PRIVATE RIGHTS AND STATES' RIGHTS. 183 



against neutrality, offenses against foreign diplomatic officers, and 

 the counterfeiting of foreign securities have been held to violate 

 international law. Legislation of Congress punishing offenses 

 no guaranteed states' rights"^ and many acts for the carrying out 

 of treaties have been sustained.*'^ Of this character are acts pro- 

 viding for extradition and for the return of deserting seamen. 

 The conclusion of treaties may unquestionably extend the power of 

 Congress to provide for the exercise of police power within the 

 states. Thus although the court held unconstitutional an act of 

 1907 rendering persons criminally liable for harboring immigrant 

 women as prostitutes within a period of three years of landing, it 

 indicated that if the law had been in pursuance of a treaty it would 

 have been valid."' The Mann White Slave Act of 1910"^ actually 

 includes provisions in pursuance of the International White Slave 

 Convention of 1904. So also an act for the protection of migratory 

 birds was held unconstitutional*"' but the court has sustained a 

 similar act passed in pursuance of a treaty with Great Britain.'^* 



" The treaty in question," says Mr. Justice Holmes, " does not contra- 

 vene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only 

 question is whether it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the 

 general terms of the loth Amendment. We must consider what this 

 country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved. . . . 

 Valid treaties, of course, ' are as binding within the territorial limits of the 

 states as they are effective throughout the dominion of the United States.' " 

 Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678, 683. No doubt the great body of private 

 relations usually falls within the control of the state, but a treaty may over- 

 ride its power. We do not have to invoke the later developments of con- 

 stitutional law for this proposition ; it was recognized as early as Hopkirk v. 

 Bell, 3 Cranch 454, with regard to statutes of limitation, and even earlier 

 as to confiscation, in Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. It was assumed by Chief 

 Justice Marshall with regard to the escheat of land to the state in Chirac v. 

 Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 275; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483; Geofroy v. 

 Riggs, 133 U. S. 258; Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 3^,3, 340. So, as to a 

 limited jurisdiction of foreign consuls within a state. Wildenhus Case, 120 



^^ U. S. V. Arjona, 120 U. S. 479. 



66 Mo. V. Holland, 252 U. S. 416 (1920). 



67 Ullman v. U. S., 213 U. S. 138 (1909), declaring act of Feb. 20, 1907, 

 sec. 3 (34 Stat. 898), void. 



68 Act, June 25, 1910, sec. 6, 2>^ stat. 825. 



69 U. S. V. Shauves, 214 Fed. 154; U. S. v. McCullagh, 227 Fed. 288. 



70 Mo. V. Holland. 252 U. S. 416 (1920). 



