« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
so doing the accident happened. Neither the over his objection. When the argument was plaintiff nor the lady testified as to the purpose for reached counsel for defendant asked the privilege which the call was to be made; nor did it appear of addressing the jury in the Spanish language, that the plaintiff had any acquaintance with the that being the only language understood by a masister-in-law. The trial court left it to the jury to jority of the jury. This was refused, although no say whether he was travelling for any other purpose objection was interposed by the State. The court than that of going to or returning from the funeral. said: “The right of a defendant charged with The jury found for the plaintiff. This was reversed, felony, to be tried by jurors who understand the the court saying: “It was correctly ruled at the English language, is not an open question in this trial that the plaintiff could lawfully travel on the State. In Lyle's case, 41 Tex. 172; S. C., 19 Am. Lord's day for the purpose of going to or returning Rep. 38, the question was maturely considered and from the funeral, and that it was not necessary that determined affimatively, and no subsequent legislahe should return by the same or by the shortest tion, organic or statutory, has qualified the ruling route, unless the route taken by him was so unrea- in that case.” "A trial would be legally fair and sonable and inconvenient as to show a purpose out- impartial, within the meaning of the Constitution, side of the alleged necessity or charity. But if, before a jury of deaf mutes, who, by reason of while in attendance at the funeral, or upon leaving their misfortune, could not hear a word of the testhe cemetery, it was proposed to him by his com- timony or argument of counsel, and a trial before panion to go to another place, not upon the ordinary either could be nothing less than a mockery. After return route, in order for her convenience or pleas- having forced such a jury upon the prisoner, in vioure, to visit a friend, and if he acceded to this pro- lation of his constitutional privilege, the error was posal, it would be the substitution of a new and magnified by a refusal to permit his counsel to addifferent purpose of the journey in place of that dress them in a language they could comprehend, which he had in view when he began it, and a pur- or to consume, at least, a part of the time allotted pose entirely outside of the necessity or charity him for argument, in that language. The initial which influenced him at the outset. If he had error would of course 'not have been cured by altaken her from her residence and gone with her to lowing an argument of that character, but the conCharlestown to make the intended visit on the cession would at least have enabled counsel to Lord's day, without attending the funeral at all, it present their views of the case in a manner intelliwould have been a clear violation of the statute. It gible to the jury, instead of being forced to resort is difficult to see why it would be any the less so if, to virtual pantomime in so far as eight of the jurors having attended the funeral, he, instead of return- were concerned. This was not permitting the prising directly from it, accepted an invitation to make oner to be heard by himself, or counsel, or both." a different journey for a purpose having nothing This is sustained by State v. Marshall, 8 Ala. 302, whatever to do with the funeral. It makes no dif- and Lafayette, etc., Co. v. Nero Albany R. Co., 19 ference that the determination to make that journey Ind. 90. Contra : Trinidad v. Simpson, California was formed after he had attended the funeral and Supreme Court, 10 Cent. L. J. 149. The importwas about to return. By the terms of the statute ance to the State as well as the prisoner of having he had no right to make that journey at all on that a jury conversant with the English language, is day and for that purpose. The majority of the illustrated by a case in England, where, at the recourt are, therefore, of opinion that the presiding cent sessions at Brighton, a prisoner was discharged judge fell into the error of submitting to the jury on the foreman of the jury stating that they found what was really a question of law; and that he him "not guilty.” Subsequently, however, and should have instructed them, that upon the undis- after some of the jury had left the box, it was conputed facts of the case, the plaintiff had not brought veyed to the court that they intended to return a himself within the exception expressed in the stat- verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy; ute, and was not entitled to maintain the action." but that the foreman, who was a foreigner and
spoke English imperfectly, had made a mistake in In Me Campbell v. State , Texas Court of Appeals
, ordered the prisoner to be again brought before
announcing their verdict. On this, the recorder Austin term, 1880, 3 Tex. L. J. 726, before the process of impanelling the jury was began, the defend him; and sentenced him. ant objected to any person being sworn and impanelled as a juror who did not understand and speak The case of Scribner v. Stoddart, U. S. Circuit the English language, which objection was over- Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 19 Am. L. ruled by the court. Thereupon the jurors, as sum- Reg. (N. S.) 433, is more noticeable for what it moned, were called and the defendant exercised his queries than for what it decides. The suit was for an right of peremptory challenges until they were ex- injunction to restrain the publishers of the Amerihausted, after which eight jurors, whose names are can reprint of the Encyclopedia Brittannica from set out, were called and upon their voire dire, stated publishing in that reprint certain articles written that they did not speak or understand the English for the foreign edition and copyrighted in this counlanguage. The defendant then challenged each of try. The court queried whether a copyright granted these jurors for cause, on that account, which chal- to a foreigner for a work written by an American lenges were disallowed, and the jurors accepted citizen, and purchased before publication, is valid,
saying, “I think it may safely be said that the ques- individual debt; polling jury; right to recover tion is open to very serious doubt.” The court also price of sale fraudulent as to creditors. queried whether a citizen, who has copyrighted a Among the very interesting cases forming the volshort paper, and has allowed it to be published in a ume we note the following as of especial importforeign country as part of an encyclopedia, can use his copyright to prevent the republication of the work BAILMENT. A government mail carrier is not rein this country. The court said, this “is freer from sponsible to the owner for money stolen from the doubt,” but still doubtful enough to warrant the mails. Foster v. Metts, 55 Miss. 77; page 504. denial of the injunction. But the denial was mainly BANK. - A bank has no lien upon a customer's put on the ground that “the injury likely to result deposit for his indebtedness to the bank not yet due. to the plaintiffs from a denial of this motion, will be Jordan v. National Shoe and Leather Bank, 74 N. Y. very much less than that which would be suffered 467; page 319. by the defendants if it was granted.” The court BANKRUPTCY. - Dower is not barred by the sale thought that the demand for the articles in ques- of husband's land in bankruptcy. Lazear v. Portion, in a separate form, would not in any event be ter, 87 Penn. St. 513; page 380. great, and would not be materially injured by their CARRIER. - In the absence of contract one carpublication in the general work. On the other rier cannot maintain an action against another for hand, if the injunction were granted, the foreign failing to ship goods over the plaintiff's road which publication would “ virtually drive the reprint out, the other had brought to the point of connection, and leave the field to the other side, and it would although the owners of the goods had contracted be occupied and harvested probably before this case with the plaintiff to ship the goods over its road. was coneluded.” " The defendant is not to be Wilmington, etc., R. Co. v. Greenville, etc., R. Co., 9 looked upon simply in the light of an ordinary S. C. 325; page 23. wrong-doer.” “At the time he commenced this In the absence of proof of gift to the wife, the publication there was nothing unlawful in what he husband can recover for loss by a carrier of the did.” “The defendant at the beginning could not wife's paraphernalia. Curtis v. Delaware, etc., R. know that before this work was completed and fully Co., 74 N. Y. 116; page 271. issued, it would contain articles which were copy- A railroad company is not liable for the loss of a righted.” “ There was nothing to warn him of the travelling agent's samples of merchandise received insertion of such matter."
as baggage. Alling v. Boston & Albany R. Co., 126 Mass. 121; page 667.
A railroad company is not liable for injury to one THIRTIETH AMERICAN REPORTS.
riding on a freight train with knowledge that the
conductors were forbidden to receive passengers on THIS volume of 877 pages contains the leading freight trains, and paying no fare. Houston & Temas
cases from 5 Baxter, 88 Illinois, 62, 63 Indiana, Cent. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31; page 98. 48 Iowa, 21 Kansas, 48 Maryland, 126 Massachu- Civil DAMAGE ACT. – No recovery can be had setts, 55 Mississippi, 68 Missouri, 8 Nebraska, 74 for injury to the plaintiff's means of support by the New York, 80 North Carolina, 32 Ohio State, 87 intoxication of his minor son by liquors sold by the Pennsylvania State, 9, 10 South Carolina, 49 Texas, defendant, without proof that the son's services 3, 4 Texas Court of Appeals, 45 Wisconsin, Reports. were necessary to the father's support, or that the The following are the principal notes: Administra- expenses incurred by the intoxication had so imtion on estate of living person, 748; Attorney, paired the father's means as to render them inaderights of, as to client, 358; Contract, illegal, en- quate for his support. Volans v. Owen, 74 N. Y. forcement between parties, 106; Crime, decoying 526; page 337. into commission of, 129; Criminal Law, intent in The Civil Damage Act, making lessors of premstatutory crime, 617; Damages, liquidated or pen- ises, with knowledge that they are to be used for alty, 28; Exempt Property, voluntary conveyance the sale of intoxicating liquors, liable for damage of, 757; Interest after maturity, 47; Lost Property, caused by the act of one intoxicated by liquor sold rights of finder, 180; Mortgage of crop to be planted, there, is constitutional. Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. 63; Negligence, contributory, when defense, 190; Y. 509; page 323. Negligence, trespasser, 687; Negotiable Instrument, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. - A sentence of a husband bona fide holder, purchase after default in payment to two years' imprisonment for a violent and maliof interest, 701; Partnership, sale of entire assets cious assault on his wife is not a “cruel or unusual by one partner in payment of his individual debt, punishment.” State v. Pettie, 80 N. C. 367; page 534; Polling Jury, 497; Sale, right to recover price 88. of fraudulent, as to creditors, 517; Surety, dis- A statute, limiting the right of admission as atcharged by death of principal, 56. Several of these torney at law to white male citizens, is constituare very exhaustive; for example, those on admin- tional. Matter of Taylor, 48 Md. 28; page 451. istration on estate of living person; damages, liqui- A statute, imposing a penalty on railway conductdated or penalty; interest after maturity; contribu-ors for failing to cause their trains to stop five mintory negligence, when a defense; partnership, sale utes at every way station, is constitutional. Davidof entire assets by one partner in payment of his son v. State, 4 Tex. Ct. App. 545; page 166.
