Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:38:10.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Treatment of Foreigners1: In Relation to the Draft Convention and Conference of 1929

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

John Ward Cutler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As in the days of Rome and the barbarians, the activities of foreigners are still hampered in many ways. The purpose of this article is to examine certain phases of the modern practice in the law of the alien, and to discover, if possible, the present trend, especially in the light of the abortive Paris Conference of 1929 on the Treatment of Foreigners. 2

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 1933 , pp. 225 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

After admission

References

2 Proceedings in League of Nations Document C. 97. M. 23. 1930. II. See Kuhn, , “The International Conference on the Treatment of Foreigners, ” this JOURNAL, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 570;Google Scholar Potter, , “International Legislation on the Treatment of Foreigners, ” id. , p. 748. Google Scholar

3 See Albania-Italy, Convention of 1924, Art. 5, 44 League of Nations Treaty Series, 331

4 See Nielsen v. Johnson (1928), 279 U. S. 47, this JOURNAL, Vol. 23 (1929), p. 422

5 Code Civil, Arts. 11, 15. The result of the preseat United States administration's leaning toward reciprocity agreements remains to be seen.

6 E. g. Germany-U. S. , 1923, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 725. For list of U. S. most-favored nation clauses, see Treaty Information Bulletin No. 40, Jan. 1933, p. 21 et seq.

7 Santovincenzo v. Egan (1931), 284 U. S. 30, this JOURNAL, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 395; Rocca v. Thompson (1912), 223 U. S. 317, this JOURNAL, Vol. 6 (1912), p. 535; In re D’Adamo's Est. (1914), 212 N. Y. 214, 106 N. E. 81.

8 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1913, pp. 629-645. Cf. Mott v. Kline (1927), 200 Cal. 434, 253 Pac. 718; Clarke v. Deckebach (1927), 274 U. S. 392. But cf. Jordan v. Tashiro (1928), 278 U. S. 123, this JOURNAL, Vol. 23 (1929), p. 418; Asakura v. Seattle (1924), 265 U. S. 332. Cf. infra, notes 63, 108.

9 See Moore, , International Law Digest, Vol. IV, p. 44; For. Rel. 1913, p. 648. Google Scholar

10 Infra, note 104. But cf. France-Gt. Britain, 1929, 95 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 55.

11 E. g. Gt. Britain-Turkey, 1930, 108 L. N. Tr. Ser. 407; Austria-U. S. 1928, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 838.

12 L. of N. , C. 36. M. 21. 1929. II. (& Addendum), p. 18.

13 Conference Proc. , pp. 25, 88.

14 Also Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Uruguay; partially: Germany, Great Britain, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain.

15 Carlisle v. U. S. (1873), 16 Wall. 147; Thrasher's Case (1851), Moore Dig. , II, 88, Hale, Pleas of the Crown, Ch. 10, p. 59 (Wilson's ed. 1778). Cf. U. S. v. Diekelman (1875), 92 U. S. 520; La. Civ. Code (Dart, 1932), Art. 9.

16 Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892), 144 U. S. 47, 62; U. S. (Weil) v. Mexico (1868), Moore History and Digest of International Arbitrations (1898), 3424. Cf. U. S. Code, tit. 8, s. 41.

17 Venezuelan Law, 1903, Art. 7, 26 Leyes y Decretos de Venezuela 66; Const. , Art. 38 (Caracas, 1925); Salvador, Ley de Extranjería, 1910, Arts. 43, 46, Constituciün y Cddigos de … El Salvador (Barcelona, 1926); Pan American Status of Aliens Conv. , 1928, Art. 7, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 815.

18 R. v. Heighton (1922), 55 Nova Scotia Rep. 512, 69 D. L. R. 386; State v. Van Beek (1893), 87 Ia. 569, 54 N. W. 525; State v. Smith (1861), 14 Wis. 497; Opinions of the Justices (1877), 122 Mass. 594; (1811), 7 Mass. 523. Nineteen States and Alaska and Hawaii have prohibitive constitutional or statutory provisions; cf. Venezuelan Law, supra, Art. 8; Spain, Ley de Extranjeria (Ultramar), Arts. 31-32, 33 Boletín de Legislación y Jurisprudenda, 58 (1870).

19 People v. Barker (1886), 60 Mich. 277, 27 N. W. 539; State v. Ah Chew (1881), 16 Nev. 50; Reich v. State (1874), 53 Ga. 73. Cf. Kohl v. Lehlback (1895), 160 U. S. 293; Terr. v. Hart (1888), 7 Mont. 489, 17 Pac. 718; Johr v. People (1873), 26 Mich. 427; State v. Vogel (1868), 22 Wis. 471; State v. Quarrel, 2 Bay, 150 (S. C. 1798), 9 & 10 Geo. 5, c. 50, s. 3 (1919): U. S. Code, tit. 28, s. 411.

20 German Election Law, s. 2, Reichsgesetzblatt, Mar. 18, 1924, p. 173; Gardina v. Board of Registrars (1909), 160 Ala. 155, 48 So. 788; Gill v. Shurtleff (1899), 183 I11. 440, 56 N. E. 164; Dorsey v. Brigham (1898), 177 I11. 250, 52 N. E. 303; Philippine Is. Rev. Admin. Code (1917), s. 431; constitutional or statutory provisions in 37 States. Cf. U. S. Code, tit. 8, s. 31; Ops. of the Justices, supra, at 595 and 525.

21 Connell v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 421, 144 N. E. 882; State v. Fowler, State v. Abbott (1889), 41 La. Ann. 380, 1096, 6 So. 602, 805.

22 Declarants, where state citizens, may serve: Abrigo v. State (1890), 29 Tex. A. 143, 15 S. W. 408; State v. Barrett (1889), 40 Minn. 65, 41 N. W. 459; Babcock v. People (1889), 13 Colo. 515, 22 Pac. 817; State v. Pagels (1887), 92 Mo. 300, 4 S. W. 931; People v. Scott (1885), 56 Mich. 154, 22 N. W. 274. Cf. Md. Ann. Code (Bagby, 1924), Art. 51, s. 6; Porto Rico, Comp. Rev. Stat. & Codes (1913), s. 164; Austria-Gt. Britain, 1924, Art. 5, British Tr. Ser. (1925), No. 21, Cmd. 2411; Gt. Britain-Spain, 1922, Art. 4, id. (1924), No. 21, Cmd. 2188.

23 State v. Covell (1918), 103 Kan. 754, 175 Pac. 989; Haywood v. Marshall (1897), 53 Neb. 220, 73 N. W. 449; Woodcock v. Bolster (1863), 35 Vt. 632; Stewart v. Foster, 2 Binn. 110 (Pa. 1809); Ark. Const. , 6th Am. (1909); Mo. Stat. Ann. (1932), s. 10178. Cf. S. C. Const. (1895), Art. 2, s. 4.

24 Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (N. Y. 1916), p. 63. Cf. Italy- Roumania, 1930, Art. 3, 106 L. N. Tr. Ser. 179; Spain-U. S. , 1902, Art. 5, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 422.

25 Austria-Turkey, 1924, Art. 3, 32 L. N. Tr. Ser. 303 (lightermen); cf. Idaho Laws, 1929, c. 265, s. 5 (cosmeticians); la. Code (1931), s. 1905-09; Hawaii Laws, 1929, Act 158 (accountants).

26 Mich. Comp. Laws (1929), s. 6836; Ala. Const. (1901), s. 132; Neb. Comp. Stat. (1929), ss. 79-1419; Nev. Comp. Laws (Hillyer, 1929), s. 5986; N. M. Stat. Ann. (1929), ss. 98-106; Tenn. Code (Williams-Shannon-Marsh, 1932), s. 2513; Tex. Complete Stat. (1931 Supp. ), Art. 2880a; Hawaii Laws, 1925, Act 271; Porto Rico Laws, 1929, Act 31; 1930, Act 78. Cf. Honduras Const. , 1924, Art. 14; Secr, de Rel. Exter. , Ley de Extranjería, 1926, Art. 29; N. Y. Education Law, s. 550; Idaho Code Ann. (1932), ss. 32-1102; Mont. Rev. Code (Choate Supp. 1927), s. 1088; Wash. Comp. Stat. (Remington, 1922), s. 4845; Idaho Laws, 1929, c. 261, ss. 3, 6; la. Laws, 1929, c. 72 (barbers). See Perreau, , Droits des Médecins Etrangers en France (1910), 37 Google Scholar Clunet, , Journal de Dr. Int. Privé, 794; Borchard, op. cit. p. 80. Google Scholar

27 Templar v. State Board of Examiners of Barbers (1902), 131 Mich. 254; 90 N. W. 1058; Central American Conv. on Professions, 1923, 2 Hudson, International Legislation (1931), 978; Chile-Colombia, 1921, 114 British and Foreign State Papers, 666; Austria-Czechoslo- vakia, 1920, 3 L. N. Tr. Ser. 226; Japan-Mexico, 1917, 111 Br. & For. St. Pap. 929; Mexico- Spain, 1904, 14 Olivart, Tratados de España 295; Denmark-Italy, 1902, R. Min. degli Aff. Est. 16 Trattati e Convenzioni fra … Italia, 353. Cf. Conference Proc. , p. 181; infra, n. 68.

28 Art. 7, par. 2(b).

29 In re Admission to the Bar (1900), 61 Neb. 58, 84 N. W. 611; In re Yamashita (1902), 30 Wash. 234, 70 Pac. 482 (alien ineligible to citizenship). 16 States debar aliens; 10 admit declarants or require immediate naturalization; 10 admit all aliens.

30 Turkey, etc. , Conference Proc. , p. 181.

31 E. g. N. C. Code Ann. (1931), s. 193 (c); but cf. Arrowsmith v. Voorhies, 55 F. (2d), 310 (E. D. Mich. 1931).

32 In re Parrott, 1 F. 481 (C. C. D. Cal. 1880); infra, n. 74.

33 Chile, Código Civil (1855), Art. 57 (Ed. Oficial, Santiago, 1889).

34 See In re Est. of Horowitz, Polish Supr. Ct. , 1928, 7 Orzecznictwo Sadów Polskich, No. 282; McNair and Lauterpacht, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1927-8, Case No. 226.

35 Art. 6. Cf. inter alia, Austria-Netherlands, 1930, 109 L. N. Tr. Ser. 39; Albania-Jugo- slavia, 1926, 91 id. 9. For exercises of the “police power, ” see Clarke v. Deckebach, supra, n. 8; In re Ramirez (1924), 193 Cal. 633, 226 Pac. 914; State v. Correl (1919), 99 O. St. 285, 124 N. E. 129; Trageser v. Gray (1890), 73 Md. 250, 20 Atl. 905; N. J. Comp. Stat. (Supp. 1924), s. 52–214i; firearms statutes: Conn. , I11. , Mass. , Neb. , N. D. , Ore. , Utah, W. Va. , Wis. , Hawaii. Cf. infra, notes 67, 68.

36 Arts. 21, 29.

37 E. g. Asiatics (Land and Trading) Am. Act (Transvaal), Stat. of Union of S. Africa 1919, p. 328; Conference Proc. , p. 154 et seq. ; cf. In re Lee Sing, 43 F. 359 (N. D. Cal. 1890); Kneier, , “Discrimination Against Aliens by Municipal Ordinances, ” (1928), 16 Georgetown L. J. 143. Google Scholar

38 Art. 2, supra, n. 6; cf. Austria-U. S. , Art. 5, supra, n. 11; Spain, Art. 4, supra, n. 24; Brazil, 1828, Art. 13, 8 Stat. 390; Spain, Ley de Extranjería (Ultramar), Art. 30, supra, n. 18. See Moore Dig. , II, 171-181.

39 Italy-Siam, 1926, Art. 4, 61 L. N. Tr. Ser. 215; France, 1925, Art. 4, id. 489; Gt. Britain, Art. 3, Br. Tr. Ser. No. 7 (1926), Cmd. 2642;U. S. , 1920, Art. 1, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 655.

40 Zaitzeff, “Foreigners in Russia, ” (1926), 24 Mich. L. Rev. 441.

41 U. S. (Roberts) v. Mexico (1926), Gen. Claims Comm. , Op. of Comm’rs (1927), 100; U. S. (Hopkins) v. Mexico (1926), id. 42, 51; Conn. Gen. Stat. (1930), s. 5985; Ind. Ann. Stat. (Burns, 1926), s. 3888; Mass. Gen. Laws (1921), c. 69, s. 11. See Borchard, “Responsibility of States at the Hague Conference, ” this JOURNAL, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 522.

42 Moore Dig. , II, 161-171. Cf. French law against alien editors, 1881, Art. 6, 23 Bulletin des Lois (12th Ser. ), 125; Albanian Const. (1925), Art. 128, 1 Dareste, Les Constitutions Modemes, p. 39 (4th ed. Paris, 1929).

43 Gong Lum v. Rice (1927), 275 U. S. 78; Bond v. Tij Fung (1927), 148 Miss. 462; State v. Duffy (1872), 7 Nev. 342; cf. Farrington v. Tokushige (1927), 273 U. S. 284. See Root, “The Real Question Under the Japanese Treaty and The San Francisco School Boards Resolution, ” this JOURNAL, Vol. 1 (1907), p. 273.

44 Denmark-Finland-Norway-Sweden, 1928, 84 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 7; Bulgaria-Czeohoslovakia, 1925, 50 id, . 253; Belgium-France, 1921, 27 id. 173; cf. Estonia-Latvia, 1924, 63 id. 13 (State of origin to refund expenses). See Borchard, op. cit. pp. 81, 409 et seq.

45 Moore Dig. , IV, 18.

46 E. g. Finland-Germany, 1927, 71 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 361; Denmark-Gt. Britain, 1925, 61 id. 353; Belgium-Netherlands, 1921, 12 id. 47; Argentina-Italy, 1920, 15 id. 272; cf. Austria- Italy, 1924, 84 id. 397 and 367; Austria-Germany, 1930, 119 id. 201.

47 Conf. Int. du Travail, IèreSess. 1919, Comptes Rendus, pp. 143-4; Unemployment Conv. , 1 Hudson, op. cit. 404; Int. Labor Office, Unemployment Insurance, Studies & Reports Ser. C, No. 10 (1925); Germany-Poland, 1927, 73 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 251; Austria-Germany, 1924, id. 517; Denmark-Switzerland, 1927, 69 id. 307; cf. France-Italy, 1919, 5 id. 280; Draft Conv. , Final Act.

48 Workmen's Compensation Conv. , 1925, 3 Hudson, op. cit. 1616; Denmark-Gt. Britain, 61 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 353; Estonia-Finland, 50 id. 335; Norway-Netherlands, 48 id. 247. See Stroh, L’Etranger et les Assurances Sociales (Paris, 1929).

49 Spain-U. S. , supra, n. 24; see Kingsbury, Proc. Am. Soc. Int. Law, 1911, p. 214 at 221.

50 Art. 11. Accord: Slade v. Minor, Fed. Cas. No. 12, 937 (C. C. D. C. 1817), Barrett v. Crane (1844), 16 Vt. 246; Kan. Const. (1859) Art. 8, s. 1; contra: In re Toner (1864), 39 Ala. 454; Ansley v. Timmons, 3 McCord 329 (S. C. 1825); cf. U. S. v. Wyngall, 5 Hill, 16 (N. Y. 1843); U. S. v. Cottingham, 1 Rob. 615 (Va. 1843).

51 Cf. For. Rel. (1894), p. 678.

52 But cf. Hopkins' Case, supra, n. 41; France (Lacaze) v. Argentina (1864), 2 Lapradelle & Politis, Recueil des Arbitrages Intenationaux, 290; Gt. Britain-Turkey, treaty, supra, n. 11; Belgium-Greece, 1928, 21 Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités (3d Ser. ) 819; Roumania blocked suggestions of Hungary, Switzerland, etc. , for prior notice and compensation, Conference Proc. , pp. 269, 273-274. See Deák, The Hungarian-Rumanian Land Dispute (N. Y. 1928); “The Rumanian-Hungarian Land Dispute before the Council of the League of Nations” (1928), 16 Calif. L. Rev. 120; Rolin, , “Les Réformes Agraires en Roumanie” (1927), 8 Rev. de Dr. Int. et Législ. Comp. (3d Ser. ), 438. Google Scholar

53 Italy-Roumania, supra, n. 24; Siam-U. S. , Art. 10, supra, n. 39; Japan, 1911, Art. 1, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 558; Spain, supra, n. 24; Argentina, 1853, Art. 10, 10 Stat. 1005. See Kingsbury, op. cit.

54 Bluntschli, , Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staaten, s. 391 (3d ed. , Nördlingen, 1878). Google Scholar

55 12 Stat. 597; Hall, International Law, pp. 259-269 (8th ed. ); 3 Scott, Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, Conference of 1907, p. 188; see Moore Dig. , IV, 53, 55; In re Wehlitz (1863), 16 Wis. 443. Cf. Conn. Gen. Stat. (1930), s. 746; Ex parte Larrucea, 249 F. 981 (S. D. Cal. 1917); this JOURNAL, Vol. 13 (1919), p. 119; note 27 Yale L. J. (1918), 683.

56 Supra, n. 17.

57 Supra, n. 53; U. S. -France, 1918, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 636; Gt. Britain, Nos. 633; 634 (Canada); Greece, No. 638; Italy, No. 637; cf. Germany, 1925, Art. 6, supra, n. 6; Estonia, 1925, Art. 6, No. 736; Hungary, No. 748; Salvador, 1926, No. 827; Honduras, 1927, No. 764; Latvia, 1928, No. 765; cf. France-Gt. Britain, 1917, 111 Br. & For. St. Pap. , 251; Gt. Britain-Greece, 1918, id. 310; Italy, 1917, id. 314; Russia, id. 548.

58 Art. 4. Also excepted by the United States.

59 U. S. (McManus) v. Mexico (1868), Moore, Arb. 3411, 3415; Rose's Case, id. 3417, 3421; Cole's Case, id. 3422; contra: Ducoing's Case (1839), id. 3409; Homan's Case (1849), id. ; Germany (Beckman & Co. ) v. Venezuela, Ralston, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, 598. Cf. Italy (DeCaro) v. Venezuela, id. 810, 818; U. S. (Robinson) v. Mexico (1849), Moore, Arb. 3410; Moke's Case (1868), id. 3411. See Moore, Dig. , VI, 916.

60 Robinson's and Moke's Cases, both supra.

61 See Germany-Lithuania, 1928, Art. 5, 89 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 127. At least 19 treaties, 19211929, approximate the draft convention's suggestions. Cf. Pres. Ador's Award, France v. Spain, June 15, 1922, 50 Clunet (1923), 217; see Valery, “L’Impôt sur les Bénéfices de Guerre et les Commerçants Espagnols, ” id. 221. Cf. Alexander v. Pfau, Transvaal L. Rep. , T. S. (1902), 155.

62 Subject to existing or future international conventions. Art. 23 (e). Cf. World Econ. Conference, 1927, Final Rep. , p. 24, L. of N. , C. E. I. 44.

63 43 Stat. 153, s. 3 (6); Dept, of State, Admission of Aliens into the United States, pp. 47, 48-50, Notes to Sec. 361, Consular Regulations (Rev. to July 1, 1932).

64 E. g. Japan-U. S. , Art. 11, supra, n. 53; Belgium/Luxembourg-Switzerland, 1929, Art. 6, 105 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 8. Cf. Germany-U. S. , Art. 9, supra, n. 6; Germany-Turkey, 1930, Art. 13, 110 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 9; Italy-Roumania, Art. 21, supra, n. 24. But cf. Netherlands-Rou- mania, 1930, 108 id. 177; Jugoslavia-Sweden, 1928, Art. 5, 106 id. 139.

65 Art. 7. Protocol VII suggests bilateral agreements on equivalent titles or guaranties.

66 Draft Conv. , p. 35. The Franco-German most-favored-nation treaty (1927, Art. 25, 76 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 7) virtually gives national treatment, due to each party's other treaties.

67 Also munitions manufacture, etc. , Conference Proc. , p. 195; insurance, id. p. 428; communication systems (Gt. Britain, Turkey), id. p. 436; forests, field sports (Sweden), id. pp. 228, 131; cf. Patsone v. Pa. (1914), 232 U. S. 138; Alsos v. Kendall (1924), 111 Ore. 359, 227 Pac. 286; Lubetich v. Pollock, 6 F. (2d), 237 (W. D. Wash. 1925); Ex parte Giletti (1915), 70 Fla. 442, 70 So. 446. But cf. In re Ah Chong, 2 F. 733 (C. C. D. Cal. 1880); Poon v. Miller, 234 S. W. 543 (Tex. Civ. A. 1924). Conn. , Iowa, Idaho, Mass. , Neb. , N. D. , Ore. , W. Va. , Wash. , Alaska, Hawaii bar aliens from hunting, fishing, trapping, or charge higher fees.

68 Belgium/Luxembourg-Persia, 1929, 110 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 391; same-Switzerland, Art. 8, supra, n. 64; Comm. v. Hana (1906), 195 Mass. 262, 81 N. E. 149; contra: State v. Montgomery (1900), 94 Me. 192, 47 Atl. 165. Other “reasonable classifications” include prohibiting alien bus operators and soft drink retailers: Gizzarelli v. Presbrey (1922), 44 R. I. 333, 117 Atl. 359; Miller v. Niagara Falls (1924), 207 App. Div. 798, 202 N. Y. S. 549. Cf. Ky. Stat. (Carrol, Supp. 1932), s. 73-5 (architecture); N. Y. Pub. Health Law, s. 293; Wis. Stat. (1931), s. 156. 015; Wyo. Rev. Stat. (1931), s. 37-104 (embalming).

69 Int. Conv. Relating to Simplification of Customs Formalities, 1923, Art. 10, 30 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 371; Jugoslaviar-Spain, 1929, 98 id. 319; France-Switzerland, 1927, Art. 7(2), 64 id. , 7; Austria-Gt. Britain, 1923, 17 id. 386; U. S. treaties with Latin American countries, 19181923, U. S. Tr. Ser. , Nos. 640, 642, 646, 648, 651, 662, 688, 692; Greece-Italy, 1915, 23 Trattati e Convenzioni 317; Gt. Britain-U. S. , 1910, U. S. Tr. Ser. , No. 552. Cf. Italy-Rou- mania, Art. 16, supra, n. 24; Czechoslovakia-Hungary, 1927, 65 id. 61; Germany-Jugoslavia, Art. 5, 77 id. 19.

