Page images

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, concurring.

vice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Obviously the treaty must contain the whole contract between the parties, and the power of the Senate is limited to a ratification of such terms as have already been agreed upon between the President, acting for the United States, and the commissioners of the other contracting power. The Senate has no right to ratify the treaty and introduce new terms into it, which shall be obligatory upon the other power, although it may refuse its ratification, or make such ratification conditional upon the adoption of amendments to the treaty. If, for instance, the treaty with Spain had contained a provision instating the inhabitants of the Philippines as citizens of the United States, the Senate might have refused to ratify it until this provision was stricken out. But it could not, in my opinion, ratify the treaty and then adopt a resolution declaring it not to be its intention to admit the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands to the privileges of citizenship of the United States. Such resolution would be inoperative as an amendment to the treaty, since it had not received the assent of the President or the Spanish commissioners.

Allusion was made to this question in the New York Indians v. United States, 170 V. S. 1, 21, wherein it appeared that, when a treaty with certain Indian tribes was laid before the Senate for ratification, several articles were stricken out, several others amended, a new article added, and a proviso adopted that the treaty should have no force or effect whatever, until the amendment had been submitted to the tribes, and they had given their free and voluntary assent thereto. This resolution, however, was not found in the original or in the published copy of the treaty, or in the proclamation of the President, which contained the treaty without the amendments. With reference to this the court observed : “ The power to make treaties is vested by the Constitution in the President and the Senate, and, while this proviso was adopted by the Senate, there was no evidence that it ever received the sanction or approval of the President. It cannot be considered as a legislative act, since the power to legislate is vested in the President, Senate and House of Representatives. There is something, too, which shocks the con

MR. JUSTICE BROWN, concurring.

science in the idea that a treaty can be put forth as embodying the terms of an arrangement with a foreign power or an Indian tribe, a material provision of which is unknown to one of the contracting parties, and is kept in the background to be used by the other only when the exigencies of a particular case may demand it. The proviso appears never to have been called to the attention of the tribes, who would naturally assume that the treaty embodied in the Presidential proclamation contained all the terms of the arrangement."

In short, it seems to me entirely clear that this resolution cannot be considered a part of the treaty.

I think it equally clear that it cannot be treated as a legislative act, though it may be conceded that under the decisions of this court Congress has the power to disregard or modify a treaty with a foreign state. This was not done.

The resolution in question was introduced as a joint resolution, but it never received the assent of the House of Representatives or the signature of the President. While a joint resolutioņ, when approved by the President, or, being disapproved, is passed by two thirds of each house, has the effect of a law, (Const. art. 1, sec. 7,) no such effect can be given to a resolution of either house acting independently of the other. Indeed, the above clause expressly requires concurrent action upon a resolution “ before the same shall take effect.”

This question was considered by Mr. Attorney General Cushing in his opinion on certain Resolutions of Congress, 6 Ops. Attys. Gen. 680, in which he held that while joint resolutions of Congress are not distinguishable from bills, and have the effect of law, separate resolutions of either house of Congress, except in matters appertaining to their own parliamentary rights, have no legal effect to constrain the action of the President or Heads of Departments. The whole subject is there elaborately discussed.

In any view taken of this resolution it appears to me that it can be considered only as expressing the individual views of the Senators voting upon it.

I have no doubt the treaty might have provided, as did the act of Congress annexing Hawaii, that the existing customs re

Statement of the Case.

lations between the Spanish possessions ceded by the treaty and the United States should remain unchanged until legislation had been had upon the subject; but in the absence of such provision the case is clearly controlled by that of De Lima v. Bidwell.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA dissented, for the reasons stated in their opinions in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 200-220, in Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222, 236-243, and in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 287–347.





No. 42. Submitted October 23, 1901.-Decided December 2, 1901.

The test of the right to remove a case from a state court into the Circuit

Court of the United States under section two of the act of March 3, 1887, as corrected by the act of Angust 13, 1888, is that it must be a case over which the Circuit Court might have exercised original jurisdiction

under section one of that act. A case cannot be removed on the ground that it is one arising under the

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States unless that appears by plaintiff's statement of his own claim, and if it does not so appear, the want of it cannot be supplied by any statement of the petition for removal or in the subsequent pleadings, or by taking judicial notice of

facts not relied on and regularly brought into controversy. Althongh it appears from plaintiff's statement of his claim that it cannot

be maintained at all because inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States, it does not follow that the case arises under that Constitution or those laws. ,

This was a bill filed in the circuit court of Sebastian County, for the district of Greenwood, Arkansas, by “The State of Ar

Statement of the Case.

kansas, on the relation of Jo Johnson, prosecuting attorney for the 12th judicial circuit,” against the Kansas and Texas Coal Company and the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company, which, “for her cause of action,” alleged, that the railroad company was “a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, owning and operating a railroad in the 12th judicial circuit of Arkansas and more particularly in Sebastian County, of said circuit;" that the coal company was

a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, owning and operating a coal mine in Huntington, in the Greenwood district of Sebastian County.” “That a high state of excitement and condition of hot blood now prevails between striking miners and their sympathizers in large numbers, on the one side, and said coal company and its employés, on the other. That said coal company is threatening and is about to import into said county and town of Huntington, over the line of their co-defendant's railroad, a large number of armed men of the low and lawless type of humanity, to wit, about two hundred,, to the great danger of the public peace, morals, and good health of said county, and more particularly of said town. That said threatened action on the part of said defendant, if permitted to be executed, would become a great public nuisance and would destroy the peace, morals, and good health of said county and town, and would lead to riot, bloodshed, and to the dissemination of contagious and infectious diseases.”

The bill prayed “ that the defendant Kansas and Texas Coal Company, its agents, servants, and employés, and each of them, be restrained and prohibited from importing or causing to be imported or brought into Sebastian County or the 12th judicial circuit of Arkansas, and that the Saint Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company, its agents, servants, and employés-each, both, and all of them--be enjoined, restrained, and prohibited from importing, hauling, or bringing, or causing to be imported, hauled, or brouglit in the said county or circuit, and from unloading or attempting to unload from any of its cars in said county or circuit any and all large bodies of armed, lawless, or riotous persons or persons affected with contagious or infectious diseases that might endanger the peace, good order, or good

Opinion of the Court.

health of the State, or create a public nuisance in said county or circuit, under the pains and penalty of the law.”

A preliminary injunction was granted and process issued. Defendants filed their petition and bond for removal, and made application therefor, which was denied by the circuit court of Sebastian County, whereupon defendants filed in the United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Arkansas a certified transcript of the record and of the pleadings and papers in the case.

The petition for removal averred that Jo Johnson was a citizen of Arkansas, that defendants were citizens of Missouri, and that the controversy in the suit was wholly between citizens of different States; and also that, treating the State of Arkansas as complainant, the suit was one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States because defendants were engaged in interstate commerce, and the action was an unlawful interference therewith by reason of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution and of laws passed in pursuance thereof; and which constituted a defence in the premises.

Complainant moved to remand the cause, and defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, and that complainant be restrained from the prosecution of the suit in the state court.

The Circuit Court of the United States overruled the motion to remand, and sustained the motion to dissolve, but declined to enjoin complainant. 96 Fed. Rep. 353. The cause came on subsequently for final hearing, the bill was dismissed, and this appeal was prosecuted.

Mr. Ben T. Du Val for appellant.

Mr. Adiel Sherwood, Mr. Joseph M. Hill and Mr. James Brizzolara for appellees.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

The gravamen of the bill was the injury to the health, morals, peace and good oriler of the people of the town and county, the infliction on which was alleged to be threatened by the

« PreviousContinue »