The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1905-01-28
1oe CHURCH STREET.

with Great Britain, and generally
against arbitration treaties with any
| country, on the ground that such a
procedure is unconstitutional and in
| compatible with the existence of a free
republic" The opposition to treaty
with Great Britain emanating from
such a source is applicable. but the 1rea-
son alleged for the condemnation of ar
| bitration treaties in general is di dis
cult to comprehend.
The position OF these societies is fur
ther set forth in circular issued by
the Clan-na-Gael of Philadelphia,
copies of which We're sent to the Pres
ident, the Secretary of State and menu
bers of the Senate of the United States.
The circular asserts that if these treat
les are ratified and 81 into operation
the Southern States of the Union will
be exposed to the danger of being con
denned to pay the State bonds which
We're issued by the reconstruction adj
ministrations and which have been re-
pudiated by those States, 1t would
hardly seem worth the trouble to refute
a position so unfounded and unreason-
which issued the circular claims to
have received assurances from num-.
of Senators indorsing its views.
The letter of only one Senator is pub
lished, and he bases his opposition,
not upon the ground stated in the cir
cular but on the impolicy Of binding
the liberty of action of our government
on international questions. Senator
Foster. of Louisiana, has addressed a
letter on the subject to the Board Of
Trade of New Orleans, which had very
recently passed resolutions heartily in
dorsing the pending arbitration treaties
and urging the Senator's from Louisia-
ma to support them. The Senator writes
that he is in thorough accord with the
Board OF Trade as to the beneficent re-
suits that must accrue from the settle
nent of international disputes by arbi-
tration, but he says that in view of the
case of South Dakota VS.. North Caro-
lima, decided by the United States SUI
preme Court III February, 1901, the fea-
ture OF the responsibility under these
treaties OF the Southern States to for
eign holders Of the reoudiated bonds
will have to be very carefully consider
ed. H.
However unworthy or reprehensible
/ the motive which prompted the Irish
societies to put forth such reason for
the defeat of the treaties. when 1t APP
pears that it has caused Senators TO
hesitate as to their conduct respecting
them, the situation commands atten-
ton. The answer is a simple one. II
is a we'll recognized principle of both
international and municipal law that
a government cannot by treaty or 9TH
erwise, enter into binding stipulations
with any other power in violation or
it's constitution or organic law. For IN
stance. the treaty of 1858, between the
United States and France, contained a
, provision that consu!s "shail never be
compelled to appear as witnesses Pc
fore the courts" NJ. Dillon, the French
consul at San Francisco, was sum
| moned as witness in criminal case
pending in the United States District
Court, and he pleaded this stipulation
of the treaty, but the court held that 1t
| could have no force or effect, because
| It was in conflict with the sixth
| Amendment of the Constitution OF the
United States that" in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy
the right to be confronted WIN
| the witnesses against him; to nave
compulsory process for obtaining WIZ
nesses In his favor, etc. The frencn
government complained that the action
| OF the court was violation OF the
| traety. Mr.. Marcy, one OF the abiest
| of our Secretaries of State, successful
Nv maintained that the stipulation cited
! was of no force, because the Cons1-
tuition is to prevail over a treaty where
the provisions OF the one come in con-
fict with the other. 1t is not within
| the competence of either Congress OF
the treaty making power to modify OF
| restrict the operation of any provision
| of the Constitution Of the United
| States" The treaty Of 1858 is still In
operation, but the clause cited is not
observed in the United States. -,
1t is also a we'll recognized principle
| OF international law that foreigner
| who enters into contractual relations
| with a. government, whether national
or local, does so with imputed knowl-
edge of the existing laws. When the
| foreign holders of the repudiated bonds
| of the Southern States purchased
these instruments there existed a pro-
vision of the federaal Constitution by
| which they were excluded from enforc'
ing these obligations through the
courts. They possessed no other secu'
rity than the faith of the State. The
provision of the Constitution eleventh
Amendment) is as follows: THE judi
! ical power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any sui
in law or equity commenced or prose
cuted against one of the United States
| by citizens of another State, or by cltl
zens or subjects of any foreign State.
The government of the United States
has never attempted to coerce State
I of the Union or to restrain its action