Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/515

 IN BE TIBUnciO PARBOTT. 507 �in order that he might again eat and live. And this abso- lute, fundamental and natural right was guaranteed by the national government to ail Chinese who were permitted to <3onie into the United States, under the treaty with their government, "for the purposes' of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents," to the same extent as it is enjoyed by citizens of the most favored nation. It ia one of the "privi- leges and immunities" which it was stipulated that they should enjoy ia that clause of the treaty which says : "Chinese subjects, visiting or residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation." And any legislation or constitutional provision of the state of Cali- fornia which limita or restricts that right to labor to any extent, or in any manner, not applicable to citizens of other foreign nations visiting or residing in Califomia, is in con- flict with this provision of the treaty ; and sueh are the ex- press provisions of the constitution and statuts in question. �The same view of the effect of the treaty was taken in Baker v. Portland, by Judge Deady, of the district of Oregon, and concurred in by Mr. Justice Field on application for re- hearing. 5 Saw. 566, 572; 3 Pacific Coast Law Journal, 469. I should not have deemed it necessary to cite so fully the opinions of others on a proposition so plain to my mind, but for the gravity of the question, and the fact that the peo- ple of California and their representatives in the legislature have incorporated in the constitution of the state, and in legislation had in pursuance of the constitutional mandate, after fuU discussion, provisions utterly at variance with the views expressed. Under such circumstances I f eel called upon to largely cite the thoroughly considered and authori- tative views of those distinguished jurists upon whom will devolve the duty of ultimately determining the points in con- troversy. �As to the point whether the provision is question is within- the treaty-making power, I have as little doubt as upon the, point already discussed. Among ail civilized nations, in ��� �