Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-06-14

II may be stated with conservatism
tnat no work bearing upon the inter-
national relations OF the United States.
or upon the rights Of the United states
ana us component states that may in
Nolve International relations, is OF
more Importance than Henry St George
fuckers recently published "Limita
tons on the Trcaty-Makinr Power I'm
der the Constitution Of the United
States tittlc. Brown x Company
The timelincss OF It's publication :
but fortuitous incident which will.
however. undoubtedly quicken and
deepen the attention and interest not
only of constitutional lawyers, OF the
bench and bar at large and OF stu
dents of public affairs, but also OF that
part OF the general public that seeks
instruction as well as entertainment In
It's reading. For Mr.. Tucker has writ
ten constitutional treatise Of pro-
found value, both by reason OF it's
sound argument and because OF its au-
thoritativc basis: but ne has written.
as well. a book in which all thought
full laylncn will find a vast and profit
able field for reflection.
Nor need such laymcn pore over Mr.
fuckers work with the frOwning con-
ccntration with which they are accus-
toned TO study the ordinary book that
deals with questions Of law. This
treatise considers, cXpounds and up-
holds theories of law-practical thco-
rics of Supremacy grave law-but the
author has so formed his treatise, and.
in carrying out his design, has en-
ploycd style so simple. so clear and
so free from the restraints of the for
NAL and pcdantic. that the work is cs-
scntially easy reading" AS work OF
reference. its comprehensive collation.
of authorities renders it invaluable: as
an argument, upheld by those au,hori-
ties and supported by clear reasoning.
1t is compelling: but ii is not at all 4
library book, In that sense OF the
phrase that would continc II TO 4 place
even an honorcd place--on the
library's shelves; it is not book TO be
consulted merely: it is book TO be
read.
TO the support OF the doctrine an
nOunced and sustained in his work,
Mr.. Tucker brings-ccrtainly to the
mind of the publicist and OF the public
the great weight OF his long and
honorcd career. He does not speak as
n propa gandist, but as the learned con-
stitutional lawyer. who has been dean
of the schools of Jurisprudence and
law in George Washington University;
professor of constitutional and intcrna-
tional law in Washington and Lee Uni
vcrsity: Representative from Virginia in
Congress: editor of Tucker on the Con
stitution." and president of the !Ameri-
can Bar Association.
At the outset, the author announces
that he intends to discuss the treaty
making power under the Constitution
of the United States and to define its
limitations, saying that the broader
question of the scope of treaties. their
construction and binding effect, is n
question of international law into
which he does not propose to intrude;
and he states, in paragraph that
defines the limitations he has set for
himself:
"My opinion is to present in n sim
pie and concrete form, in the discus
sion in these pages. not the general
power OF making treaties rs applied
to nations, nor what ought to be the
full scope Of such power in the United
States, but what, under the Constitu-
ton of the United states. is the power
Of the United States to make and
ratify binding treaties"
In the course Of his discussion and
as the result of his investigation and
study, the author directly controvcrts
the position taken by Charles Henry
Butler, in his Treaty Making Power
Under the Constitution of the Unite.
States" who maintains that the treaty
making power, results from tho
general right Of the United State!
as sovereign. and that this
covers, every subject that could con.
stitute an item in n treaty con-
tract with any nation. And he stands
upon the Constitution as an upholder
of the contrary doctrine, invoking the
tenth amendment to the Constitution;
1.-THE powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are re-
served to the States respectively, or
to the people"
This then, is the doctrine pro-
poundcd-and sustained--by the dis
tinguished author: The treaty making
power conferred by the Constitution
upon the Federal government is lin
tied by the reserved rights of tn,
Stntos. To those accustomed to re-
gard the Federal government as th'
repository of complete authority tc
deal with any and all matters tina
concern. or might concern. other ma
tions-to the average man, doubtless
Mr. fuckers proposition will appear
new and strange doctrine Yet
study, or even n reading, of his con
elusive argument will OF necessity re
yea! tho announcement OF his findings
as a new statement of an old truth ant
as the sonndest doctrine.
In rcbutting the contention of Mr.
Butler that the treaty power under the
Constitution of tho United States en-.
braces every subject which can be the