State of Missouri v. Holland
| Citation | 64 L.Ed. 641,252 U.S. 416,11 A. L. R. 984,40 S.Ct. 382 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 609,609 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI v. HOLLAND, U. S. Game Warden |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. J. G. L. Harvey, of Kansas City, Mo., and John T. Gose, of Shelbina, Mo., for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 417-424 intentionally omitted] Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 424-430 intentionally omitted]
This is a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the bill is that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, and that the acts of the defendant done and threatened under that authority invade the sovereign right of the State and contravene its will manifested in statutes. The State also alleges a pecuniary interest, as owner of the wild birds within its borders and otherwise, admitted by the Government to be sufficient, but it is enough that the bill is a reasonable and proper means to assert the alleged quasi sovereign rights of a State. Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 142, 22 Sup. Ct. 552, 46 L. Ed. 838; Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237, 27 Sup. Ct. 618, 51 L. Ed. 1038, 11 Ann. Cas. 488; Marshall Dental Manufacturing Co. v. Iowa, 226 U. S. 460, 462, 33 Sup. Ct. 168, 57 L. Ed. 300. A motion to dismiss was sustained by the District Court on the ground that the Act of Congress is constitutional. 258 Fed. 479. Acc. United States v. Thompson (D. C.) 258 Fed. 257; United States v. Rockefeller (D. C.) 260 Fed. 346. The State appeals.
On December 8, 1916, a treaty between the United States and Great Britain was proclaimed by the President. It recited that many species of birds in their annual migrations traversed many parts of the United States and of Canada, that they were of great value as a source of food and in destroying insects injurious to vegetation, but were in danger of extermination through lack of adequate protection. It therefore provided for specified closed seasons and protection in other forms, and agreed that the two powers would take or propose to their lawmaking bodies the necessary mes ures for carrying the treaty out. 39 Stat. 1702. The above mentioned act of July 3, 1918, entitled an act to give effect to the convention, prohibited the killing, capturing or selling any of the migratory birds included in the terms of the treaty except as permitted by regulations compatible with those terms, to be made by
the Secretary of Agriculture. Regulations were proclaimed on July 31, and October 25, 1918. 40 Stat. 1812, 1863. It is unnecessary to go into any details, because, as we have said, the question raised is the general one whether the treaty and statute are void as an interference with the rights reserved to the States.
To answer this question it is not enough to refer to the Tenth Amendment, reserving the powers not delegated to the United States, because by Article 2, Section 2, the power to make treaties is delegated expressly, and by Article 6 treaties made under the authority of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are declared the supreme law of the land. If the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute under Article 1, Section 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government. The language of the Constitution as to the supremacy of treaties being general, the question before us is narrowed to an inquiry into the ground upon which the present supposed exception is placed.
It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do. An earlier act of Congress that attempted by itself and not in pursuance of a treaty to regulate the killing of migratory birds within the States had been held bad in the District Court. United States v. Shauver, 214 Fed. 154. United States v. McCullagh, 221 Fed. 288. Those decisions were supported by arguments that migratory birds were owned by the States in their sovereign capacity for the benefit of their people, and that under cases like Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 519, 16 Sup. Ct. 600, 40 L. Ed. 793, this control was one that Congress had no power to displace. The same argument is supposed to apply now with equal force.
Whether the two cases cited were decided rightly or not they cannot be accepted as a test of the treaty power. Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the convention. We do not mean to imply that there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power; but they must be ascertained in a different way. It is obvious that there may be matters of the sharpest exigency for the national well being that an act of Congress could not deal with but that a treaty followed by such an act could, and it is not lightly to be assumed that, in matters requiring national action, 'a power which must belong to and somewhere reside in every civilized government' is not to be found. Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 33, 23 Sup. Ct. 237, 47 L. Ed. 366. What was said in that case with regard to the powers of the States applies with equal force to the powers of the nation in cases where the States individually are incompetent to act. We are not yet discussing the particular case before us but only are considering the validity of the test proposed. With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Bramble
...Supreme Court found that section 703 meets the requirements of regulation under the Commerce Clause, in State of Missouri v. Holland. 252 U.S. 416, 40 S.Ct. 382, 64 L.Ed. 641 (1920). The Court reasoned that migratory birds are only temporarily within the boundaries of any one state, and the......
-
State Game and Fish Commission v. Louis Fritz Co, 33712
...them. We believe the state's title is at most a trustee. Ex parte Fritz, 86 So. 210, 217; 26 C. J., "Fish", Secs. 42 and 43; Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416; Const. of Miss., Sec. 14, Art. 3, and Sec. 17, Art. Albright v. Sussex County, etc., 71 N.J.L. 303, 59 A. 146, 69 L.R.A. 768; Const......
-
Tangier Sound Watermen's Assoc. v. Douglas
...claim of the State upon title is," in Mr. Justice Holmes' words, "to lean upon a slender reed." Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 434 40 S.Ct. 382, 384, 64 L.Ed. 641, 11 A.L.R. 984 (1920). A State does not stand in the same position as the owner of a private game preserve and it is pure fa......
-
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana
...97 S.Ct. 1740, 52 L.Ed.2d 304 (197 ); Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 96 S.Ct. 2285, 49 L.Ed.2d 34 (1976); Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S.Ct. 382, 64 L.Ed. 641 (1920). And a State's interest in its wildlife and other resources must yield when, without reason, it interferes with......
-
The basic prohibition of the clean water act
...protect migratory birds and their habitats. See, e.g. , Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712 (2006). See Missouri v. Holland , 252 U.S. 416 (1920). In the third decision, Rapanos v. United States , 547 U.S. 715, 36 ELR 20116 (2006), a deeply divided Court seemed to hold that wetl......
-
A Murder Most Fowl: United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015), and Incidental Killings Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
...1009; see also16 U.S.C. §§ 703-12 (2012) (providing the legislation that implemented the Treaty). 43. See generally Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) (upholding the constitutionality of the MBTA as a permissible use of Congress's treaty 44. See U.S.-Great Britain Treaty, supra note 3......
-
Table of Cases
...Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982), 1168-71, 1173, 1177-78, 1331 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 40 S.Ct. 382, 64 L.Ed. 641 (1920), 161, 298, 311, 314, 749, Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 21 S.Ct. 331, 45 L.Ed. 497 (1901), 667 Missouri v. ......
-
Chopping down the birds: logging and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
...loggers must no longer be allowed to flagrantly violate this valuable act by chopping down the birds. (1) State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 435 (2) 16 U.S.C. [subsections] 703-712 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). (3) See United States v. Moon Lake Elec. Ass'n, 45 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1079......