And it was laid down that "in whatever langualge a statute may be frained. its purpose inst bo determined by its natural and rcasonabte eoet." The roach of the statute was far beyond its professet object. and for into the realm which is within the exclueivojurieiliction of Congress. So in the case of Chy Lung vs. Fhreeman. whore the pretense ovas the exclosion of lewd women. hut as the statute was more farreachsg and affected other immigrants not of any class which the State could lawfully exclude. we held it unconstitutimal. Neither of these cases denied tis right of a State to protect iersel against paupers. convicted criminals. or lewd women. by necessary ansi proper laws. in the absence of legislation by Congress. hut it was ruled tiat the right could only arise from vital necessity. snd that it could not be carried beyond the scope of that nneessity. These cases. it is true. speak only of laws affecting tle entrance of persons into a State. but the coustituiouna doctrines they maintain are equally applicable to interstatetransportation of prop. erty.
Keywords matched
immigrants