496 FEDERAL REPORTER. �ment, but is by the very terms of the constitution the supreme law of the land ? �The legislature has not yet attempted to carry into effect the mandate of the first section by imposing conditions upon whieh aliens who are or may become vagrants, paupers, men- dicants, or criminals, may reside in the state, or by provid- ing for their removal. Its action thus far has been limited to forbidding the employment of Chinese, directly or indi- rectly, by any corporation formed under the laws of this state. The validity of this law ia the only question presented for determination in the present case. In considering this question we are at liberty to look not merely to the language of the law, but toits effect and purpose. �"In whatever language a statute may be framed, its pur- pose may be determined by its natural and reasonable ef- fect; and if it is apparent that the object of this statute, as judged by that criterion, is to compel the owners of vessels to pay a sum of money for every passenger brought by them from a foreign shore and landed at the port of New York, it is as much a tax on passengers if coUected from them, or a tax on the vessel or owners for the exercise of the right of landing their passengers in that city, as was the statute held void in the passenger cases." Henderson y. The May or, etc., 92 U. S. 268. �"If, as we bave endeavored to show, in the opinion in the preceding cases, we are at liberty to look to the effect of a statute for the test of its constitutionality, the argument need go no further." Chy Lung v. Freeman 92 U. S. 279. �If the effect and purpose of the law be to accomplish an unconstitutional object, the fact that it is passed in the pre- tended exercise of the police power, or a power to regulate corporations, will not save it. If a law of the state forbidr ding the Chinese to labor for a living, or requiring them to obtain a license for doing so, would bave been plainly in vio- lation of the constitution and treaty, the state cannot attain the. same «nd by addressing its prohibition to corporations. . In Ciimmings v. The State of Missouri, Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the court, observes : "Now, as the state, had she ��� �
