m mc in mms. 29 ~
alleged ground of his detention is that he comes within the actof con-. j
gress of May 6, 1882, *‘to execute certain treaty stipulations relating
to Chinese." 22 St. 58.
_ The petitioner is a Chinese by race, language, and color, and has
all the peculiarities of the subjects of China. He is also a laborer;
but he was born on the Island of Hong Kong after it was ceded to Great
Britain. He claims, therefore, to be a British subject, and, as such,
exempt from the act of congress. But forhis birth in the British
dominions it is conceded that he would be within the provisions of, U
the act. Does this fact take him out of them 7 The answer to this
question depends upon their meaning, and not upon the fact that he
owes allegianceto another sovereign than that of China. Undoubt- A
edly the courts will always construe legislation in harmony with treaty
stipulations, where its sole purpose is to carry them into effect. It
will not be presumed, in the absence of clear language to that pur-
port, that congress intended to disregard the requirements of a treaty
with a foreign government, or to abrogate any of its clauses; At the
same time, an act of congress must be construed according to its man- V
ifest intent, and, so far as the courts are concerned, must be enforced.
A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations, and by
writers on public law is generally so treated, and not as having of
itself the force of a legislative act. The constitution of the United
States, however,lplaces both treaties and laws, made in pursuance
thereof, in the same category, and declares them to be the supreme
law of the land. It does not give to either a paramount authority
over the other. So far as a treaty operates by its own force without
legislation, it is to be regarded by the courts as equivalent to a legis-
lative act, but nothing further. If the subject to which it relates be
one upon which congress can also act, that body may modify its pros
visions, or supersede them entirely. The immigration of foreigners
to the United States, and the conditions upon which they shall be
permitted to remain, are appropriate subjects of legislationas well i
as of treaty stipulation. No treaty can deprive congress of its power
in that respect. As said by Mr. Justice CURTIS in the case of Taylor
v. Morton;
·‘Inasmuch as treaties must continue to operate as part of our municipal
law, and be obeyed by the people, applied by the judiciary, and executed by
the president, while they continue unrepealed; and inasmuch as the power
of repealing these municipal laws must reside somewhere, and nobody other
than congress possesses it,-then legislative power is applicable to such laws
whenever they relate to subjects which the constitution has placed under that
legislative power." 2 Curt. C. C. 459.
An act of congress, then, upon a subject within its legislative
power is as binding upon the courts as a treaty on the same subject.
Both are binding, except as the latter one conflicts or interferes with
the former. If the nation with whom we have made the treaty ob- A
jects to the action of the legislative department, it may present its —