As has been said, treaties, so far as they are self-executory, are the supreme law of the land, and in this respect rest upon a plane of equality with acts of Congress. But upon no higher plane. Resulting from this, it has been held in a number of well considered cases that an act of Congress operates to repeal or annul .prior treaty provisions inconsistent with it.

In Edje v. Robertson,7 after reviewing various cases, the court say: "A treaty, then, is a law of the land as an act of Congress is, whenever its provisions present a rule by which the rights of the private citizen or subject may be determined. And when such rights are of a nature to be enforced in a court of justice, that court resorts to the treaty for a rule of decision for the case before it, as. it would to a statute. . . . But even in this aspect of the case, there is nothing in this law which makes it irrepealable or unchangeable. The Constitution gives it no superiority over an act of Congress in this respect which may be repealed or modified by an act of a later date. Nor is there anything in its essential character or in the branches of the government by which the treaty is made, which gives it this superior sanctity. ... In short we are of the opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts of Congress as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification or repeal."

6 See also- United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51; 8 L. ed. 604, and Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511; 9 L. ed. 1176. " If Congress . . . does not choose to carry out a treaty or if it prefers to violate one, citizens of the United States, or even subjects of foreign powers, seeking relief in our courts, may not, in that manner, be able to-obtain redress for evils arising from the failure of the government of the United States to comply with treaty stipulations. The courts are bound by the laws enacted by Congress, and cannot declare them either unconstitutional or inoperative because they violate national contracts or rmtrorrar good faith and honor." Butler. I, §§ 451, 315.

7Headmoney Cases, 112 U. S. 530; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; 28 L. ed. 798.

The doctrine thus unqualifiedly stated has been repeatedly followed in later cases.8 Especially strong is the Chinese Exclusion Case, Chae Chan Ping v. United States.9