District Court's Statement of the Issues Tendered by the Pleading.

3

4

Proclamation of Regulations under Migratory Bird Treaty Act...
(All Italics in this Brief may be treated as ours)..

15-16

16

17

18-95

18-19

19-21

Specifications of Error.

Argument...

Foreword.

I. Right to Enjoin Federal Officer

II.
III.

Federal and State Governments Distinct Sovereignties. 22-27
When United Colonies became Free and Independent
States, the Power to Control the Taking of Wild Game
Passed to the States. . . .

IV. Missouri, upon admission to the Union, became entitled
to and possessed of all Rights, Dominion and Sov-
ereignty of the Original States...

27-28

28-30

V. The Ownership of Wild Game is that of the people of the
Stato in their collective sovereign capacity; the State
holds the same in trust for the Benefit of all its people.. 30-32
The Power of the State over Wild Gamo is not limited
to this Trust for the Benefit of all the People; the
Power is inherent in the State by virtue of its Power
of Police....

VI.

VII. The Act of Congress, March 4, 1913, which undertook
to take from the States their Power over Wild Game,
was held unconstitutional.

VIII.

An Act of Congress which attempts to do not only that
which Congress has no Power to do, but also to do
that which is forbidden to the entire Federal Govern-
ment under the Constitution, cannot be validated by a
Treaty. Treaties must be made subject to the right-
ful Powers of the Government concerned.....
IX. The Federal Government is not only a Government of

Enumerated Powers, but also a Government to which
Certain Powers aro denied. Powers denied aro not to
be implied; can only be obtained by Amendment.

(111)

32-42

42

43-59

59-64

IV

Page.

......

X. Among the Powers denied to the Federal Government
until secured by Amendment are the Powers reserved
to the States respectively or to the People. To de-
stroy these reserved Powers is to destroy the State and
change the Form of Government devised by the Con-
stitution. The control of Wild Game is within the
"reserved" Powers.........
A Treaty is not the Supreme Law of the Land; it con-
sists of, first, the Constitution; second, the Laws of
the United States made in pursuance thereof; and
third, all Treaties made under the Authority of the
United States. The general grant of Power to make
Treaties must yield to the specific reservation of
Rights reserved to the People...

XI.

XII. Cases usually cited in support of the Treaty-supremacy
Theory do not support that Claim.
XIII. The Treaty-supremacy Theory in its ultimate Analysis
means that the Treaty-making Power possesses &
general negative upon all State Laws passed by the
States in the exercise of their reserved Powers. The
Treaty-making Department of the Government can
possess no such Power if the Constitution be today the
same that it was when adopted..

Conclusion..
Upon Principle and the Authority of this Court both the Treaty
and State Laws may be held intact, and only a Law of Con-
gress, not necessarily required by the Treaty and which, under
the Constitution, Congress had no Power to pass, be held un-
constitutional.

Solicitors and Counsel for Appellant...

64-73

73-86

86-92

92-95

96-97

97

CASES CITED.

Abby Dodge v. United States, 223 U. S. 166.
Articles of Confederation, Art. II.

Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, (32 U. S. 243)
Beer Co. v. Massachussets, 97 U. S. 25......
Behring Sea Arbitration, 32 Am. Law Reg. 901.
Broadnax v. Missouri, 219 U. S. 292.

Butler, Treaty Making Power, Vol. I, p. 64. .
Constitution of the United States-

Amendments I to X...

Amendment X.

Article IX.

Article X.

Calhoun, Works of, pp. 252, 249...

Cantini v. Tillman, 54 Fed. 969.

Cardwell v. Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205.

Carey v. S. D., U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep., May Term, 1919
Chambers v. Chûrch, 14 R. I. 398...

Page.

30, 32 22

.60, 61

.33, 37, 68

41

33

43, 44, 49, 74, 82

60

44

22, 23 ..22. 23

43, 46, 47, 93, 95

.33, 43, 48

28

30

30

28

Cherokee Tobacco Case, 11 Wall. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227
Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259. .

.44, 54, 84

87

Charter of the Forests.

City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102.

.33, 70

Cocke, William Archer, Constitutional History of the United States, p. 235....

.44, 52, 74, 80 22, 24, 27, 64, 71

.33, 38

Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 20 L. Ed. 122.
Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53....
Compagnie v. Board, 186 U. S. 380, 51 La. Ann. 645, 25 So. Rep.

591..

Congressional Record, 41, Part. 1, p. 299.

Cook v. Marshall, 196 U. S. 261... . .

.33, 43, 48, 69, 74, 81, 96

Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, (7 Ed.), p. 831.
Cooley, The Forum ....

Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, p. 117.

Cutler v. Dibble, 2 How. 366....

Davis v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 217...

Declaration of Independence, Last Paragraph.

Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 241.

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244..

Duer, Lectures on Constitutional Jurisprudence, of the United States,

VI

Pago.

Federalist, No. XLV (Hallowell, 1852), pp. 145, 215..33, 43, 45, 46, 64
Fortilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659, 24 L. Ed. 1036

Fong Yue Ting, 149 U. S. 698..

Fox v. United States, 94 U. S. 320...

Ft. Leavenworth v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525..
Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519.

Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409..

69

44

87

44

.27, 30, 31, 33, 68

30

Glenwood Light & Water Co. v. Power Co., 239 U. S. 121.
Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697.

Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449.

Hamilton's Works...

20

. 22, 25
.33, 35

.44, 74, 75

Hammer v.

Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251 (38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529)..36, 64, 66

Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pot. 616, 10 L. Ed. 579..

Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice, p. 110, note 3. .44, 52, 75, 84

Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 19 L. Ed. 101.

44

.44, 57, 60

McCready v. Virginia, 94 U. S. 391.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. d. 579

North Am. Review, Benj. Harrison.

Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659, 24 L. Ed.

VII

Patsono v. Pennsylvania, 232 U. S. 138, 58 L. Ed. 544.

People v. Becker, 241 U. S. 556.
People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381.

People v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 246.

Permoli v. Municipality, 44 U. S. 589 .
Phil. Co. v. Stimpson, 223 U. S. 605.

Pierce v. State, 13 N. 11. 536.

Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461
Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212....

Prigg v. Commonwealth, 16 Pet. 539, 10 L. Ed. 1060.
Rupert v. United States, 181 Fed. 87.

33, 35, 37, 44, 64, 70

33

28, 29

.33, 39

30, 33

19

44

44.

.19, 22, 23, 64, 71

54

30

33

30

20

20

20.

21

34

School Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94.
Seneca Nation v. Christie, 126 N. Y. 122. .

Siemsson v. Bofer, 6 Cal. Rep. 250..

Silz v. Hesterberg, 211 U. S. 31.

Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 476.

Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 15 L. Ed. 270.

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 447, 50 L. Ed. 261, 26 S. C.

110....

State of Georgia v. Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237 .
State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, 185 U. S. 125.
State of Missouri v. State of Illinois, 180 U. S. 208
State v. Heger, 194 Mo. 707...

Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Sec. 1508.
Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. 373.
The Federalist, No. XLV (Hallowell, 1852), pp. 145,
215.

Thorp v. Rutland, 27 Vt. 140..

.43, 50, 74, 83 43, 51

.33, 43, 45, 46, 64

33, 38

74, 83

Thorp, Constitutional History, Vol. II, p. 199...
Thurlow v. The Commonwealth (Passenger Cases) 5 How. 504, 12 L.
Ed. 256... .

Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 37 (36 S. C. R. 7)
Tucker on the Constitution, Vol. II, p. 726...
Tucker, Limitations, Treaty-making Power.

40

19, 67

.43, 48, 51, 63, 64 .26, 64, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 89

Tucker, address, Georgia Bar Association.
Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 48 L. Ed. 979.
United States v. DeWitt, 9 Wall. 41, 19 L. Ed. 593.
United States v. Knight, 156 U. S. 13.

United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. Rep. 43, Fedoral Cases, 16151..60, 62 United States v. Shauver, 214 Fed. 154 . . . . .

.30, 32, 42, 60, 62

Von Holst, Constitutional Law of the United States, p. 202..43, 51, 74, 77