Mr. Justice Harlan. in the recent case of the United States v. Lee Yen Tal. while holding the treaty of March 17. 1894. with China and the act of May 5. 1892. relative to judicial procedure In the deportation of Chinese laborers. to be not inconsistent. observed. "That it was competent for the two countries by treaty to have su perseded a prior act of Congress on the same subject. Is not to be doubted. for otherwise the declaration in the Constitution that a treaty. concluded in the mode prescribed by that Instrument. shall be the supreme law of the land. would not have due effect. As Congress may by statute abrogate. so far at least as this country is concerned. a treaty previously made by the United States with another nation. so the United States may by treaty supersede a prior act of Congress on the same subject." Another and perhaps the most notable example of the apparent violation of treaties by the United States through congressional action was the exclusion of the Chinese from our ports. notwithstanding treaty stipulations as to reciprocal rights of subjects of the Chinese Empire and citizens of the United States to freely come and go. each In the territory of the other. The Chinese exclusion acts were claimed by many to be in direct violation of these treaty stipulations. and the various acts were tested in the courts and numerous decisions were rendered as to their validity and constitutionality. The courts uniformly sustained the acts as constitutional. In 1889 Judge Field delivered a leading opinion of the Supreme Court on this subject in one of the Chinese cases. from which the following extract is taken: The validity of this act. as already mentioned. is assailed as being in effect an expulsion from the country of Chinese laborers in violation of existing treaties between the United States and the government of China. and of rights vested In them under the laws of Congress.
Keywords matched
deportation Chinese exclusion