Opinion of the Court. 254 U.S. the seas occupied or governed by the United States, they were to come within the terms of the treaty only upon notice to that effect by direction of the treaty-making power of the United States. If the contention of the appellee be correct, it necessarily follows that as to British possessions, the inhabitants thereof being British subjects, had nothing to gain by giving notice which Article IV specifically required, for as to them their rights had been secured by Articles I and II of the treaty. Applying this construction to the instant case, Canadians while residents of the Dominion, and citizens of a self-regulating and self-governing community, acquired by virtue of this treaty as British subjects the right to inherit in every State of the American Union regardless of local laws; this while citizens of the United States acquired no corresponding right to inherit in the Dominion of Canada until notice be given; a matter entirely beyond the control of American authority. The American right to inherit in Canada became a matter of grace on the part of the other contracting nation when it saw fit to grant it by signifying its adhesion to the treaty. Such construction is inconsistent with the general purpose and object of such conventions to secure equality in exchange of privileges and reciprocity in rights granted and secured. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258, 271. The fact that Canada, as a self-governing dependency, in the exercise of the legislative power which is hers, has seen fit to give aliens the right to inherit, adds nothing to the argument in favor of the appellee. The Dominion of Canada has not the treaty-making power. Whatever the Dominion may see fit to do in the exercise of its own legislative authority cannot affect the right of a State of the American Union to determine for herself whether aliens shall inherit property within her borders. The construction insisted upon by the United States makes for the exchange of reciprocal rights under the provisions 433. Opinion of the Court. of the treaty, and when the required notice is given, British subjects resident of Canada would have property rights in the United States similar to those accorded citizens of the United States in Canada. That notice was deemed essential to the security of rights of British subjects, resident of the colonies, is shown by the practice which has followed the making of the Supplementary Convention of 1902 (Treaties in Force 1904, 377; 32 Stat., p. 1914) extending for twelve months from July 28, 1901, the time fixed in Article IV of the Treaty of March 2, 1899, for the notification of accession to that Convention by British colonies or foreign possessions. In a note to this treaty, published in Treaties in Force 1904, supra, it appears that most of the British colonies and possessions have given notice of adhesion to the Treaty of 1899. The significance of Article VI is important. In this article provision is made for the right of the United States or the British Government to terminate separately the Convention by twelve months' notice to that effect in regard to any British colony, foreign possession or dependency, as specified in Article IV, which may have acceded to the Convention. This article lends strong support to the argument that only colonies or possessions which accede to the Convention are to have the benefit thereof; such rights, recognized as acquired by accession, being subject to termination by the withdrawal provision of Article VI. Nor are we impressed with the argument that Canadian citizens, being also British subjects, are entitled to inherit in Kansas by virtue of the most favored nation clause. That clause has been held in the practice of this country to be one not extending rights acquired by treaties containing it because of reciprocal benefits expressly conferred in conventions with other nations in exchange for rights or privileges given to this Government. This clause cannot overcome the specific provisions of Article Opinion of the Court. 254 U.S. IV making adhesion to the treaty necessary in order to bring citizens and property of colonies and possessions within the benefits of the treaty. We are unable to see that the construction of this treaty is aided by the argument of counsel in the supplemental brief of the appellee that Lord Salisbury for the British Government insisted upon the construction which they contend for in relation to a similar convention with Japan. We find nothing in the archives of the Department of State to show that this insistence was brought forward in the course of negotiations or in any manner came to the attention of the American Representative, Mr. Hay, who negotiated this treaty with Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Representative. The American Government upon a message from the President for the purpose of securing the consent of the Senate, as we learn from public documents on file in the State Department, has with the consent of the Senate extended the provisions of the Convention of 1899 to Porto Rico and has so notified the British Government. We are advised by the letter of the Secretary of State of October 2, 1920 (on file in the Department of Justice), that this Government is ready to take up with the British Government the matter of extension of the treaty provisions to Hawaii and the Dominion of Canada. While the question of the construction of treaties is judicial in its nature, and courts when called upon to act should be careful to see that international engagements are faithfully kept and observed, the construction placed upon the treaty before us and consistently adhered to by the Executive Department of the Government, charged with the supervision of our foreign relations, should be given much weight. Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 468. See also Castro v. De Uriarte, 16 Fed. Rep. 93, 98 (opinion by Judge Addison Brown). Taking the view which we have here expressed of the real purpose of the treaty as evidenced by its terms, which is strengthened by the practices of both governments in pursuance of it, we reach the conclusion that for lack of notice of the adhesion of Canada to the terms of the treaty, the law of Kansas was not superseded in favor of British subjects resident in Canada, and it determined the right of aliens to inherit lands in that State. Reversed. OMPANY DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS COMPANY v. DEERING ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS BUSINESS AGENTS OF DISTRICT NO. 15 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 45. Argued January 22, 1920.-Decided January 3, 1921. 1. The Act of October 15, 1914, known as the Clayton Act, in so far as it grants relief by injunction to private suitors, or affixes conditions and otherwise modifies the Sherman Act, is applicable to a suit for an injunction pending at the time of its enactment. P. 464. 2. For the purpose of compelling a manufacturer of printing presses to unionize its factory in Michigan, in which there had been an unsuccessful strike, and to enforce there the "closed shop," the eight-hour day and the union scale of wages, organizations of machinists with headquarters at New York City, and a larger organization of national scope with which they were affiliated, entered into a combination to interfere with and restrain the manufacturer's interstate trade by means of a "secondary" boycott, centered particularly at New York City and vicinity where many of the presses were marketed; in pursuance of which this manufacturer's customers in and near New York were warned, with threats of loss and of sympathetic strikes in other trades, not to purchase or install its presses; a trucking company usually employed by customers was notified, with threats, not to haul them; employees of the trucking company and of customers were incited to strike in order to prevent both hauling and installation; repair shops were notified not to repair them; union men were coerced by threats of the loss of their union cards and of being blacklisted as "scabs" if they assisted in installing them; an exposition company was threatened with a strike, if it allowed them to be exhibited, etc., etc.,—all of which seriously interfered with the interstate trade of the manufacturer and caused great loss to its business. Held, a combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce against which the manufacturer was entitled to relief by injunction under the Sherman Act, as amended by the Clayton Act. Pp. 461 et seq. 3. A conspiracy is a combination of two or more by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a purpose not in itself unlawful by unlawful means. If the purpose be unlawful, it may not be carried out by means otherwise lawful; and although it be lawful, it may not be carried out by means that are unlawful. P. 465. 4. A "secondary boycott" is a combination not merely to refrain from dealing with the person aimed at, or to advise or by peaceful means persuade his customers to refrain, but to exercise coercive pressure upon such customers, actual or prospective, in order to cause them to withhold or withdraw patronage through fear of loss or damage to themselves. P. 466. 5. In determining the right to an injunction under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, the legality or illegality of a boycott under the common law or under the statutes of a particular State is of minor consequence, since the acts of Congress are paramount in their field and must be given full, independent effect. P. 466. 6. It is settled by decisions of this court that a restraint of interstate commerce produced by peaceable persuasion violates the Sherman Act, and is not justified by the fact that the participants in the combination or conspiracy have an object beneficial to themselves or their associates which they might have been at liberty to pursue in the absence of the statute. P. 468. 7. Section 6 of the Clayton Act, in declaring that nothing in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor organizations or to forbid their members from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof, and that such organizations or their members shall not be construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, assumes that the normal objects of such organizations are legitimate, but contains nothing |