70 Art. 8; Protocol VIII; if none available in national labor market, Conference Proc. , p. 431; cf. Czechoslovakia-Hungary, treaty, Art. 4, supra; Japan-U. S. , supra, n. 53.

71 Arts. 1, 2; Czechoslovakia-Poland, 1925, Arts. 2, 24, 58 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 9. Cf. infra,notes 82, 83.

72 Protocol I.

73 Borchard, op. cit. pp. 77-80.

74 See Turkish law against alien barbers, waiters, chauffeurs, grocers, musicians, cabaret dancers, T. C. Resmt Gazete, No. 2126, June 16, 1932; French law protecting national labor, 47 Bulletin des Lois (1893, 12th Sér. ), 996; Copineau & Henriet, “De la Condition des Étrangers en France, du Point de Vue de la Résidence et de la Profession, ” 23 Clunet (1896), 261; Heim v. McCall (1915), 239 U. S. 175, this JOURNAL, Vol. 10 (1916), p. 162; but see Powell, “The Right to Work for the State, ” 16 Col. L. Rev. (1916), 99. Cf. Ariz. Const. (Am. 1930) Art. 18, s. 10; Cal. Stat. 1931, c. 398; N. Y. Labor Law, s. 222; Ohio Gen. Code Ann. (Page, 1926), s. 1231-7; Ore. Code Ann. (1930), ss. 19-201 to 203; Wash. Comp. Stat. (Remington, 1922), ss. 2334-1 to 4. The 14th Amendment prohibits alien labor restrictions other than on State work: Truax v. Raich (1915), 239 U. S. 33, this JOURNAL, Vol. 10 (1916), p. 158; Fraser v. McConway & Torley Co. , 82 F. 257 (C. C. D. Pa. 1897); In re Parrott, supra, n. 32; Ex parte Case (1911), 20 Idaho 128, 116 Pac. 1037; Juniata Limestone Co. v. Fagley (1898), 187 Pa. 193, 40 Atl. 977.

75 Conv. for Protection of Industrial Property, 1925, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 834; Pan American Trade Mark, etc. Conv. , 1929, id. No. 833; Norway-U. S. S. R. , 1928, 79 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 9; Int. Conventions for Prot. of Literary and Artistic Works, 1928, Br. Tr. Ser. (1932), No. 12, Cmd. 4057; 1908, 102 Br. & For. St. Pap. 619; Add’l Protocol, 1914, Br. Tr. Ser. (1914), No. 11, Cd. 7613; Pan American Conv. 1910, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 593; revised, 1928, 4 Hudson, op. cit. 2369.

76 Borchard, op. cit. p. 95.

77 Taney, C. J. , in Mager v. Grima (1850), 8 How. 490; cf. For. Rel. (1899), p. 345. But cf. Fraser v. McConway & Torley Co. ; Juniata Limestone Co. v. Fagley, both supra, n. 74. See Kingsbury, op. cit. at 215-218.

78 Succ. of Rixner (1896), 48 La. Ann. 552, 19 So. 597; Moore, Dig. , IV, 24. Cf. Prevost v. Greneaux (1856), 19 How. 1.

79 Draft Conv. , Art. 12; Comment, p. 48; Allies-Turkey (Residence, Business, Jurisdiction), 1923, Art. 8, 28 L. N. Tr. Ser. 152; Austria-Germany, 1920, Art. 24 (1), 4 id. 202; Bel- gium-France, Conditions of Residence, 1927, 69 id. 49. At least 26 post-war treaties forbid fiscal discrimination (5 companies only; 4 general national treatment); some 19 stipulate most-favored-nation treatment in taxation. Cf. Genoa Conference, 1922, Report of Economic Commission, Art. 15, France, Min. des Aff. Etrangères, Doc. Diplom. , Conférence Economique de Genes (1922). See Moore, Dig. , IV, 20 el seq.

80 See Report of Government Experts, L. of N. , C. 562. M. 178. 1928. II. ; Collection of International Agreements, etc. , C. 345. M. 102. 1928. II. ; observations of Netherlands delegation, Conference Proc. , p. 537.

81 See German Reichsfinanzhof, Aug. 8, 1928, 2 Zeitschr. fur ausländ. öff. Recht. u. Völker- recht (1930), pt. 2, 88 (resident aliens liable, equally with nationals, for extraordinary taxes).

82 Draft Conv. , Arts. 3, 4, 12(2); Comment, p. 48; nevertheless, Austria might favor home products in industrial development, Conference Proc. , p. 326 et seq. ; but cf. Austro-German Economic Agree’t, Art. 24(5), supra, n. 79. Specific state monopolies reserved: Protocol IV; but no unequal exemptions, nor differential regulations of production, trade, or price levels: Art. 20. Cf. Belgium-France, treaty, Art. 5, supra, n. 79.

83 Estonia, France, Gt. Britain, India, Italy, Austria (partly).

84 Branches and agencies are omitted; see Gt. Britain-Turkey, treaty, Art. 13, supra, n. 11.

85 It is legally possible both to exclude foreign corporations (see Pembina Mining & Milling Co. v. Pa. (1888), 125 U. S. 181, 188), and to prohibit or limit alien participation in native ones: State v. Traveller's Ins. Co. (1898), 70 Conn. 590, 40 Atl. 465; Mexican Alien Land Law, Diario Oficial, Jan. 21, 1926; Cal. Gen. Laws (Deering, 1931), Act 261, s. 3; Tex. Complete Stat. (1928), Art. 1527.

86 L’Aff. de la Banque d’Alsace-Lorraine (1895), 97 Bulletin des Arrêts de la Cour de Cassation, 100; Russia-U. S. , 1904, U. S. Tr. Ser. No. 526; Conference Proc. , p. 355 et seq. ; note, 38 Clunet (1911), 507.

87 See Honduras, Ley de Extranjeria, Art. 4, supra, n. 26.

88 Turba v. Ferrero, Milan Ct. of Appeal, 1928, 7 Riv. di Dir. Intemaz. (1928, 3d Ser. ), 527; Bequest to Methodist Church, For. Rel. (1899), p. 408; Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. v. Fonseca Machado & Co. , Brazilian Supr. Fed. Trib. , 1925, Annual Digest, 1925–6, Case No. 217.

89 Russia-U. S. , Treaty, supra, n. 86; numerous recent treaties.

90 Dicey, Conflict of Laws (4th ed. ), p. 521; Borchard, op. cit. p. 41.

91 E. g. Czechoslovakia, Sammlung der Gesetze und Verordnungen (1920), No. 532.

92 Cf. Bethlehem Motors Co. v. Flynt (1921), 256. U. S. 421 (no discrimination against admitted foreign corporations).

93 Only 9 out of 51 recent treaties give companies national treatment. Congress' foreign commerce power is seldom exercised over State company regulations; but see Latvia-11. S. , treaty, Art. 4, supra, n. 57; Germany-U. S. , Art. 13, supra, n. 6.

94 United States treaties with Argentina, Art. 9, supra, n. 53; Spain, Art. 3, supra, n. 24; Fergus v. Tomlinson (1928), 126 Kan. 427, 268 Pac. 849; U. S. (Savage) v. Salvador (1852), Moore, Arb. , 1855, 1857; Uruguayan and Italian life insurance monopolies, Scelle, “A Propos de I’Établissement du Monopole des Assurances en Uruguay, ” 30 Rev. du Dr. Pub. (1913), 637; Audinet, “Le Monopole des Assurances en Italie, ” 20 Rev. Gén. de Dr. Int. Pub. (1913), 5; Sicilian sulphur monopoly, 28 Br. & For. St. Pap. , 1163; 29 id. 175, 1225; 30 id. 119. See Borchard, op. cit. p. 120 et seq. ; Bullington, “Problems of International Law in the Mexican Constitution of 1917, ” this JOURNAL, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 685, at 693-694.

95 Pillet, Prindpes de Droit International Privé, p. 194 (Paris, 1903). The right to reside is subject to the state's deportation laws, at least if these are not applied arbitrarily.

96 See Bullington, “The Land and Petroleum Laws of Mexico, ” this JOURNAL, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 50, at 63 and note; Fachiri, Brit. Y. B. of Int. Law (1925), 159; cf. Czechoslovak Supr. Ct. of Justice, 1926, Vážny, Rozhoduntí Nejtryššího Soudu, Civ. Case 6543; Annual Digest, 1925–6, Case No. 99. For prior compensation requirements, see Denmark-Turkey, 1931. Art. 6, 119 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 165; Sweden-Turkey, 1929, Art. 6, id. 53. Cf. Seizure of Religious Properties by Portugal (1913/1920), Scott, Hague Court Reports (2d Ser. 1932), p. 2; this JOURNAL, Vol. 15 (1921), p. 99.

97 Decree of National Assembly, Aug. 4 ff. , 1789, 1 Lois et Actes du Gouvemement 1; 12 Chss. 2, c. 24 (1660); Bulgarian laws, D’rzhaven Viestnik, May 12, 1921; Aug. 1, 1924; Bou-roff, La Réforme Agraire en Bulgarie, 1921-1924 (Paris); Czechoslovakia, Sammlung der Gesetze u. Verordnungen (1919)> Nos. 215, 387; (1920) No. 329; Lithuanian laws, Feb. 15– March 29, 1922; April 14, 1924, Fauchille and Sibert, “La loi Agraire Lithuanienne 52 R. G. D. I. P. (1925), 5; Agrarian Reform Law (1921), 9-10 Hamangiu, Codul General al Romaniei, p. 733 (Bucharest); Land Act, 1923, Saorstát Eireann, Pub. Gen. Acts 1923, No. 42; Land Act, 1924, New Zealand Stat. 1924, No. 31, esp. Part XIII; Laws of Hidalgo and Vera Cruz (Mexico), N. Y. Times, June 6, 1932. See Bullington, op. cit. , supra, n. 94, at 689.

98 Organic Law (1925), Art. 14, Diario Oficial, Dec. 31, 1925; Regulations, id. April 8, 1926. See Dunn, The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens in Mexico, ch. XI (N. Y. , 1933).

99 But cf. Texas Co. Case (1921), 9 Semanario Judicial (5th Ser. ) 432. See Dept, of State, American Property Rights in Mexico (1926).

100 Art. 27 (Branch's transl. , U. S. Dept, of State, 1926). This is familiar to Anglo-American doctrine; see Clark, “The Oil Settlement with Mexico, ” 6 Foreign Affairs (1928), 600, at 601, 605; Bullington, op. cit. , supra, n. 96; cf. Roumanian Const. (1923), Art. 19, 2 Dareste, op. cit. p. 355; Mining Law (1924), art. 1, 11-12 Hamangiu, op. cit. p. 617; Precious Stones Act, 1927, Stat. of Union of S. Africa, 1927-28, II, p. 18.

101 Witenberg, “La Protection de la Propriété Immobiliére, ” 55 Clunet (1928), 566; French Charters (1814), Art. 66; (1830), Art. 57; Const. (1848), Art. 12, Carpentier & du Saint, 13 Répertoire du Droit Français, 224, par. 16-17 (Paris 1885).

