186 WRIGHT— LIMITATIONS UPON NATIONAL POWERS, 



ular race or nationality (i) in the privilege of owning land/' 

 operating mines,^° and taking fish^^ and game;*^ (2) in the use 

 of public schools^^ and the right to labor on public works ;^* (3) 

 and in the freedom of immigration,®^ labor,^*' personal habits,®^ and 

 conduct of business. ®® In a few cases dicta damaging to the treaty- 

 power have been uttered ; ®° sometimes the treaty has been sub- 



"9 Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cr. 503; Chirac z: Cliirac, 2 Wheat. 259 (1817); 

 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464 

 (1823) ; Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 259 (1825) ; California-Japanese con- 

 trovers}', 1913, Corwin, op. cit., p. 2:^2. Art. VII of the treaty of 1853 

 with France made concessions to this " states' right." It allowed French- 

 men to possess land on an equality with citizens " in all the states of 

 the Union where existing laws permit it, so long and to the same extent as 

 the said laws shall remain in force." As to the other states " the President 

 engages to recommend to them the passage of such laws as may be neces- 

 sary for the purpose of conferring the right." 



80 People V. Noglee, i Cal. 232 (1850). 



81 Griggs, Att. Gen.. 1898, 22 Op. 214. 



82 Patsone v. Pa., 232 U. S. 138, 145, Mo. v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416 

 (1920). 



83 California-Japanese school children controversy, 1906, Corwin, op. cit., 

 p. 217; E. Root, Am. Jl. Int. Lazv, i: 273, and editorials, ibid., i: 150, 449. 

 Art. IV of the Treaty of 1854 with Great Britain indicates that the United 

 States doubted its right to control a state established utility without state 

 consent. " The government of the United States further engages to urge 

 upon the state government to secure to the subjects of Her Britannic 

 Majesty the use of the several State Canals on terms of equality with the 

 inhabitants of the United States." 



84 Baker v. Portland, 5 Sawyer 566 (1879) ; Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 

 (1915), Am. Jl. Int. Lazv, 10: 162. 



85 Elkinson z'. Deliesseline, Leg. Doc. Mass. 1845 (Senate), No. 31, p. 39 

 (1823), Thayer, Cases in Constitutional Law, p. 1849, Corwin, op. cit., p. 

 125; Wirt, Att. Gen., 10: 661 (1824) ; Berrien, Att. Gen., 20: 431 (1831) ; The 

 Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849) ; in re Ah Fong, 3 Sawyer 144; 

 Henderson v. N. Y., 92 U. S. 259 (1875). 



86 /;j re Tiburcio Parrotf, 6 Sawyer 349 (1880); Truax v. Raich, 239 

 U. S. 2>3, 43 (1915), Am. Jl. Int. Lazv, 10: 158. 



8T Ho Ah Kow V. Nunan, 5 Sawyer 532 (1879). 



88 Yick Wo V. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886); Compagnie Francaise v. 

 State Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380 (1902). Frequently in these cases the 

 XIV Amendment as well as treaties have been in opposition to the exercise 

 of state powers. See also Rocca v. Thompson, 232 U. S. 318. 



83 Taney, C. J., in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. S40 (1840); The Pas- 

 senger Cases, 7 How. 283, 465 (1849) ; Daniels, J., in The License Cases, 

 5 How. 504, 613; Grier, J., in The Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849). 



