The Jewish herald. (Houston, Tex.) 1908-1914, 1911-03-09


operation thereof, this treaty shall re-
main obligatory one year beyond that
day, and so on until the expiration of
the year, which shall commence after
the date of similar notification
In other words, the treaty is termin-
able on one years notice. So long as
this compact is treated by Russia as
devoid of mutually; so long as it de-
MES to it the element of reciprocity,
which is written all over it, we might
as we'll be without a treaty as to be
subjected to the constant humiliation,
irritation and evaporation attendant
upon its continuous violation. This
treaty has become both a farce and
a tragedy. Let the note be sounded
La cemedia finita
There is another treaty between the
United States and Russia-the Extradi-
ton Convention of March %, 1887, and
proclaimed June 5, 1898. Under this
Russia has sought from time to time
to eXtradite political offenders Pou-
rem and Rudowitz among others. All
of the benefits of this treaty rest with
Russia. 1t may we'll be doubted whe-
Their there has been any time when
our country has had occasion to avail
itself of it's terms. This treaty also
makes provision for it's termination.
ut shall remain in force six months
after notice of it's termination shall
have been given by either of the con-
tracing parties"
Independently of these express pro-
visions admitting of the cessation of
treaty relations between the two coun-
tries, it is a recognized doctrine of in
terantional law that. under conditions
precisely like those which have been
described the abrogation of a treaty,
even though it contains no provision
for its termination. is justifiable.
In Hall on International Law, 4th
Edition, PIP. 367-369, the author says:
at is obviously an implied condi-
ton of the obligatory force of every
international contract, that it shall be
observed by both of the parties to it.
In organized communities it is settled
by municipal law whether a contract
which has been broken shall be en-
forced of annulled; but internationally
as no superior coercive power exists,
and as enforcement is not always con-
party, the individual State must be
allowed in all cases to enforce or annul
for itself as it may choose. The gen
eral rule then is clear, that treaty
which has been broken by one of the
parties to it is not binding upon the
other, through the fact itself of the
branch, and without reference to any
kind of tribunal. $50. Some authorities
hold that the stipulations of a treaty
are inseparable, and consequently that
they stand and fall together; others
distinguish between principal and sec
ondary articles, regarding attractions
of the principal articles only as de-
structive of the binding force of trea-
ty. Both vieWas are open to objection.
1T may be urged against the for
msr that there are many treaties of
which slight infractions may take place
without any essential part being tiuch-
ed; that some of their stipulations
which were originally important may
cease to be so owing to the alteration
in circumstances, and that to allow
States to repudiate the entirety of a
contract upon the ground of such in
Engagements is to give advantage to
those who may be inclined to play
fast and loose with their serious en-
gagements, On the other hand it is
true that every promise made by one
party in treaty may go to make up
the consideration in return for which
essential parts of an agreement are
conceded or undertaken, and that it is
not for one contracting party to deter
mine what is or is not essential in the
ewes of the other. -. All that can be
done is to try to find test which shall
enable candid man to Judge whether