[119] Bradford Electric Co. _v._ Clapper, 286 U.S. 145, 158 (1932).

[120] The Court had earlier remarked that "workmen's compensation legislation rests upon the idea of status, not upon that of implied contract." Cudahy Packing Co. _v._ Parramore, 263 U.S. 418, 423 (1923).

In contrast to the above cases, _see_ Kryger _v._ Wilson, 242 U.S. 171 (1916), where it was held that the question whether the cancellation of a land contract was governed by the _lex rei sitae_ or the _lex loci contractus_ was purely a question of local common law; _also_ Bond _v._ Hume, 243 U.S. 15 (1917).

[121] Pacific Ins. Co. _v._ Comm'n., 306 U.S. 493, 497, 503-504 (1939).

[122] 320 U.S. 430 (1943).

[123] Industrial Comm'n. _v._ McCartin, 330 U.S. 622 (1947).

[124] Cardillo _v._ Liberty Mutual Co., 330 U.S. 469 (1947).

[125] Reviewing some of the cases treated in this section, a writer in 1925 said: "It appears, then, that the Supreme Court has quite definitely committed itself to a program of making itself, to some extent, a tribunal for bringing about uniformity in the field of conflicts * * * although the precise circ.u.mstances under which it will regard itself as having jurisdiction for this purpose are far from clear." E.M. Dodd, The Power of the Supreme Court to Review State Decisions in the Field of Conflict of Laws (1926), 39 Harv. L. Rev.

533-562. It can hardly be said that the law has been subsequently clarified on this point.

[126] Walter W. Cook, The Power of Congress Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (1919), 28 Yale L.J. 430.

[127] Cooper _v._ Newell, 173 U.S. 555, 567 (1899). _See also_ Wisconsin _v._ Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 291 (1888); Swift _v._ McPherson, 232 U.S. 51 (1914); Pennington _v._ Gibson, 16 How. 65, 81 (1854); Cheever _v._ Wilson, 9 Wall. 108, 123 (1870); Baldwin _v._ Iowa State Traveling Men's a.s.so., 283 U.S. 522 (1931); American Surety Co. _v._ Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (1932); Sanders _v._ Armour Fertilizer Works, 292 U.S. 190 (1934).

[128] Milwaukee County _v._ White (M.E.) Co., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).

[129] Equitable L. a.s.sur. Soc. _v._ Brown, 187 U.S. 308 (1902). _See also_ Gibson _v._ Lyon, 115 U.S. 439 (1885).

[130] Embry _v._ Palmer, 107 U.S. 3, 9 (1883). _See also_ Northern a.s.sur. Co. _v._ Grand View Bldg. a.s.so., 203 U.S. 106 (1906); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. _v._ Sowers, 213 U.S. 55 (1909); Knights of Pythias _v._ Meyer, 265 U.S. 30, 33 (1924); Louisville & N.R. Co. _v._ Central Stockyards Co., 212 U.S. 132 (1909); West Side Belt R. Co. _v._ Pittsburgh Constr. Co., 219 U.S. 92 (1911).

[131] No right, privilege, or immunity is conferred by the Const.i.tution in respect to judgments of foreign states and nations.--Aetna Life Ins.

Co. _v._ Tremblay, 223 U.S. 185 (1912). In Hilton _v._ Guyot, 159 U.S.

113, 234 (1895) where a French judgment offered in defense was held not a bar to the suit. Four Justices dissented on the ground that "the application of the doctrine of _res judicata_ does not rest in discretion; and it is for the Government, and not for its courts, to adopt the principle of retorsion, if deemed under any circ.u.mstances desirable or necessary." At the same sitting of the Court, an action in a United States circuit court on a Canadian judgment was sustained on the same ground of reciprocity. Ritchie _v._ McMullen, 159 U.S. 235 (1895). _See also_ Ingenohl _v._ Olsen, 273 U.S. 541 (1927), where a decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands was reversed for refusal to enforce a judgment of the Supreme Court of the British colony of Hongkong, which was rendered "after a fair trial by a court having jurisdiction of the parties." In 1897 Foreign Relations of the United States 7-8, will be found a three-cornered correspondence between the State Department, the Austro-Hungarian Legation, and the Governor of Pennsylvania, in which the last named a.s.serts that "under the laws of Pennsylvania the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in Croatia would be respected to the extent of permitting such judgment to be sued upon in the courts of Pennsylvania." Stowell, _op. cit. supra_ note I, at 254-255. Another instance of international cooperation in the judicial field is furnished by letters rogatory. "When letters rogatory are addressed from any court of a foreign country to any district court of the United States, a commissioner of such district court designated by said court to make the examination of the witnesses mentioned in said letters, shall have power to compel the witnesses to appear and depose in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in courts," 28 U.S.C.A., _supra_ note II, -- 653. Some of the States have similar laws. _See_ 2 Moore, Digest of International Law (1906) 108-109.

[132] David K. Watson, The Const.i.tution of the United States, vol. II, 1206 (1910).

[133] The Federalist No. 42.

[134] 16 Wall. 36 (1873).

[135] Ibid. 75.

[136] Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857).

[137] Ibid. 518, 527-529.

[138] 153 U.S. 684, 687 (1894).

[139] 135 U.S. 492 (1890).

[140] Slaughter-House Case, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8408 (1870); Chambers _v._ Baltimore & O.R. Co., 207 U.S. 142 (1907); Whitfield _v._ Ohio, 297 U.S.

431 (1936).

[141] 16 Wall. 36 (1873).

[142] Ibid. 77.

[143] Bradwell _v._ Illinois, 16 Wall. 130, 138 (1873). _See also_ Cole _v._ Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107 (1890).

[144] Blake _v._ McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 246 (1898); Travis _v._ Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 252 U.S. 60 (1920).

[145] La Tourette _v._ McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919); Douglas _v._ New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 279 U.S. 377 (1929); _cf._ Maxwell _v._ Bugbee, 250 U.S. 525 (1919).

[146] United States _v._ Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 643 (1883). _See also_ Baldwin _v._ Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (1887).

[147] United States _v._ Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920).

[148] Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857)

[149] Ibid. 403-411.

[150] Ibid. 572-590.

[151] 13 Pet. 519 (1939).

[152] Ibid. 586.

[153] 8 Wall. 168 (1869).

[154] Ibid. 181.

[155] Crutcher _v._ Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47 (1891). _See also_ pp.

193-198, 1049-1056.

[156] Hemphill _v._ Orloff, 277 U.S. 537 (1928).

[157] 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, 546, 550 (1823).

[158] Ibid. 551-522.

[159] Ibid. 552.

[160] Corfield _v._ Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3230, 546, 552 (1823).

[161] Ibid. 552.

[162] 94 U.S. 391 (1877).

[163] 161 U.S. 519 (1896).

[164] 209 U.S. 349 (1908).

[165] 334 U.S. 385 (1948).