102 Czechoslovakia (1920), Art. 109; 2 Dareste, op. cit. p. 821; Estonia (1920), Art. 24, 1 id. 480; Germany (1919), Art. 153, 1 id. 58; Jugoslavia (1921), Art. 43, 2 id. 439; Lithuania (1928), Arts. 23, 91, 2 id. 146; Poland (1921), Art. 99, 2 id. 275; Roumania, Art. 17, 2 id. 355. Cf. Czechoslovak Supr. Ct. , 1925, Vážny, Civ. Case 4977; Annual Digest, 1925-6, Case No. 98.

103 German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (1926), P. C. I. J. Ser. A, No. 7, pp. 22, 33 Ser. C. No. 11; Hungary (Pallavicini) v. Czechoslovakia, Mixed Arb. Trib. 1929, this Jour-NAL, Vol. 23 (1929), p. 851; Lapradelle, note, 3 Rev. de Dr. Int. 279; Hungary (Kulin) v. Rou- mania (1929), 7 Rec. des Decisions des Trib. Arb. Mixtes, 138; Czechoslovak Supr. Ct. , 1927, Vázny, Civ. Case 6976; Annual Digest, 1927-8, Case No. 94. See Fiore, International Law Codified, ss. 1163, 1165-6 (5th ed. , Borchard'stransl. ); Feilchenfeld, Public Debts and State Succession, pp. 630-633 (N. Y. 1931); Williams, , International Law and the Property of Aliens, Brit. Y. B. of Int. Law (1928), 1;Google Scholar Gt. Britain, For. Off. , Holding of Real Estate and Acquisition of Mines, etc. , by Aliens in Foreign Countries (1922); Devin, , La Propriété Immobilière des Etrangers en France, p. 37 et seq. (Paris, 1926). Google Scholar

104 Art. 30 (III), Ed. Oficial (Mexico, 1905) ;U. S. (Morton) v. Mexico (1868), Moore, Arb. 2478.

105 The conference, rejecting this, endorsed “reasonable” frontier restrictions, Conference Proc. , p. 436; infra, n. 121.

106 Alien Land Law, supra, n. 85; Regulations, Diario Oficial, Mar. 29, 1926. Cf. Frick v. Webb (1923), 263 U. S. 326, this JOURNAL, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 359; 7 Entsch. des Österreich- isches Ob. Gerichtshofes in Ziv. u. Justizverwaltungsachen (1925), No. 125; Austria-Turkey, treaty, Art. 5, supra, n. 25; Russian decrees, Sobr. Uzak. : Rasp. Prav. May 12, 1887, p. 683; June 23, 1898, p. 3406; 78 Br. & For. St. Pap. 49; 96 id. 176; but cf. Soviet decrees: Ukraine, Zb. Uzak. ta Rasp. R. S. U. Uk. , I, 1924, No. 20, p. 177; Federation, Sobr. Zak. : Rasp. S. S. S. R. , I, 1925, No. 41, p. 627; Zaitzeff, op. cit. at 442. See Dunn, op. cit. ch. XII.

107 See Bullington, op. cit. , supra, n. 96; cf. supra, n. 77, on inheritance limitations through taxation; Blythe v. Hinckley (1901), 180 U. S. 333; U. S. v. Fox (1876), 94 U. S. 315; Pullen v. Comm’rs of Wake City (1872), 66 N. C. 361, 363.

108 Terrace v. Thompson (1923), 263 U. S. 197, this JOURNAL, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 346; Webb v. O’Brien (1923), 263 U. S. 313, this JOURNAL, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 354; Dudley v. Lowell (1927), 201 Cal. 376, 257 Pac. 57; Porterfield v. Webb (1923), 263 U. S. 225, this JOURNAL, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 344; Idaho Laws 1923, c. 122; Kan. R. S. (Supp. 1931), c. 67, s. 702 (subject to treaties). See Buell “Some Legal Aspects of the Japanese Question, ” this JOURNAL Vol. 17 (1923), p. 29, at 39; Powell, , “Alien Land Cases in United States Supreme Court, ” 12Calif. L. Rev. (1924), 259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. proposed French law limiting aliens' leases, N. Y. Times, Nov. 24, 1922; see Devin, , op. cit. , p. 122 et seq. Google Scholar

109 France, 1853, Art. 7, 10 Stat. 992.

110 Cal. , Del. , Idaho, I11. , Iowa, Kan. , Me. , Mont. , Mo. , Neb. , Nev. , N. Y. , N. C. , Ore. , Tex. , Wash. See Curry, Alien Land Laws and Alien Rights, H. R. Doc. No. 89, 67th Cong. , 1st Sess. , pp. 32-34 (1921); Moore, Dig. , IV, 32. Cf. Wis. Const. , Art. 1, s. 15. The District of Columbia law accords with that for the Territories, U. S. Code, tit. 8, ss. 78, 79. Cf. Geofroy v. Riggs (1890), 133 U. S. 258.

111 Naturalization Act, 33 & 34 Vict. , c. 14; Nationality Act, 4 & 5 Geo. 5, c. 17, s. 17. See Davies, The English Law Relating to Aliens, p. 160 et seq. (London, 1931).

112 Cf. Collingwood v. Pace, 1 Vent. 413 (Ex. Ch. 1664).

113 Dziennik Ustaw, Apr. 12, 1920, p. 480; 54 Clunet (1927), 1280.

114 Moore, Dig. , IV, 34; see 3 Tiffany, Real Property, p. 2350 et seq. (2d ed. Chicago, 1920). The rule (common law and statutory) has frequently been relaxed: Cross v. De Valle, 1 Cliff. 282 (C. C. 1st, 1859); Croesus Mining, etc. Co. v. Col. Land & Mineral Co. , 19 P. 78 (C. C. D. Colo. 1884); In re Krogstadt (1886), 4 Land Dec. 564; Pembroke v. Huston (1904), 180 Mo. 627, 79 S. W. 470. Cf. Ripley v. Sutherland, 40 F. (2d), 785 (App. D. C. 1930).

