140 Adams v. Akerlund, 168 Ill. 632, 48 N. E. 454. On the point of construction Mr. Justice Magruder, who delivered the opinion of the court, said: "The French words, appearing in the French copies of the treaty, which correspond to the words 'goods and effects,' are 'fonds et biens.'

"Appellees claim that the French word 'biens' means real as well as personal property. They introduced a witness upon the stand, who was a native of France, and educated in that country, to prove that such was the meaning of the word. This testimony, if it was not actually improper, was not material. United States v. Turner, 11 How. 663, 13 L. ed. 857. Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, defines the French word 'biens' to mean: 'Property of every description, except estates of freehold and inheritance.' But this is evidently the strict meaning which it has as it is defined in the commonlaw writers, because immediately after this definition he adds these words: 'In the French law this term includes all kinds of property, real and personal. Biens are divided into biens muebles, movable property, and biens immuebles, immovable property.' It would thus appear that the word, as used in the original treaty, in the French language, has a meaning in the civil law, which includes both real and personal property. In a note to section 13 of Story on Conflict of

Laws (8th ed.), it is said: "The term "biens" in the sense of civilians and continental jurists, comprehends not merely goods and chattels, as in the common law, but real estate.' It is also said in a note to section 146 of the same work: Foreign jurists, commonly, in the term "biens," include all sorts of property, movable and immovable, in their discussions on this subject.' If, therefore, we look to the treaty as published in the French language, the term there used includes real estate as well as personal property.

"Consul for appellants contend that the French expression 'fonds et biens,' is correctly translated as

goods and effects.' It is insisted that the English copy of the treaty whether the treaty was originally negotiated in English as well as French, or whether an English trans lation was made of it after its orig inal negotiation) is an official promulgation of the treaty in the Eng. lish language, in view of the fact that it appears in publications and editions of the United States Statutes at Large, as authorized by Congress. Whether this view is correct or not, it may be admitted for the purposes of this case that the words 'goods and effects' are a correct translation of the French expression 'fonds et biens.' The question then arises as to the meaning of the word 'effects.' It cannot be doubted that

in certain connections the word 'effects' sometimes refers to both real and personal property. It is true that as a general thing the word 'effects,' when used in connection with the word 'goods,' means personal property, and not real property. But this is not its correct meaning where a contrary intention. appears from the terms of the instrument in which the word occurs. The word 'effects' is 'a very general term, used to denote whatever a man has that can effect, produce, or bring forth money by sale.' Am. & Eng. Eney. of Law, p. 174. Bouvier defines the word 'effects' as follows: 'Property or worldly substance. As thus used it denotes property in a more extensive sense than goods. 2 Bl. Comm. 284. Indeed, the word may be used to embrace every kind of property, real and personal, including things in action.' If the expression here, instead of being 'goods and effects' was 'goods and other effects,' we should be inclined to apply the rule of construction that general and specific words, which are capable of an analogous meaning, being associated together, take color from each other, so that the general words are restricted to a sense analogous to the less general. Misch v. Russell, 136 Ill. 22, 26 N. E. 528, 12 L. R. A. 125; First Nat. Bank v. Adam, 138 Ill. 483, 28 N. E. 955. Thus, in the case of Bank v. Adam, supra, where the words used were 'all goods, chattels or other property,' it was held that the general words or other property' would be restricted to a meaning analogous to the meaning

of the words 'goods and chattels,' and consequently would not embrace such property as fixtures or chattels real, partaking more of the nature of realty than personalty. So, here, if the expression were 'goods and other effects,' the words 'other effects' would be restricted to a meaning analogous to the meaning of the word 'goods,' and would not embrace real property. But, as the word 'other' is not used, there is no occasion for the application of the maxim, 'ejusdem generis.' Even, however, if this maxim were applicable to the expression 'goods and effects,' standing alone, yet it is not applicable to the word 'effects' as here used, when considered in connection with other expressions appearing in article 6, as above quoted. In interpreting wills, it is well settled that the word 'effects' will be construed as including land where it can be collected from other parts of the will that such was the testator's intention. In other words, where the context of a will shows that it was the intention of the testator to dispose of his realty, the courts have held that the word 'effects' is sufficient to include the real estate. 6 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, pp. 176, 177; Smyth v. Smyth, 8 Ch. Div. 561; Page, v. Foust, 89 N. C. 447. This being a proper rule of construction in the case of wills, it is equally proper as applied to public treaties.

"Where treaties concern the rights of individuals, it is frequently necessary for the courts to ascertain, by construction, the meaning intended to be conveyed by the terms used. Wil

son v. Wall, 6 Wall. 83, 18 L. ed. 727; United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234, 30 L. ed. 425; Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247, 28 L. ed. 798. In thus giving construction to the language of treaties, the courts will adopt the same general rules which are applicable in the construction of statutes, contracts, and written instruments generally, in order to effect the purpose and intention of the makers. 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 555. Moreover, it is another well-settled rule, laid down by the supreme court of the United States, that where a treaty admits of two constructions--one restricted as to the rights that may be claimed under it, and the other liberal-the latter is to be preferred.' Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483, 25 L. ed. 628; Schultze v. Schultze, 144 Ill. 290, 36 Am. St. Rep. 432, 33 N. E. 201, 19 L. R. A. 20. When, therefore, we consider the meaning of the words 'goods and effects' in connection with the rest of article 6, as above quoted, we find such expressions therein as the following: Their heirs, in whatever place they shall reside, shall receive the succession even ab intestato,' etc., and these inheritances... shall be exempted from all duty,' etc. The words 'heirs,' 'succession' and 'inheritances,' as here used, are very significant words in determining the meaning to be given to the word 'effects.' An heir is one who, upon the death of another, acquires or succeeds to his estate by right of blood and by operation of law; the person

who takes an estate of lands or tenements by descent from another.. In the Roman law and in the modern civil law, "haeres" or "heir," has a more extended significance than in the common law. The term is applied to all persons entitled to succeed to the estate of one deceased, whether by act of the party or by operation of law, and whether the property be real or personal in its nature.' 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, p. 357. At common law, chattels did not descend by inheritance, except in the instances in which they came under the description of 'heirlooms.' Bouvier defines the term 'inheritance' as follows: 'A perpetuity in lands to a man and his heirs; the right to succeed to the estate of a person who dies intestate. The term is applied to lands. The property which is inherited is called an inheritance.'' The term "inheritance" includes not only lands and tenements which have been acquired by descent, but every fee simple or fee tail which a person has acquired by purchase may be said to be an inheritance, because the purchaser's heirs may inherit it.' He also says that in the civil law the term means 'the succession to all the rights of the deceased. It is of two kinds that which arises by testament, when the testator gives his property to a particular person; and that which arises by operation of law, which is called succession ab intestato.' 'Inheritance' has also been defined to be 'an estate which descends or may descend to the heir upon the death of the ancestor. Estates of freehold are

the determination as to what circumstances would require a prolongation and would be a reasonable prolongation under such circumstances should rest in the legislature of the state where the lands should have their location, for it was not, of course, intended to be asserted that the legislative department 'established the limitations contained in the treaty.' Nor do we think it would be reasonable to claim that the treaty means that the question of such reasonable prolongation of time should in each particular case be made the subject of negotiation and treaty by the governments making the treaty in the first instance, nor do we understand counsel to so contend; but they do contend that, in the absence of any prolongation of time by the legis lature, the limitation of two years fixed by the treaty must govern, and that when that time passed the appellants, being aliens, no longer had any interests in the property. Counsel do not point out any way in which the general assembly could have prolonged the limitation of two years upon the application of appellants. It may well be doubted whether the power to pass a special law on the subject exists under the constitution, and, if it does, it would be but a precarious right guaranteed by this treaty to make its enjoyment depend on the action of the legislature, which

might not meet until the right was barred. If it be said that the legislature could have passed a general law on the subject, conforming to the treaty, we are unable to see what additional force would thereby have been given to the treaty. As it stands, the treaty is the law of the land, superior to any law which the legislature could pass, and seems to be as explicit as any general law could be reasonably framed. It would be but an idle ceremony for the legislature to re-enact the treaty, and we find nothing in the language of the treaty itself which would seem to make its application to any particular case depend on the action of the legislature. Like any other law, its construction and application to particular cases are questions for the courts. The clause in controversy, 'which term may be reasonably prolonged, according to circumstances,' means nothing more than that in cases where the circumstances are such as to make it reasonable that such aliens, in order to preserve their rights, should have further time, in addition to the term of two years, in which to sell their interest in the lands, such further time as may be reasonable under the circumstances shall be allowed. Any other construction would, for all practical purposes, render this provision of the treaty nugatory, while, like any other instrument, it should be con