Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/521

 IN EB TIBUKCIO PAEROTT, 513 �douM that the provisions in question are both, in letter and spirit, in conilict with the constitution and laws of the United States, as well as with the stipulations of the treaty with China. And this eonstitutional right is wholly inde- pendent of any treaty stipulations, and would exist without any treaty whatever, so long as Chinese ar« permitted to corne into and reside within the jurisdiction of the United States. The protection is given by the constitution itself, and the laws passed to give it effect, irrespective of treaty stipulations. �But it is urged on behalf of the respondent that, under the provisions of article 12 of the state constitution, provid- ing that "ail laws * * concerning corporations • * * may be altered, from time to time, or repealed," the power of the legislature over corporations is absoutely unlimited ; that it may, by legislation under this reserved power, impose any restrictions or limitations upon the acts and operations of corporations, however unreasonable, stringent or injurions to their interests ; and, as a penalty for violating such re- strictions, destroy them, and criminally punish their offieers, agents, servants, employes, assignees, or contractors; that, as a condition of continued existence, they may be prohibited from employing Chinese, and the prohibition enforced against the corporation, and the persons named, by means of the penalties indieated; and thus, by means of the state's con- trol over the corporation created by its authority, it can in- directly accomplish the purpose of exeluding the Chinese from, perhaps, their largest and most imporfant field of labor — a purpose which could not be accomplished by direct vieans. This position the attorney general and the other counsel for the respondent most earnestly press, and upon it they most confidently rely. �I do not assent to any such unlimited power over corpora- tions. There must be — there is — a limit somewhere. ïha{ there is such a limit is recognized and expressly asserted in numerous cases by the supreme court of the United States, and by the highest courts of many of the states; and I knos �v.l,no.8— 33 ��� �