TREATIES. .8 to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But, when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the court. Ibid. By the stipulations of a treaty, are to be understood its language and apparent intention, manifested in the instrument, with a reference to the contracting parties, the subject matter, and the persons on whom it is to operate. United States v. Arredondo ct al, 6 Peters, 710. A treaty of cession is a deed of the ceded territory, and the sovereign is the grantee; the act is his, as far as it relates to the cession; the treaty is his act and deed, and all courts must so consider it: and deeds are construed in equity by the rules of law. I bid. 738. Where a treaty is executed in two languages, each the language of the respective contracting parties, both parts of the treaty are originals, and both are intended to convey the same meaning. Ibid. Where a treaty has been ratified according to the provisions of the Constitution, it becomes the law of the land; and it is perfectly immaterial, whether or not the persons who signed it did or did not transcend their instructions. Hamilton v. Eaton, North Carolina Cases, 77. A treaty does not necessarily annul prior statutes, if there is no interference with them. Ibid. The stipulations in a treaty between the United States and a foreign power, are paramount to the provisions of the constitution of a particular state, or the confederacy. Lessee of Harry Gordon v. Kerr et al 1 Wash. C. C. R. 322. A treaty between the United States and one belligerent, does not affect a question of prize, as between two belligerents, where the prize (captured from the belligerent making the treaty) is brought by the other belligerent into the ports of the United States; nor is it important that the capturing vessel was commanded by an American citizen. The treaty can bind only the parties to it; and whatever operation it may have on the American citizen, individually, it cannot affect the general question of the validity of prizes made between belligerents. The Santissima Trinidad, 1 Brockenb. C. C. R. 478. A judgment of a state court, where jurisdiction was acquired, not by the common law, but by a statute of a state, which, before the rendition of the judgment, had been virtually repealed by the adoption of a treaty, was voidable, and not void. Livingston v. Van Ingen, Paine’s C. C. R. 55. In 1780, the ancestor of the lessors of the plaintiff was indicted, he being a British subject, in the Supreme Court of New York, under the act entitled "An act for the forfeiture and sale of the property of persons who have adhered to the enemies of this state," &.c.; and in October, 1783, a judgment of forfeiture against his estates was rendered. The treaty of 1783, against any subsequent confiscation, was signed in September, 1783. Held, that the proceedings were void. I bid. The stipulations of a treaty are paramount to the provisions of the constitution of a particular state of the United States. Gordon’s lessee v. Kerr, 1 Wash. C. C. R. 322. Whenever a right grows out of or is protected by a treaty, it is sanctioned against all the laws and judicial decisions of ·the states; and whoever may have this right is protected. But if the person’s title is not affected by the treaty, if he claims nothing under the treaty, his title cannot be protected by the treaty. Owing v. Norwood’s lessee, 5 Cranch, 344. 2 Cond. Rep. 275. The adoption of a treaty. with the stipulations of which the provisions
