not be destructive of the open stipulations, or provide for an alienation of territory. In the constitution of 1799, it was provided that the government, i. e., the three Consuls, should conduct the negotiations, make the preliminary stipulations, sign, have signed, and conclude all treaties of peace, alliance, neutrality, and commerce, and other treaties. Treaties of peace, alliance and commerce should be proposed, discussed, decreed, and promulgated as laws. The government could, however, demand secrecy. The natural inference from the specific enumeration in the two articles, the one immediately following the other, is that treaties other than those of peace, alliance and commerce, were to be consummated on executive authority. The constitution in the form of a sénatus-consulte of August 4, 1802, gave to the First Consul the power to ratify treaties of peace and alliance, after having taken the advice of the Privy Council. Before promulgation he was to inform the Senate. No reference was made to treaties other than those of peace and alliance, but the designation doubtless seemed sufficiently comprehensive at the time. From the organic law of May 18, 1804, accompanying the declaration of the Empire, until the constitution of 1848 the power to make treaties was vested solely in the Executive. The charters of 1814 and 1830 both provided, however, for a responsible ministry.

During this period the question mooted in the United States, of the function of the legislature in the execution of treaties that stipulate for changes in the revenue laws

'Arts. CCCXXX, CCCXXXI, CCCXXXIII. Ibid., p. 310. Arts. XLIX and L. Ibid., p. 313.

Art. LVIII. Ibid., p. 318.

♦ Ibid., p. 318.

'Art. XIV of the constitutional charter of 1814; Art. XIII constitutional charter of 1830. Ibid., pp. 326, 333.

or for appropriations, was the subject of discussion. The charters specifically provided that no impost should be levied or collected unless consented to by the two chambers and sanctioned by the king,' and that all propositions for imposts were to be first considered in the Chamber of Deputies. On February 8, 1826, an ordinance was issued for the full execution of a convention with Great Britain for the abolition of discriminating duties, signed January 26, 1826.3 In April following, while the general tariff law was undergoing revision in the Chamber of Deputies, an amendment was introduced giving to the ordinance of February 8 the sanction of a law. All seemed to be agreed that the treaty was advantageous to France; indeed, M. Casimir Périer, who proposed the amendment, expressly stated that he entirely approved its stipulations. The discussion was confined to the constitutional question, whether the king could by means of a treaty modify the revenue laws. The Deputies by a vote of 183 to 145 insisted upon a legislative execution.5

The convention with the United States of July 4, 1831, provided for the payment of 25,000,000 francs in six annual installments in settlement of claims against the French government. The first installment fell due February 2, 1833, but no provision had been made for its payment, nor had the government asked the chambers for an appropriation. In the April following a bill was introduced into the Chamber of Deputies authorizing the Minister of Finance to take measures for the execution of the treaty, but it was not pressed to a vote until a

'Arts. XLVIII and XL.

'Arts. XVII and XV.

Hertslet's Commercial Treaties, vol. iii, pp. 123, 134.

year later, and was then rejected by a vote of 176 to 168. In defense of the action of the Chamber of Deputies, the argument was diplomatically urged by the French government that the financial responsibility of the state could be pledged only by a vote of the legislature; but in the discussion before the Deputies, the administration, the Duc de Broglie being Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave fair support to the bill, and in the course of the debate the contention was made that the honor of the nation was committed. Moreover, the action of the chambers in ultimately providing for the fulfillment of the terms of the treaty may be considered a further recognition of its obligatory force. In estimating the attitude of the American government, the fact is not to be overlooked that the action of the Deputies appeared to be a repudiation of a debt not contracted by the treaty, but of long standing and of serious origin, and of which the treaty was but an acknowledgment.3 It was this circumstance, as well as the refusal to execute the treaty, that prompted President Jackson to recommend reprisals, and the House of Representatives unanimously to resolve that the execution of the convention should be insisted upon.*

Under the constitution of 1848 the President of the Republic negotiated and ratified treaties; but no treaty was definitive until approved by the National Assembly." While the project of a law was pending, to authorize the

1 Le Moniteur, p. 770, col. 1. Moore, International Arbitrations, vol. v, p. 4463.

"House Ex. Doc. 40, p. 80, 23rd Cong. 2nd sess. See Le Moniteur, p. 764, col. 2.

"Wharton's International Law Digest, vol. ii, p. 20.

Resolution adopted Mar. 2, 1835. Cong. Debates, vol. xi, pt. 2, pp. 1633, 4.

Art. LIII. Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. xxxvi, p. 1078.

ratification of a treaty with Sardinia, signed November 5, 1850, objections were raised to particular articles of the treaty, and a proposal was made to amend them. This was opposed by the president of the Assembly who maintained that the function of that body was to accept or reject the treaty as signed.' He was unable to see how the Assembly could modify a treaty with a party. who was not present and with whom it could not negotiate. A member observed that the amendment was made, not to the treaty but to the law approving it, for the purpose of indicating to the Executive the basis on which the treaty must be concluded in order to meet the approval of the Assembly. To this the president replied that the wishes of the Assembly could be indicated by the debates, and that action on the question of approval might be postponed until the Executive had negotiated for the desired changes. He raised the objection that the vote of the Assembly in advance would be in effect an ultimatum. The motion to authorize the ratification of the treaty with modifications was rejected by the Assembly,' and on March 20, 1851, resolutions were adopted to regulate its procedure in acting upon treaties. They provided among other things that the Assembly might not present amendments to the text; that its function was confined to the adoption or rejection of, or to the suspension of action on, the project of law authorizing the ratification; and that, in case of such suspension, it might call the attention of the Government to the objectionable clauses. This method of accepting or rejecting in toto is followed at the present day.

'Le Moniteur, p. 3769, col. 2. Le Moniteur, p. 3771, col. 1.

M. de Leyval.

'Le Moniteur, p. 820, col. 3.

Article VI of the constitution, proclaimed by Louis Napoleon January 14, 1852, gave to the President of the Republic power to conclude treaties. Article III of the sénatus-consulte of December 23, 1852, modifying the constitution, specifically provided that treaties of commerce made in virtue of Article VI of the constitution should have the force of laws in the modification of tariff rates. Although the treaty-making power was thus vested absolutely in the Executive, the treaty of Turin of March 24, 1860, by which Savoy and the arrondissement of Nice were to be united as an integral part of France, was confirmed by a sénatus-consulte-an act of the sovereign or amending power under the constitution -of June 12, 1860, subsequently to the exchange of the ratifications.3 The sénatus-consulte of September 8, 1869, amending the constitution of 1852, and the sénatusconsulte of December 23, 1852, provided that thenceforth treaties stipulating for a modification of tariffs or postal rates should be binding only by virtue of a law.*

With the defeat at Sedan a provisional Government of National Defense was formed September 4, 1870, by whose authority military conventions were concluded and preliminary negotiations of peace conducted. Bismarck, however, requested that the treaty of peace should have the sanction of a national assembly, and in the preliminary articles signed February 26, 1871, there was inserted an express provision for ratification by the National Assembly. From the meeting of the National Assembly in

'Brit. and For. State Papers, vol. xli, p. 1086.

Ibid., vol. xli, p. 1338.

De Clercq's Recueit des Traités de la France, vol. viii, pp. 32, 48. 'Art. X. Duvergier's Lois, Décrets, etc., vol. Ixix, p. 285.

Art. X. De Clercq's Recueil des Traités de la France, vol. x, p. 435.