51e FEBEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �of none to the contrary. But precisely where the line is to be drawn, I confess, in the present state of the authoritative adjudications, I am unable to say. I am inclined to the opinion, however, that it would exclude legislation of the character in question, even if it concerned the state and the corporations alone, and did not conflict with other rights pro- tected by treaties with foreign nations, or by the constitution of the United States — the supreme law of the land. But assume it to be otherwise. When the state legislation affect- ing its corporations cornes in conflict with the stipulations of valid treaties, and with the national constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, it must yield to their superior authority. And such, in my judgment, are the provisions in question. The policy of the constitutional provision and statute in question does not have in view the relations of the corporation to the state, as the object to be effected or accom- plished; but it seeks to reach the Chinese, and exclude them from a wide range of labor and employment, the ultimate end to be accomplished being to drive those already here from the state, and prevent others from coming hither — the discriminat- ing legislation heing only the means hy which the end is to be attained — the ultimate purpose to be accomplished. The end sought to be attained is unlawfuL. It is in direct violation of our treaty stipulations and the constitution of the United States. The end being unlawful and repugnant to the su- preme law of the land, it is equally unlawful, and equally in violation of the constitution and treaty stipulations, to use any means, however proper, or within the power of the state for lawful purposes, for the attainment of that unlawful end, or accomplishment of that unlawful purpose. It cannot be otherwise than unlawful to use any means whatever to accom- plish an unlawful purpose. This proposition would seem to be too plain to require argument or authority. Yet there is an abundanee of authority on the point, although perhapa not stated in this particular form. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 431; Woodruff y. Parham, 8 Wall. 130, 140; Hinson v. Lott, Id. 152; Welton V. Missouri, 1 Otto. 279, 282; Cooky. Pennsylvania, 7 ��� �
