48 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the C?urt. 209 U.S. f?cts and notwithstanding his interpretation of them, we say that "the emoluments" of the office, if the office had been par4d down to "the emoluments," did not cease to be "emolu- roerite" of an "offiee,"--emolument? to be collected by virtue of the sovereign authority of which the whole office was a part or a vehicle. No part of the office and no fee or tax col- lected by virtue of holding it or having held it could survive the sovereignty which had created and maintained. the office and lent the sovereign power to support the tax or fee. Such an office or privilege was not'such' "property" as was to be protected under the terms of the treaty with Spain.. Supervision of slaughter-houses and prescribing regulations for their conduct and the disposition of their refuse is a police power inherent in all governments. Slaughter-house C?es, U.S. 598; Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 816; Mug/er v. Kanaas, 123 U.S. 669; Fei'tilizinf I Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 668; Dobbins v. Los Arujeles, 195 U.S. 223, 238. The rule stated in Dobbins v. Los Anqdes, 195 U.S. 223, 235, Brooke ia this case. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court. This is a writ of error to review a judgment of the District Court distaining a complaint purporting to be brought under Rev. Stat. �3, the sixteenth clause of which gives the Dis- tfict Courts jurisdiction "of all suits brought by any alien for a tort 'only' in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States." 142 Fed. Rep. 858. See 135 Fed. Rep. 384. The plaintiff is a Spanish subject and alleges a title by descent to the right to carry on the slaughter of cattle in the city of Havana and to receive compensation for the same. (She does not allege title to the slaughter-house where the slaughtering was done. That belonged to the city.) According t�'?f com- 'plaint the fight was incident to an inheritable and alienable
�
