Ware v. Hylton

3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 199 (1796), argued 6–12 Feb. 1796, decided 7 March 1796 by vote of 4 to 0; Chase, Paterson, Wilson, and Cushing delivered seriatim opinions; Ellsworth and Iredell not participating (Iredell later submitted an opinion for the record). Ware established the supremacy of national treaties over conflicting state laws. It was representative of numerous cases brought by British creditors to recover pre–Revolutionary War debts owed them by Americans. The Treaty of Paris (1783) provided that creditors should meet with no legal impediment to the recovery of such debts. Virginia, however, enacted legislation enabling its citizens to pay debts owed to British subjects into the state treasury in depreciated currency and thereby obtain a certificate of discharge.

In losing the only case he argued before the Supreme Court, future Chief Justice John Marshall, then an attorney representing a Virginia debtor, contended that the state had a “sovereign right” to confiscate British debts during the war, that the debtor's payment into the state treasury was a lawful discharge of the debt, and that the peace treaty could not revive the debt without violating the “plighted” faith of the state and destroying vested rights accruing under state law. The Supreme Court rejected his arguments, holding that the treaty nullified the inconsistent state statute. Justice Samuel Chase set forth a sweeping nationalist interpretation of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI as operating retrospectively to “prostrate” all state laws in conflict with national treaties.

See also State Sovereignty and States' Rights; Treaties and Treaty Power.

— Charles F. Hobson

• 3 Dall. 199 (1796)
• Vote: 4–0
• For the Court: seriatim opinions by Chase, Paterson, Wilson, and Cushing
• Not participating: Ellsworth and Iredell

The Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American War of Independence, guaranteed that prewar debts owed by Americans to British subjects would be recoverable. The state of Virginia, however, had passed legislation during the war to protect citizens of Virginia who had debts to British creditors against demands for repayment of the debts. Ware, the financial agent of a British subject, sought payment of a debt owed his client by Daniel Hylton, a Virginia citizen, so Ware took his case to a federal court.

The Issue

Article 6 of the Constitution says that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Given the precise wording of the Constitution about treaties as supreme law, was it possible for Virginia to violate a provision of the 1783 Treaty of Paris about payment of debts to British subjects?

Hylton's attorney was John Marshall, a future chief justice of the United States. Marshall argued that a U.S. treaty could not override a state law enacted before the Constitution was written in 1787 and before the Treaty of Paris was ratified. Ware argued that the Virginia law at issue violated the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, should be struck down by the Court.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court decided against Hylton and the state of Virginia. It ruled that the Treaty of Paris was part of the supreme law of the United States and its provisions took precedence over any state law that conflicted with it. The Court declared the state law unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Justice Samuel Chase wrote, “A treaty cannot be the supreme law of the land…if any act of a state legislature can stand in its way…[L]aws of any states, contrary to a treaty shall be disregarded [as]…null and void."

Significance

John Marshall lost the only case he argued before the Supreme Court, which he later dominated for 34 years. Ironically, the Court's sweeping defense of federal supremacy over conflicting state laws was in keeping with Marshall's subsequent opinions for the Court.

This case marks the Court's first use of judicial review to strike down a state action because it violated the U.S. Constitution. This power, implied by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, is spelled out in Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

See also Federalism; Judicial review

Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 199 (1796), 4 to 0. In this case the Supreme Court decided that federal laws have precedence over state laws. The Treaty of Paris (1783) provided that British creditors could recover debts without interference from state law. A Virginia statute absolved its citizens of responsibility if they paid such debts into the state treasury, thus confiscating the amounts due. The Court's decision in Ware v. Hylton nullified this statute. There were four opinions, but the most important was that of Justice Samuel Chase, who held that all state laws in conflict with federal treaties were "prostrate" before them. John Marshall, in his only appearance as an advocate before the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully argued the case for Virginia.

Bibliography

Casto, William R. The Supreme Court in the Early Republic: The Chief Justiceships of John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995.

Goebel, Julius, Jr. Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801. Vol.1 of History of the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by the United States Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise. New York: Macmillan, 1971.