A statute making it a felony for a white person to On an accusation of murder, it being claimed that marry a negro or a person of mixed blood is not in certain foot-prints were those of the prisoner, the conflict with the Federal Constitution. Frasher v. prosecuting attorney brought a pan of mud into State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 263; page 131.
court and placed it in front of the jury, and havFarming lands within a city are subject to muni- ing proved that the mud in the pan was about as cipal taxation, although not benefited. Cary v. soft as that where the tracks were found, called on City of Pekin, 88 Ill. 154; page 543.
the prisoner to put his foot in the mud in the pan. CONTRACT. — Under a statute authorizing school On objection, the court instructed the prisoner that district boards to provide “necessary appendages" it was optional with him whether he would comply. for school-houses, there is no authority to purchase the prisoner refused, and the court instructed the a stereoscope and stereoscopic views. School Dis- jury that his refusal was not to be taken against trict v. Perkins, 21 Kans. 536; page 447.
him. The prisoner being convicted, held, that he A note given on the completion and settlement of was entitled to a new trial. Stokes v. State, 5 Baxt. an illegal business, by one of the partners therein 619; page 72. to another, for profits thereof, is valid and enforce- On the trial of an indictment for seduction, a able. De Leon v. Trevino, 49 Tex. 88; page 101. child, three months old, alleged to have been born
COVENANT. — A sealed agreement, for a valuable of the alleged intercourse, cannot be exhibited to consideration, not to make a will to the prejudice of the jury as corroborative evidence for the prosecuthe rights of the covenantor's heirs in his estate, istion on account of its resemblance to the defendvalid. Taylor v. Mitchell, 87 Penn. St. 518; pageant. State v. Danforth, 48 Iowa, 43; page 387. 383.
In his argument to the jury, on the trial of a CRIMINAL LAW. - The criminal offense of adul- felony, the defendant's counsel said in regard to a tery is not excused by the absence of a guilty in- question of foot-prints, that the jury might try for tent, unless a guilty knowledge is part of the statu- themselves whether such worn-out boots as the wittory definition, nor by the subsequent inter-marriage nesses for the prosecution described would make of the parties. Fox v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 329; such tracks as they described. Some of the jury,
without leave, made the experiment out of court. One who secretes himself in a dwelling-house at Held, such error as invalidated a conviction. State night, with intent to commit a felony therein, and v. Sanders, 68 Mo. 202; page 782. being discovered, escapes by unlocking or opening DAMAGES. — In an action of assault and battery a door, is not guilty of burglary. Adkinson v. State, exemplary damages are not proper. Boyer v. Barr, 5 Baxt. 569; page 69.
8 Neb. 68; page 814. A banker, suspecting defendant of an intention EVIDENCE. - The presumption of a marriage beof robbing his bank, employed detectives to act as tween A. and B., founded simply upon habit and decoys and induce him to enter the bank, with in- repute, is overcome by proof of a subsequent actual tent to rob it. Held, that the defendant could not marriage between A. and C. during the life-time of be convicted of burglary. Speiden v. State, 3 Tex. B. Jones v. Jones, 48 Md. 391; page 466. Ct. App. 156; page 126.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. — Property exempt In an indictment for larceny of a coffin containing from execution is not susceptible of fraudulent the remains of a human being, the coffin is properly alienation. Derby v. Weyrich, 8 Neb. 174; page charged to be the property of the person who fur- 827; Carhart v. Harshaw, 45 Wis. 340; page 752. nished it and buried the deceased.
Dæpke, INTEREST. — A contract to pay a sum certain at a 68 Mo. 208; page 785.
future day, with interest at a conventional rate, An indictment for printing and publishing ob- nothing being said as to the rate of interest after scene pictures of naked girls is not sustained by the principal sum becomes due, bears interest at the proof of printing and publishing obscene pictures conventional rate until it becomes due, and from of girls naked only above the waist
. Commonwealth that time, upon the aggregate of principal and inv. Dejardin, 126 Mass. 46; page 652.
terest at the legal rate. Briggs v. Winsmith, 10 S. A statute made it felony for any person, under C. 133; page 46. promise of marriage, to have illicit carnal inter- LANDLORD AND TENANT. — Upon leased premises, course with a female infant of good repute for a water-pipe and gutter, not defective in their origichastity. Held, that the promise need not be a nal construction, became stopped up, so that the valid one in fact, if the infant understood it to be water flowed upon the door steps of the leased valid. Callahan v. State, 63 Ind. 198; page 211. house, forming ice, upon which a third person fell
A person indicted for selling intoxicating liquors and was injured. As between lessor and lessee, in may show that he bought and sold the liquor with the absence of contract to the contrary, it is the the understanding and believing that it was not in- duty of the latter to repair the pipe, or remove the toxicating liquor. Farrell v. State, 32 Ohio St. 456 ; | ice, and for failure in this he is liable, and not the page 614.
landlord. Shindelbeck v. Moon, 32 Ohio St. 264; In a criminal case it is error to instruct the jury page 584. that evidence of good character is of but slight LOST PROPERTY. - The plaintiff, while engaged weight and entitled to but little consideration, when as an employee in the defendant's paper mill, in the proof is clear and direct. State v. Northrup, 48 assorting a bale of old papers which the defendant Iowa, 583; page 408.
had bought for manufacture, found a number of
bank notes, in a clean unmarked envelope, in a bale, condition the recipient shall be liable to summary and delivered them to the defendant for the purpose arrest upon the governor's warrant; and upon the of ascertaining if they were good, and upon his breach of the first condition, may revoke the parpromise to return them. The defendant refusing to don and recommit the recipient. Arthur v. Craig, return them upon demand, held, that the plaintiff 48 Iowa, 264; page 395. was entitled to recover their value from him. PARENT AND CHILD. – A father purchased and Bowen v. Sullivan, 62 Ind. 281; page 172.
paid for a policy of insurance on his own life in the MARRIAGE. - A married woman may bind her name of his daughter, and for her sole benefit, and separate estate by a contract for compensation of an paid the annual premiums until his death. Held, attorney-at-law for his services in defending her in- that the amount of the policy and of the annual terests in a legal proceeding in reference thereto or premiums after its purchase were advancements. affecting the same, although the enabling statutes Rickenbacker v. Zimmerman, 10 S. C. 110; page 37. do not expressly authorize such employment. Por- PARTNERSHIP. As against a general creditor of ter v. Haley, 55 Miss. 66; page 502.
a solvent partnership, one of the firm, with the conMASTER AND SERVANT. In an action by the ad-sent of his copartners, may in good faith make an ministrator of an employee injured in escaping from absolute transfer of the entire partnership assets in defendant's burning mill, the court charged that if payment of his individual debt. Schmidlapp v. the room where the plaintiff worked was suitable, Currie, 55 Miss. 97; page 530. and there were proper means of extinguishing fires, Where a settling partner, after dissolution, gives and the means of egress and escape were suitable a draft in payment of a partnership debt, he cannot and proper, and in order and ready for use, there waive protest so as to bind his former dormant cocould be no recovery, and refused to charge that it partner. Mauney v. Coit, 80 N. C. 300; page 80. was the defendant's duty to provide means of giv- SCHOOLS. — In matters where the board of control ing alarm in case of fire. Held, no error.
of public schools have made no regulations for the Granite Mills, 126 Mass. 121; page 666.
government of the schools, the teachers stand in MORTGAGE. — A mortgage of a crop to be planted loco parentis, and have inherent power to suspend is valid, the mortgagee having taken the property pupils, for cause, and mandamus will not lie to cominto his possession after it is acquired and before pel such a teacher reinstate such a suspended puthe rights of others as creditors or purchasers have pil. State ex rel. Burfee v. Burton, 45 Wis. 150; attached thereon. Moore v. Byrum, 10 S. C. 452 ; page 706.
SLANDER AND LIBEL. - Falsely and maliciously MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. - A municipal ordi- calling a justice of the peace “ a damned fool of a nance requiring occupants and owners of premises justice,” is slanderous in itself. Spiering v. Andra, to remove snow from the adjacent sidewalks is in- 45 Wis. 330; page 744. valid. Gridley v. City of Bloomington, 88 Ill. 554; STATUTE. — One who sells his own goods at auc
tion is an auctioneer within the meaning of an ordiNATIONAL BANK. — State courts have jurisdiction nance requiring persons exercising the business of of actions to recover illegal interest reserved by an auctioneer to be licensed. City of Goshen v. National banks upon loans. Bletz v. Columbia Na- Kern, 63 Ind. 468; page 234. tional Bank, 87 Penn. St. 87; page 343.
SUNDAY. - While the plaintiff was driving on : NEGLIGENCE. - In the absence of express con
business errand on Sunday, the defendant's dogs tract, a carrier of passengers by hackney coaches is barked at and frightened his horse, thereby causing liable for injuries resulting from his negligence to a an injury to the plaintiff. Held, that the plaintiff gratuitous passenger. Lemon v. Chanslor, 68 Mo. could recover damages therefor, although a statute 340; page 799.
prohibited labor on Sunday. Schmid v. Humphrey, In an action for injuries by fire to buildings adja- 48 Iowa, 652; page 414. cent to a railway, caused by neg'igent management A church subscription made on Sunday is void, or construction of the defendants' locomotives, it and is not made valid by a subsequent oral acappeared that the plaintiff had suffered an accumu- knowledgment and promise to pay it, without conlation of hay and shavings, between the buildings sideration. Catlett v. Trustees of the M. E. Church burned, and under one of them which was placed of Sweetster Station, 62 Ind. 365; page 197. on blocks, with the side next the railway open. SURETY. — Where a joint note is executed by a Held, that this was evidence of contributory negli- | principal, and by a surety not otherwise liable, and gence which should be submitted to the jury. Mur. the latter dies leaving the principal surviving, his phy v. Chicago & North-western Railway Co., 45 estate is not discharged from the obligation. SuWis. 222; page 721.
song v. Vaiden, 10 S. C. 247; page 50. PARDON. The governor may annex to a pardon
WASTE. An action for waste is not defeated by the condition that the recipient shall refrain from
the transfer of the premises pending the action by the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage during 48 Md. 583; page 492.
the plaintiff to the defendant.
Dickinson v. Mayor, the remainder of the term of sentence; that he
Will. — If a testator dies leaving an unrevoked shall use proper exertions for the support of his
will, which cannot be found after his death, parol mother and sister; and that he shall not during the evidence is competent to prove its contents, and as same time be convicted of any criminal offense in the thus proved it may be admitted to probate. FosState; and may provide that for a violation of either ter's Appeal, 87 Penn. St. 67; page 340.
THE TREATY POWER.
validity. The President cannot take the place of the Senate, and the Senate cannot take his place.
Neither can exchange functions with the other. BY SAMUEL T. SPEAR, D. D.
The powers of both operate independently of each
other, and are distinct in the time and mode of their HE
action. The design of thus restraining the President that "the executive power shall be vested in a in the exercise of the treaty power confided to him is President of the United States of America." In enu- to protect the nation against any misuse or misapplimerating the items embraced in this power, it further cation of the power. declares, in section 2 of the same article, that the The Constitution, of course, makes no grant of President “shall have power, by and with the advice power for its own destruction, or the violation of its and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided own provisions; and, hence, treaties, in order to be two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”
valid as laws of the land, must be consistent with the The power“ to make treaties" is the power to do or several provisions of this instrument. On this point authorize to be done the several things naturally con- Mr. Justice Story observes: “But though the power is nected with the process, including negotiation, prepa- thus general and unrestricted, it is not to be so conration, agreement upon terms, signature, exchange of strued as to destroy the fundamental laws of the State. ratifications, proclamation; indeed, all the formalities A power given by the Constitution cannot be conand steps usual in such transactions between nations. strued to authorize the destruction of other powers It is not a power directly to unmake, cancel, or modify given in the same instrument. It must be construed, treaties, but simply a power to make them; and, therefore, in subordination to it, and cannot supersede hence, the only way in which the President can change or interfere with any other of its fundamental provisor abrogate existing treaties is by making other treat- ions." Story's Const., $ 1508. The remark of Mr. Jusies that will have this effect. He has not been trusted tice Miller, in The Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 with the power of directly annulling or repealing a Wall. 655, that “the theory of our government, State treaty. A treaty, being part of the supreme law of the and National, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited land, binds his action as really as it does that of courts, power anywhere,” is just as applicable to treaties as it so long as it is in force. If repealed, except by making is to the legislation of Congress. In People v. Gerke, 5 another treaty, the repealing process must be an exer- Cal. 381, it was said that the treaty power is subject to cise of legislative power.
