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

WARE V. HYLTON

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.

Stephen B.Presser