}' as much binds those rights, and is as much to be regarded 

 by the Court as an Act of Congress.' And in Foster z's. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 

 314, he repeated this in substance: 'Our Constitution declares a treaty to be 

 the law of the land. It is, consequently, 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.' So in Whitney fs. Robertson, 

 124 U. S., 190 : ' By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the same 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 so as to give effect 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 control the other, provided always 

 that the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing.' To the 

 same effect are The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall., 616, and the Head Money 

 Cases, 112 U. S., 580." 



Note 10. — Mr. Justice Wilson said: "But even if Virginia had the 

 power to confiscate, the treaty annuls the confiscation. The fourth Article 

 is well expressed to meet the very case: it is not confined to debts existing 

 at the time of making the treaty; but is extended to debts heretofore con- 

 tracted. It is impossible by any glossary, or argument, to make the words 

 more perspicuous, more conclusive, than by a bare recital. Independent, 

 therefore, of the Constitution of the United States (which authoritatively 

 inculcates the obligation of contracts) the treaty is sufficient to remove every 

 impediment founded on the law of Virginia. The State made the law; the 

 State was a party to the making of the treaty; a law does nothing more 

 than express the will of a nation ; and a treaty does the same." 



Note II. — Mr. Justice Iredell said : " The opinion I have long enter- 

 tained, and still do entertain, in regard to the operation of the fourth article 

 is, that the stipulation in favor of creditors, so as to enable them to bring 

 suits, and recover the full value of other debts, could not at that time be 

 carried into effect in any other manner, than by a repeal of the statutes of 

 the different States, constituting the impediments to their recovery, and the 

 passing of such other acts as might be necessary to give the recovery entire 

 efficacy, in execution of the treaty." 



