The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-11-01
BY HENRY

I
! recently been drawn into war on ac-
count OF their alliances it Is. propi.
tious time to consider to what extent
the citizens OF America may be bound
| by treaties made under the authority
of the United States.
Professor John II. Latanc. or Johns
| Hopkins University declared not long
| since that our treaties do not have TO
| be made I'm pursuance of the Con-
stitution." He cited the following part
| of aection =, article 9, OF the Consti-
! tuition. which says:
| This Constitution and the. laws OF
the United states, which shall be made
I'm pursuance thereof. and all treaties
made. or which shall be made under
| the authority or the United States. shall
| be the supreme law OF the land"
From this DR. Latane argued that our
Federal laws must not be in violation
| of the United States Constitution, but
that treaties need only to be made
under the authority OF the United
States In other words his contcn-
tion was that II the President and two
| thirds OF the Senator'S agree upon a
| treaty, 1t shall be a part OF the supreme
! law OF the. land, Notwithstanding the
| fact that 1t may contravene some of
| tho fundamental rights insured by the
Constitution to our citizens.
| This Is new and interesting qucs-
| ton. But has the correct interpreta-
| ton been given TO this clause relating
| 10 Lct US SecS
| DIR. Latane called attention to the
fact that treaties had been known to
nullify State laws In more than one
| case. He might have mentioned, for
I example. the case of n Russian. who
died few years ago in Cambridge.
| Mass. and, according TO the law OF
! that Commonwealth. the local officer
| undertook to settle the estate. The
Russian consul for that district showed,
however. that by n treaty between Rus
.stn Il I"1tt aI fofn lA
right to administer the estate of his
| deceased countryman there. and his
; claim was upheld.
! Hut this does not strengthen his con-
tention that treaties may be unconsti-
! tutional, and still be n part Of the SUI
| preme law of the land. he failed TO
call attention to the latter part of The
/ section of the Constitution. referred to
above. which says In regard to Federal
laws, the Constitution and treaties.
| that tho judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, anything in the Con-
J stituuon or law OF any State to the
contrary Notwithstanding"
| Treaties. according to--this clause.
| may nulilfy State laws and even State
constitutions, and still be in pursuance
| of the Constitution. But when can such
| treaties be made? Evidently only wher
State laws or state Constitutions as
| sumo powers not guaranteed to the
| States by the Constitution OF the United
[ States.
! The above quotation says that the
| judges In every State shall be bound"
| by Federal lnws. But we well know
| that our Judges are not bound by all
| laws passed by Congress and signed BY.
| the President for some of them arc
unconstitutional. The fathers of ST
| sa ~ that n single State might force
our whole country into war. and there
| fore inserted this clause for the gen
erat guidance of the Judges" They
perceived further. however, that the
| President and Senate. by means of
/ treaties, might violate rights that be-
| long to tho states alone, and conse-
| quently they wrote large" that the
powers not delegated to the United
States by Tho: Constitution. nor pro-
hibitcd by it to the States arc re-
| served to the States respectively, or to
the people. The Constitution must be
| interpreted as n whole and not by Iyo-
| lated sections.
Why then should we infer tina.
(, treaties, like great war lord may
ignore the Constitutions? Treaties
made under the authority OF the
| United States" means made under the
| powers given by the Constitution to
| the President and Senator's; and these
4! citizens when they-take Office are sworn
| to preserve. protect and defend tho
| Constitution Of the United States. They
| would certainly violate their OATH If
| they made treaty which was not
in pursuance OF the Constitution.
| The fact that the Supreme Court of
| tho United States Inns never, declared
10 treaty unconstitutional does not
mean that 1t may not do so If the ne
| cessity aionld arise. This court once
said that whenever an act of Congress
| would be unconstitutional as invading
! the reserved rights OF the States, n
| treaty to the Same effect would be un-
constitutional Prevost v. Grencaux,
| r. Howard, -.
| Despite tho fact that some of our
treaties have been very unpopular. it
| iE to the honor of our Presidents and
| Senator'S that we have yet to see a
treaty, II we except the treaties made
With so-called Indian nations, that has
| contraVened the fundamental rights of
| American citizens.
| One exception was the treaty made
| by the United States with the Cherokee
Nation. residing within the geographi-
cal limits Of tho State of Georgia. Tho
noted case of Worcester against the