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



to extend their otherwise non-existent authority to hquors shipped from other 

 States before they became commingled with the property in the State by sale 

 in the original package. It was also construed as not applicable to interstate 

 shipments made to a consignee for his own use and not for sale. For the 

 particular application of these principles, see: 



In re Rahrer, 140 U. S., 545 (1891). 

 Crutcher vs. Kentucky, 141 U. S.. 47 (1891). 

 Brennan rs. Titusville. 153 U. S., 289 (1894). 

 \'ance I'S. Vandercook, 170 U. S., 438 (1898). 

 Caldwell vs. North CaroHna, 187 U. S., 622 (1903). 

 N. & W. R. R. Co. z's. Sims, 191 U. S., 441 (1903). 

 Am. Ex. Co. vs. Iowa, 196 U. S., 133 (1905)- 

 Pabst Brewing Co. vs. Crenshaw, 198 U. S., 17 (1905). 

 Foppiano z's. Speed, 199 U. S., 501 (1905). 

 Heyman z's. Southern Ry. Co., 203 U. S., 270 (1906). 

 Rearick z's. Pennsylvania, 203 U. S.. 507 (1906). 

 Delamater vs. So. Dakota, 205 U. S., 93 (1907). 



In this connection, it may be well to note that in a recent work on " The 

 Treaty Power under the Constitution of the United States," by R. T. Devlin, 

 Esq. — a work valuable for the careful collection of authorities and precedents 

 — one finds in the Index under the caption " State supreme in police power," 

 one case cited, and one only, as controlling this subject. It is the case of 

 Cantini vs. Tillman, 54 Fed. Rep., 969 (1893). This is also cited by Pro- 

 fessor Mikell as showing that the judge did "not conceive of the cases 

 beginning with Ware vs. Hylton, and ending with Hauenstein vs. Lynham, as 

 having established the doctrine of the supremacy of the treaty-making power 

 over the reserved powers of the States," p. 553. The suit was one brought 

 to determine the constitutionality of the South Carolina " Dispensary Act." 

 The Federal district judge, Judge Simonton, sat as circuit judge, and held that 

 the Wilson Act was applicable, and that the South Carolina statute was 

 constitutional. After disposing of the case on the authority of the Supreme 

 Court decisions construing the Wilson Act, Judge Simonton added : 



" It is urged in behalf of those complainants that they are Italian sub- 

 jects, and are protected by the treaty stipulations between Italy and the 

 United States. . . . 



" Under these articles the complainants have the same rights as citizens 

 of the United States. It would be absurd to say that they had greater rights. 

 We have seen that the right to sell intoxicating liquors is not a right inherent 

 in a citizen, and is not one of the privileges of American citizenship; that it 

 is not within the protection of the fourteenth amendment; that it is within 

 the police power. The police power is a right reserved by the States, and 

 has not been delegated to the general government. In its lawful exercise, the 

 States are absolutely sovereign. Such exercise cannot be affected by any 

 treaty stipulation," p. 976. 



No extended comment is necessary. In the first part of his opinion the 

 judge had shown that the Act of Congress had made the State statute con- 



