IN EB AH CHONG. 737 �favored nation ; " and such discriminations are in Tiolation of articles 5 and 6 of the treaty with China, cited in full in Parrott's case. TJie same privileges which are granted to other aliens, by treaty or otherwise, are secured to the Cliina- man by the stipulations of the treaty. Conceding that the state may exclude ail aliens from fishing in its waters, yet if it permits one class to enjoy the privilege it must permit ail others to enjoy, upon like terms, the saine privileges, whose governments bave treaties securing to them the enjoyment of ail privileges granted to the most favored nation. �The fourteenth amendment of the national constitution provides that "no state shall * • * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To Bubject the Chinese to imprisonmentfor fishing in the waters of the state, while aliens of ail European nations under the same circumstances are exempt from any punishment what- ever, is to subject the Chinese to other and entirely different punishments, pains, and penalties than those to which others are subjected, and it is to deny to them the equal protection of the laws, contrary to those provisions of the constitution. Parrott's Case, 21 Alb. L. J. 387, [1 Fed. Eep. 481 ;] Strauder v. West Virginia, 10 Cent. L. J. 227. It is obvious, also, from a consideration of these varions provisions of the new state con- stitution, and the several statutes in pari materia referred to, considered in connection with the public history of the times, that the act relating to fishing in question was not passed in pursuance of any public policy relating to the fisheries of the state as an end to be attained, but simply as a means of car- rying eut its policy of excluding the Chinese from the state, contrary to the provisions of the treaty. The end to be accomplished being unlawful, as we held in Parrott's case, it is unlawful to use any means to accomplish the unlawful object, however proper the means might be if used in a proper case and for a legitimate purpose. �The act is clearly unconstitutional, and a violation of the treaty in discriminating against the Chinese and in favor of aliens of the Caucasian race in ail other respects similarly situated. Acts when performed by Chinese are made au �v.2,no.9— 47 ����
