PRIVATE RIGHTS AND STATES' RIGHTS. 187 



jected to a strained interpretation to save the State's power ; °° but 

 in no case has a clear treaty provision been superseded by the state 

 law. On the contrary, state statuies of this character have fre- 

 quently been declared void when conflicting with clear treaty pro- 

 visions."^ With respect to statutes relating to the control of natural 

 resources and state-supported services, the attitude of the courts 

 has been cautious, with a decided tendency in recent cases to com- 

 promise by adopting interpretations of the treaty favorable to the 

 state power.'-'- The question, however, has been on the applicability 

 of the treaty, not upon its validity. 



A more extreme extension of the " reserved powers " doctrine 

 has been put forward in the claim that unlimited discretion in the 

 regulation and taxation of property and inheritances is a state power 

 exempt from interference by the treaty-making power. Treaties 

 of the character mentioned have sometimes conflicted with the 

 alleged exclusive right of the state to regulate the ownership, 

 transmission and inheritance of property within its limits.®^ An 

 historical view of the many cases bearing upon this point shows that 

 in the days of MarshalP* and since the Civil War°^ the Supreme 

 Court has uniformly and in no uncertain voice sustained the treaty 

 power as against these alleged states' reserved powers. Only 

 during the period preceding the Civil War was there a wavering, 

 even then confined to dicta."" 



9" Compagnie Francaise v. State Board of Health, i86 U. S. 380 (1902). 



9^ Chirac z: Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259 (1817) ; Elkinson f. Deliesseline, supra, 

 note 42; ill re Tiburcio Parrott, 6 Sawyer 349 (1884); Truax v. Raich, 239 

 U. S. 2i^, 43 (1915), Am. Jl. Int. Law, 10: 158. 



92Patsone r. Pa., 232 U. S. 138, 145; Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175, 

 193 (1915)- Am. Jl. Int. Lazv, 10: 162. But see Mo. z'. Holland, supra, 

 sec. 49. 



93 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199 (1796); Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch 454; 

 Prevost V. Greenaux, 10 How. i (1856); Fredricksen v. La., 23 How. 443 

 (i86o) ; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483 (1879) ; Wynans Petitioner, 

 191 Mass. 276; People z: Gerke, 5 Cal. 381 (1855). 



9* Fairfax z\ Hunter, 7 Cr. 603 (1813) ; Chirac z: Chirac, 3 Wheat. 259 



(1817). 



95 Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483 (1879); Geofroy v. Riggs, 

 133 U. S. 258 (1890). 



9^ Supra, note 89. 