115 8 Stat. 116, Art. 9 (1794); Fairfax v. Hunter (1812), 7 Cranch, 603. The Jay Treaty was modified by the convention of 1899, 31 Stat. 1939; cf. Dutton v. Donahue, 8 Pac. 90 (Wyo. 1932).

116 Hauenstein v. Lynham (1879), 100 U. S. 483; Chirac v. Chirac (1817), 2 Wh. 259; In re Stixrud's Est. (1910), 58 Wash. 339, 109 Pac. 343; Doehrel v. Hillmer (1897), 102 la. 169, 71 N. W. 204; cf. Todok v. Union State Bk. (1930), 281 U. S. 449, this JOURNAL, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 144. See Gregory, Proc. Am. Soc. Int. L. , 1907, p. 150 at 157 et seq.

117 E. g. Germany, Art. 4, supra, n. 6; Gt. Britain, 1899, supra, n. 115; Latvia, Art. 4, supra, n. 57. But cf. Italy, 1871, Art. 22, 17 Stat. 845; Switzerland, 1850, Art. 5, 11 Stat. 587; Turkey, Protocol, 1874, 2 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, etc. between the United States and Other Powers, 1344.

118 E. g. N. Y. Laws, 1897, c. 593.

119 U. S. Code, tit. 8, s. 71 et seq. See MacClintock, Aliens under the Federal Laws of the United States (Chicago, 1909).

120 Art. 10. Regulation of foreign exchange is barred.

121 Only if existing laws are insufficient. National defense measures must not close the whole frontier zone; cf. supra, n. 105. Twelve delegations requested rural realty reservations, Conference Proc. , p. 434; 4 countries required prior authorization for any alien landholding, id. p. 436.

122 Cf. Taylor v. Carpenter, Fed. Cas. No. 13, 784 (C. C. D. Mass. 1846); In re Est. of Rugh (1931), 211 la. 722, 234 N. W. 278. For a limitation on right of action, see Maiorano v. B. & O. R. Co. (1908), 213 U. S. 268, this JOURNAL, Vol. 3 (1909), p. 1018; but cf. Italy- U. S. , treaty, 1913, 38 Stat. 1669; McGovern v. Phila. & R. R. Co. , 209 F. 975 (E. D. Pa. 1914); Ferrara v. Auric Min. Co. (1908), 43 Colo. 496, 95 Pac. 952; Germany-U. S. , treaty, Art. 2, supra, a. 6; Honduras-U. S. , Art. 2, supra, n. 57; Germany U. S. S. R. , 1925, pt. I, Art. 10, 53 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 7; see “Recovery by Non-Resident Aliens for Death by Wrongful Act, ” this JOURNAL, Vol. 7 (1913), p. 367. Cf. Disconto Gesellschaft v. Umbreit (1908), 208 U. S. 570, this JOURNAL, Vol. 2 (1908), p. 412 (preference to resident citizen plaintiff); contra: Body v. Loeb (1930), 106 N. J. Eq. 206, 150 Atl. 226. See U. S. Code, tit. 8, s. 41.

123 See Borchard, op. cit. p. 82 and bibliography. It has been abolished, or subjected to national treatment, by many treaties: e. g. Hague Conv. on Civ. Proc. , 1905, Arts. 17-19, 99 Br. & For. St. Pap. , 990; Czechoslovakia-Roumania, 1930, Art. 7, 119 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 73; Germany-U. S. S. R. , supra, Arts. 12-14; Austria-France, 1925, 75 L. N. Tr. Ser. , 97; Czecho- slovakia-Italy, 1922, 55 id, . 189; cf. Denmark-Turkey, Art. 7, supra, n. 96 (reciprocity).

124 Reciprocity: Denmark-Turkey, supra: Germany-U. S. S. R. , Art. 15, supra, n. 122; Austria-France, supra; national treatment: Hague Conv. , Arts. 20–23; Czechoslovakia-Italy, both supra.

125 U. S. (Van Bokkelen) v. Haiti (1888), Moore, Arb. , 1807; persecution of Jews, Dig. , VI, 347-367.

126 Lacaze's Case, supra, n. 52; Peru (The Eliza) v. U. S. (1863), Moore, Arb. , 1630.

127 Lynching cases, Moore, Dig. , VI, 809-883. The Federal Government is considered internationally responsible, despite the “binding force” of American judicial decisions. Compensation is often paid, without admission of liability. See Hearings on S. Bill 1943, 67th Cong. , 1st Sess. (1922).

128 See Gt. Britain (Mexican Union Ry. , Ltd. ) v. Mexico (1930), Claims Comm. , Dec. & Op. of Comm’rs, 157, this JOURNAL, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 388; U. S. (No. Am. Dredging Co. of Texas) v. Mexico (1926), Genl. Cl. Comm. , Op. of Comm’rs (1927), 21. Cf. Comm’r Nielsen's dissent, U. S. (International Fisheries Co. ) v. Mexico (1931), id. (1931), 207 at 225.

129 U. S. (Metzger & Co. ) v. Haiti, For. Rel. (1901), p. 262. Cf. Moore, Dig. , VI, 677-693.

130 Borchard, op. cit. pp. 330-340, 355-397; Moore, Dig. , VI, 605–1037. See Dunn, The Protection of Nationals (Baltimore, 1932).

131 P. 19 et seq.

132 Approximately 101 most-favored-nation, 51 national treatment (some recent United States most-favored nation treaties omitted).

133 See Borchard, op. cit. pp. 33, 35.