The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-03-27

thus, the provision Of Article XVI. with
respect to the severance Of trade or finan-
cial relations with a State breaking Its
agreement under Article XII. to submit
disputes to arbitration or to inquiry. Is
a provision which would require legis-
lative action to carry out If Congress
passed legislation for the described pur-
pose and II was legislation of a charac-
ter which Congress was otherwise COM
petent to enact, no question would arise
as TO the constitutionality OF the treaty I;
and II Congress refused to pass the legis-
lation, the question OF breach of the pro-
vision of the covenant would be an in
ternational one and addressed to the
political department Of the Government.
So. also, IL by reason of the guaranty
In Article X Congress should decide to
declare war. no question would arise as
to the validity of the guaranty. and II
Congress refused to declare war there
would be no question for the courts. 1t
is manifest, therefore, that in the event
OF the ratification Of the covenant, the
question whether an obligation had been
created by the proper exercise Of the
treaty making power would be one which
Congress would determine in deciding
whether It should enact legislation un-
der Article XVI or declare war in pursu-
ancs to Article X
THE extent to which Congress would
regard itself as bound. as a matter Of
good faith. to enact legislation for the
purpose o. carrying out treaties has
been the. subject of debate, from time
to time, Stree the days of Washington.
Despite these debates. and notwith-
standing its power to Illustrate the
carrying out OF treaties, Congress In
host of instances has passed the neces-
L. l.1A --t..-
the disposition has frequently been
manifested to avoid any basis for the
charge of bad faith through a disregard
of treaty stipulatons. The Supreme
Court las broadly defined the treaty
power as being unlimited except by
those restraints which are found in the
Constitution against the action OF the
Government or OF its departments. and
those arising from the nature OF the
Government itself and OF that Of the
States, 1t would not be contended that
II extends SO far as to authorize what
the Constitution forbids or a change in
the character OF the Government. or in
that OF one of the States, or a ccssion
Of any portion of the territory of the
latter without Its consent. But
with these exceptions. IT. Ia not per-
ceived that there is any limit to the
questions which can be adjusted touch
ing any matter which is properly the
subject OF negotiation with a foreign
country. ODE Geofroy V. Riggs 1913
L. s.. 25S,267)
with respect to appropriations of
money. and 10 the enactment OF legis-
lation for the carrying out Of such pro-
visions as are within the manifest scope
of the treaty making power, there
would seem to be no doubt OF the recog-
milton OF the moral obligation OF Com
gress. Il Kent's Com, 1855; Dana's
Wheaton. Sec. 543.) But it is apparent
, TO "A student of our history that Con
gross has not recognized an authority
| of treaty making power to place upon
Congress the moral duty to carry out
! any sort of stipulation, and there have
| beer. notable remonstrances In the
| House OF Representatives against COM
| mitments even with respect to legis.a-
| ton as to commercial regulations.
| Congressional presidents in cases
where Congress has been in accord with
the policy OF treaties are OF slight value
as a guide to the attitude OF Congress In
future controversy with respect to the
provisions OF this covenant. There is
| nothing in our history to give assurance
that Congress would recognize the
| authority Of the treaty power to bind
Congress to declare war in a cause that
It did not approve. The decision as to
the policy, as to existence of the duty
and as to the power to create
the duty, would rest with Congress
| Whether or not Congress would fee
| itself bound TO respond or would take the
position that. in SO vital a matter as a
| in advance without its consent, is a
4 uueStion which must he left m IN