126 297 Sup. Ct. 1877; 96 U. S. 176. FIELD, J., Vol. II, Williams vs. Gibbes. U. S. Sup. Ct. 1857; 20 Howard, 535, NELSON, J., Vol. II, Williams vs. Heard. U. S. Sup. Ct. 1891; 140 U. S. 529, LAMAR, J., Vol. II, 292, 299, 301 Williams vs. The Welhaven. U.S..Dist. Ct. Alabama, 1892; 55 Fed. Rep. 80, TOULMIN, J., Vol. II, Williams, Jordan vs. See Jor dan vs. Williams. Williams vs. Suffolk Ins. Co. 332 Wilson vs. Wall. U. S. Sup. Ct. 1867; 6 Wallace, GRIER, J., Vol. II, 83, 218 Wilson, Callan vs. See Callan vs. Wilson. Wilson County vs. National Bank. See County of Wilson vs. National Bank. Wilson, Doe vs. See Doe vs. Wilson. Wilson, Mann vs. See Mann vs. Wilson. Wilson, State of New Jersey vs. See State of New Jersey vs. Wilson, United States vs. See United States vs. Winans. Winberg, Gillespie vs. See Gillespie vs. Winberg. Wing Wong vs. United States. Winney, Cosgrove vs. See Cos- Woman's Rights Case. See U. S. Sup. Ct. 1896; 163 U.S. Vol. II, 108, 109, 259 51 543 Wong Yung Quy, In re. U. S. Cir. Ct. Cala. 1880; 6 Sawyer, 237; 2 Fed. Rep. 624, SAWYER, J., Vol. II, Wood vs. Wood. Sup. Ct. Arkansas, 1891; 54 Ark. 172, HEMINGWAY, J. Vol. I, Woodruff vs. Parham. U. S. Sup. Ct. 1868; 8 Wallace, 123, MILLER, J., Vol. I, 120, 548, 549 570, 571, 573, 575, 576, 578 580, 581, 583 Woods, Lyons vs. See Lyons vs. Woods. VS. Woodward, Dartmouth College Woo Quong, United States vs. Worcester vs. State of Geor- VS. Twine Co. vs. See Am. Net and Twine Co. vs. Worthington. Wright, Jackson vs. See Jackson vs. Wright. Wunderle vs. Wunderle. Sup. Ct. Illinois, 1893; 144 Ill. 40, MCGRUDER, J., Vol. II, 40, 43 Wylie vs. Coxe. U. S. Sup. Ct. 1853; 15 Howard, 415, MCLEAN, J., Vol. II, Yaker, Haver vs. See Haver vs. Yaker. Yankton, County of, National Bank vs. See National Bank vs. County of Yankton. Yeaker's Heirs vs. Yeaker's Heirs. Ct. of Appeals, Kentucky, 1862; 4 Metcalf, 33, STILES, Ch. J., Vol. II, Yellow Sun, United States vs. Yeong, In re. See Tung Yew, Yong, United States vs. See United States vs. Yong Yew. 299 46 Page Page Yick Wo vs. Hopkins. U. S. Yorba, United States vs. See United States vs. Yorba. Young, People &c. vs. Stout. See People &c. vs. Stout. Yum Tom, In re. See Tom Yum, In re. THE TREATY-MAKING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES. BY CHARLES HENRY BUTLER. INTRODUCTION. VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR ON THE TREATY-MAKING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE METHOD OF ITS DISCUSSION AS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THIS VOLUME. § 1. Government of United States one of enumerated powers. The Government of the United States is frequently, in fact generally, referred to, as one of delegated, limited or enumerated powers; it has been so described by the Supreme Court, and by eminent commentators; the Constitution undoubtedly expressly confers certain definite and prescribed powers upon the Federal, or as many prefer to call it, the National Government; it also expressly declares that the 'powers not delegated thereby are reserved to the States, or to the people. There can be no doubt, therefore, as a general proposition, applicable to the exercise of many of its prerogatives, that the National Government is limited to those powers which are so unequivocally expressed in, and conferred by, the Constitution as to be beyond peradventure or dispute; it must also be conceded that, in all controversies in which State sovereignty is involved, all questions as to the extent of those powers must, as far as possible, be answered in favor of extending the powers of the States, and of limiting the powers of the National Government as closely as possible to the lines laid down in the Constitution. The rights of the States were guarded as earnestly, and with as much care, in 1787 as they have been at any time since then, even during the bitterest controversies over slavery and secession. Questions, however, have frequently arisen, and are constantly arising, as to the extent of the powers vested by the people in, and surrendered by the States to, the Central Government; able and distinguished expounders of the Constitution have found this element of its history and construction $ 1. 3 edged by all to be one of enumer1" The general government, ated powers. The principle that though limited as to its objects, is it can exercise only the powers supreme with respect to those ob-granted to it, would seem too apjects. This principle is a part of the Constitution; and if there be any who deny its necessity none can deny its authority." Cohens vs. Virginia, 1821, 6 Wheaton, 264, p. 381, MARSHALL, Ch. J. 66 parent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system 2 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.' "shall exist." Article X. of the Amendments to McCulloch vs. State of Maryland, 1819, 4 Wheaton, 316, p. 405, MAR the Constitution. 8" This government is acknowl-SHALL, Ch. J. |