"the exceptions that necessarily flow from a proper The term "treaties," as occurring in this grant of construction of the other powers granted and those power, is used in the generic sense, and means formal prohibited by the Constitution." In Pierce v. State, contracts between two or more nations, with no enu- 15 N. H. 336, it was said by the court that “the politimeration of the subjects upon which the power may cal rights of the people of the several States as such are operate, and, as to these subjects, with no express lim- not subjects of treaty stipulations." itation upon the exercise of this power. Chief Justice It is conceivable that a treaty, made by the PresiTaney, in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, said: “The dent and ratified by the Senate, might in some or all power to make treaties is given by the Constitution in of its stipulations be repugnant to the Constitution general terms, without any description of the objects itself; and, manifestly, such stipulations would not be intended to be embraced; and, consequently, it was entered into “under the authority of the United designed to include all those subjects which, in the or- States." They would be usurpations of power not dinary intercourse of nations, had been made subjects warranted by this authority; and it would not be the of negotiation and treaty, and which are consistent duty of Congress legislatively to provide for their exewith the nature of our institutions and the distribu- cution, or of courts to treat them as laws. tion of powers between the general and the State gov- The only treaty power, either known to or bestowed ernments."
by the Constitution, is granted to the President, subMr. Justice Story says: “The power to make treat-ject in its exercise to the advice and consent of the ies is by the Constitution general; and of course it Senate. Congress, as such, is not, and the President embraces all sorts of treaties, for peace or war, for is, the grantee; and no other part of the Constitution commerce or territory, for alliance or succor, for in- contains the slightest intimation that the making of demnity for injuries or payment of debts, for the treaties comes within the scope of the powers of Conrecognition and enforcement of principles of public gress. The conclusion is that the power is exclusively law, and for any other purposes which the policy or lodged with the President, in connection with the interests of independent sovereigns may dictate in Senate, and that any attempt to substituto the action their intercourse with each other.” Story's Const., of Congress for that of the President in the making of $ 1508.
treaties, or to do, by legislation or by joint resolutions The framers of the Constitution, in omitting to of the two houses of Congress, what can only be done enumerate the things intended to be embraced in the by the treaty power, would, if successful, be subvertreaty power, evidently meant to leave the exercise of sive of the Constitution itself. Congress can declare this power to be settled by established usage in the in- war and provide by law for its prosecution; but it tercourse of nations, taken in connection with what- cannot make a treaty of peace. There is no doubt ever circumstances or necessities might at any time that the President may, hy a treaty, acquire new terarise in the history of the United States, and also in ritory, and thus incorporate both the territory and its conuection with the manner in which the powers of inhabitants into the Union. But the Constitution nogovernment are distributed in this country. Hence where bestows this power upon Congress. The power the grant of the power was made in general terms. It of Congress to admit “new States” into the Union could not well have been more definite without im- relates to States formed by a division or junction of pairing the usefulness and efficiency of the power. States already in the Union, or to States organized out
The President, in exercising the power, is, however, of territory belonging to the United States, and not to subject to "the advice and consent of the Senate.” foreign States. The annexation of Texas by a joint No treaty made by him has any validity, unless rati- resolution of the two houses of Congress was in effect fied by two-thirds of the Senators present at the time an exercise of the treaty power by Congress, without when the Senate acts upon the subject. The concur- any warrant therefor in the Constitution. The resolurence of the Senate, though subordinate and auxiliary, tion was passed in the Senate by a majority of only and never primary, in the process of making a treaty, two, which is much less than (the majority necessary is, nevertheless, indispensable to its completion and to ratify a treaty.