« ZurückWeiter »
Treaties are not to be treated with levity, nor are they to be given a sanctity which shields them from inspection and rejection, if, by their terms they do that which the Constitution forbids, and destroy essential rights of the States respectively or the people.
"I cannot conceive how it can be held that pledges made to an alien people can be treated as more sacred than is that great pledge given by every member of department of the government of the United States to support and defend the Constitution." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, I. c. 344.
But in the case al bar, may we not preserve both the treaty and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
In the case of Compagne v. Board, 186 U. S. 380, 395, this Court said:
"... the treaty was made subject to the enactment of such health laws as the local conditions
might evoke not paramount to them." In the case of Ileim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175, 194, commenting upon the case of Patsone v. Pennsylvania, this Court said:
“Adopting the declaration of the court below, it was said that the equality of rights that the treaty assures is equality only in respect of protection and security for persons and property.' And the rulin was given point by a citation of the power of the stalc over its wild game, which might be preserved for its own citizens. In other words, the ruling was given point by the special power of the state over the subject-matter,-a power which exists in the case at bar, as we have seen."
May it not in the case at bar, as in the above cases, be said that the treaty is made subject to the “special power of the stale?” As a matter of fact, does not the treaty itself show this upon its face?
“The High Contracting Powers agree themselves to take, or propose to their respective appropriate lawmaking bodies, the necessary measures for insuring the execution of the present convention.”
May this not be construed as obligating the Federal Government “to take" the necessary measures in such territory as it has, under the Constitution, the power "to take" measures for regulating the taking of wild game therein, and further obligating the Federal Government, not "lo take," bul "lo propose" to the “appropriate law-making bodics"—that is, the legislatures of the several states—the necessary measures for regulating the taking of wild game within the borders of the respective stales wherein the states only have the power, under the Constitution, to take such measures?
The High Contracting Powers must be held to have known that the power of the Federal Government did not extend to the taking over of a trust exercised by the state in relation to the common property of its citizens, or the cnactment of mere police regulations within the limits of a state; and the language of Article VIII seems to indioate that they both knew and acted upon this knowledge.
Such construction leaves both the treaty and the laws of Missouri intact and in force. Il results in holding unconstitutional only an act of Congress which was not necessarily required by the treaty, and which, under the Constitution, Congress had no power to pass.
Attorney-General of Missouri,
Solicitors for Appellant. J. G. L. HARVEY,
B. HENRY ST. GEORGE TUCKER--LIMITATIONS ON TREATY POWER
LIMITATIONS ON TIIE
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF TIIE
HENRY ST. GEORGE TUCKER
PORNERLY DEAN OF THE LAW ACROOLS OF WARNINOTON AND LEO.
WASILINGTON, D. C.
EDITOR OF TUCKER ON TAE CONSTITUTION
LIMITATIONS ON THE
f 1. The object of these pages is to discuss the treatyo making power under the Constitution of the United States, and definc its limitations. The broader question of the scope of trcaties, their construction and binding effect, is a question of international law into which the author does not propose to intrudc; this field has bcen so nmply and ably filled that it would be useless to add to it, even did it come within the limits of a treatise of this character.
Nly object is to present in a simple and concrctc form, in the discussion in these pages, not the general power of making trcatics as applied to nations, nor what ought to be the full scope of such power in the United States, but what, under the Constitution of the United States, is thic power of the United States to makc and ratify binding treatics.
The past fifty yeary hins witnesscel a phenomenal growth of these United States, that is nlikc the surprise and wonder of the world, in material development, in the nrts nnd sciences, in statecrast, and all sociological problems. The position of the United States to-day is second to no nation in the world. Thic elements of power, as seen in every field of development,
LIMITATION ON TIIE TREATY-MAKING POWER
have stimulated in the minds of many the ambition of placing the United Sunles in the primacy of the great Worlưl Powers, and of giving them a seat nt thc diplomatic table of the asscmblad nations of the world, where the game of politics is playcl successfully, when proper alliances arc made, and where with cqual disaster, the game is played if inis-alliances are formed.
The warning of George Washington to the people of these United States against "cntangling alliances" with foreign na
tions must not be forgotten, if we would full our manifest * clestiny. America can have no higher or more exalted mission
among the nations of the world than to work out successfully and to their fullest fruition the principles of civil and religious liberty first brought by our fathers to these shorcs in 1607 and planted on the banks of the River James by the Colony at Jamestown. When this shall have bcen successfully accomplished, the armaments of America that will excrt the greatest influence in the control of the world will not be the dreadnoughts
of her navy, nor the artillery of her battlements, but they will ţ consist of those sturdy moral forces abiding with the people
that uphold justice, maintain the cause of Frecdom, defy tyranny and tyrants, cxalt thc sanctity of the law, national and international, proclain thc equality of opportunity to all, and in all things hasten the advanccinent of Rightcousness and l'cace throughout the length and breallth of this “Land of the Frec and Ilome of the Bravc."
Every patriotic American rejoices in the wonderful development of his country; in the accumulation of its wealth and ils proper diffusion; in the counlity of right accorded every citizen of the land; in the power to defend ourselves against
the aggressions of power - domestic and foreign; and in the į unlimited power for good to the whole world in the development
of the principles of freedom as proclaimed in the Constitution of this Federal Republic.
Whatever of good shall come to the world from the development upon this Continent of republican idcas must come with