mark was entirely applicable to Article IX of the Dominican treaty, the case before the Court therefore being covered by the decision in Bartram vs. Robertson, but he also found" another and complete answer" in the fact that the act of Congress under which the duties were collected was of general application and made no exception in favor of goods coming from any particular country, and being of later date than the treaty, if there was any conflict between the two, the law must control.' It is true that the law under which the duties were collected was approved July 14, 1870 (amended December 22, 1870), while the treaty with the Dominican Republic was concluded February 8, 1867. Yet the treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, the benefit of whose concessions. was claimed, was not signed until January 30, 1875, and did not become operative until September 9, 1876, in virtue of an act of Congress. Prior to this date no obligation to extend to Santo Domingo the tariff modifications stipulated in the Hawaiian treaty could under any construction arise; nor before that time could the stipulations of the Dominican treaty, so far as concerns. those modifications, operate as municipal law and consequently be subject to legislative repeal. Assuming that the construction of Article IX admitted such an obligation (and this may be assumed if this second answer is to be taken as "complete"), it would be difficult to reconcile the contention, that treaty stipulations are so far self-executing as to effect a repeal of inconsistent revenue laws, with the statement of the learned justice in this case, that he found no exception in the revenue law in favor of the Dominican Republic.

Extradition and Other Conventions.-The only treaty

'Whitney vs. Robertson, 124 U. S., 190. 116 Stat. at L., 22, 397.

provision for the extradition of fugitives from justice that preceded the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842 is found in Article XXVII of the Jay treaty. Requisition for the delivery of a refugee in virtue of this article was made by the British government in 1799. This was complied with by President Adams, although no legislation had been passed by Congress for its execution. In the attempt in the House to censure the President for his action, while the interference of the Executive in the duties of the judicial branch of the government was the principal ground of accusation, the power of the President to act under the article of the treaty without legislative direction was questioned. To Mr. Gallatin's request to be informed "on what rule or law the 'President had acted," John Marshall, in his famous speech of March 7, 1800, replied, "The treaty, stipulating that a murderer shall be delivered up to justice, is as obligatory as an act of Congress making the same declarations." On the final vote on the resolutions of censure, the action of the President was sus'tained. The extradition provisions of the treaty of August 9, 1842, with Great Britain, and of the treaty and additional article with France signed November 9, 1843, and February 24, 1845, respectively, were, prior to Congressional action, recognized as laws by different justices in the lower courts. In dismissing for want of jurisdiction a case that came before the Supreme Court under the treaty with France, Mr. Justice McLean declared the treaty provision to have the force of a law of the land.3 The act of August 12, 1848, which is em

'Annals, 6th Cong., pp. 587, 614.

2

* Ibid., p. 619.

In re Metzger, 5 How., 188; Moore, Extradition, vol. i, p. 100. Butler, Treaty-Making Power of the United States, vol. ii, pp. 81, 256.

bodied in the Revised Statutes, sections 5270-5280, provides for carrying into effect not only past treaties, but those made in the future. Section 5280, embodying the acts of March 2, 1829, and February 24, 1855, relates to the restoration of deserting seamen. Prior to the act of 1829 clauses for this purpose were inserted in numerous conventions,' but with the exception of the two conventions with France it does not appear that any act of Congress was passed to carry these provisions into effect.

Attorney-General Miller advised, April 5, 1889, that Article II of the international convention for the protection of industrial property signed at Paris, March 20, 1883, and proclaimed by the President, June 11, 1887, which provided that the citizens of each contracting state should enjoy in all the other states the advantages in protection of patents, trade-marks and commercial names, accorded or that should thereafter be accorded to their citizens or subjects, was, in so far as it was at variance with the existing laws of the United States, without force and effect; that it was not self-executing, but required legislation to render it effective for the modification of the laws.3 An act was approved March 3, 1903, to carry into effect the additional industrial

'These include the conventions concluded: November 14, 1788, with France; February 22, 1819, with Spain; June 24, 1822, with France; October 3, 1824, with Colombia; December 5, 1825, with Central America; July 4, 1827, with Sweden and Norway; May 1, 1828, with Prussia; June 4, 1828, with the Hanseatic Republics, and December 12, 1828, with Brazil. See Tucker vs. Alexandroff, 183 U. S., 424, 461.

'See acts of April 14, 1792, 1 Stat. at L., 254, and May 4, 1826, 4 Stat. at L., 160.

19 Op., 273. See for résumé of laws passed by Congress, as well as bills prepared, to carry into effect the various treaty stipulations for the reciprocal protection of trade-marks and commercial names, Senate Doc., 20, p. 92 et seq., 56th Cong., 2d sess.

property convention signed at Brussels, December 14, 1900. In the Trade-mark Cases, the Supreme Court, while declaring the acts of Congress of 1870 and 1876 to encroach on the powers of the States, said, “we wish to be understood as leaving untouched the whole question of the treaty-making power over trade-marks, and of the duty of Congress to pass any laws necessary to carry treaties into effect."2

Although conflicting opinions were expressed by the different justices in the Insular cases as to the extent to which a treaty may incorporate foreign territory, this much appears to have been decided-that the territory becomes by force of the treaty, without the aid of legislation, so far appurtenant to the Unted States as to be excluded from the term "foreign" as used in the revenue laws.

Not infrequently a treaty, though forming a part of the supreme law, may, in order to be fully effective, require legislation to supplement it and regulate the details of its enforcement.

132 Stat. at L., 1225.

100 U. S., 99.

PART II

FOREIGN STATES

GREAT BRITAIN

THE power to conclude treaties is in Great Britain a prerogative of the Crown, exercised on the advice of a responsible minister. Before the full development of the present parliamentary system of government, the liability to impeachment of those associated with the King in the negotiations served as the principal check. At present, while the means of redress are no greater, the fact that the minister, through whom the treaty must be concluded, possesses the confidence of the Commons, renders the exercise of the power more secure.'

'The House of Commons brought charges of impeachment against the Earls of Portland and Oxford, and Lords Somers and Halifax for their part in the Second Treaty of Partition (1700). Gerard, Peace or Utrecht, p. 67. The eleventh article of the impeachment of Lord Clarendon charged him with having effected the sale of Dunkirk to the French King. Hallam, Constitutional History of England (2d ed.), vol. ii, p. 498. So also a principal charge in the impeachment of Lord Danby was his connection with the secret treaty of May 27, 1678, between Charles II and Louis of France, by which the former agreed, for a pecuniary compensation, to remain neutral in the contest with the Dutch. Ibid., p. 553.

"The prerogative of the Crown in this respect [foreign relations] is exercised, subject always to the collective advice of the Cabinet, through one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, to whom is entrusted the business of communicating with representatives of foreign states in this country, and with our own representatives in other commu

151]

151