Court Opinion

ID: 9634436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:12:08.824027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:02.975725
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Cohen :
I feel we are bound by Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 187, 198 (1961). In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that a treaty entered into in 1881 between Serbia and the United States was in force between Yugoslavia and the United States and that the Oregon statute limiting the right of nonresident aliens to take either real or personal property in Oregon by succession or testamentary disposition was of no legal effect in so far as it was inconsistent with the treaty. The unanimous opinion stated, inter alia: “These treaties and agreements show that this Nation has adopted programs deemed desirable in bringing about, so far as can be done, stability and uniformity in the difficult field of world monetary controls and exchange. These arrangements have not purported to achieve a sufficiently rigid valuation of moneys to guarantee that *515foreign exchange payments will at all times, at all places and under all circumstances be based on a ‘definitely ascertainable’ valuation measured by the diverse currencies of the world. Doubtless these agreements may fall short of that goal. But our National Government’s powers have been exercised so far as deemed desirable and feasible toward that end, and the power to make policy with regard to such matters is a national one from the compulsion of both necessity and our Constitution. After the proper governmental agencies have selected the policy of foreign exchange for the country as a whole, Oregon of course cannot refuse to give foreign nationals their treaty rights because, of fear that valid international agreements might possibly not work completely to the satisfaction of state authorities.”
Since I find that the provisions of the “Iron Curtain Act” in question here are likewise inconsistent with this treaty, I must dissent.