The sun., 1919-04-18
rs THERE NEEDED A coNSTI-
TUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr.. A. r. Watson Says emo" Be.
cause Any Treaty May Constitu-
tionally Be Broken In Spite Of Itself.

Mr.. A. r. Watson Says "No," Be.
cause Any Treaty May Constitu-
tonally Be Broken In Spite Of Itself.
To THE EDITOR or THE SuN-str.: There
10 easy answer to tho titular editorial
query In your issue Of this morning rs
q Constitutional Amendment Necessary
Before We Enter the Proposed Lacquer
Tho answer 10 NO.
In brief explanation let Il be said |:
Under the Constitution Of the United
States (Article l.. Section % Congress
may declare war. raise and support ar
niles. provide and maintain Q navy. &c.
by another provision Of tho same instru-
ment (Article H.. Section ~ the Presi-
dent. by and with the advice and con-
sent Of the Senate" may make treatiea
Further by the same instrument (Arti-
ole VIZ. the Constitution, the laws Of
the United States made In pursuance
thereof and all treaties ara declared TO
be the supreme law Of tho land. But
there 10 no provision Of the Constitution
that no action by Congress shall violate
a treaty previously made, and II IL GER
tain that Congressional action has vio-
lated the express terms Of the treaty
obligations Of this nation more than
once. II not many times. In your edit
torlal article you speculate upon the
effect OF the textual restriction supposed
to be contained In tho league covenant
against resort to war until three months
after the award by arbitrators or REQ
ommendation by the executive council.
Clearly such provision could not oper-
Ate to impair the constitutional power
OF Congress to declare war whenever It
saw at, even though short Of the lapse
OF the stipulated period
Suppose. in other words. that the
United States By treaty should engage
that It would not make war upon an
other nation for ten years. Undoubtedly
the Congress- might within q twelve
month constitutionally declare war. We
may recall similarly that President
Monroe In 1913 peoclaimed treaty with
Great Britain limiting the naval forces
to b maintained by the respective Gov
ernments upon the great lakes But
who can doubt that had war with Great
Britain grown out Of the Trent affair
In 1861 our four small Gunbosts, one on
Ontario, two on the upper lakes" and
with one eighteen FOUNDER" would
have been as speedily REINFORCED a.
available vessels permitted in the law
ful and proper exercise OF the war pow
ers granted by the Constitution No
one In his senses would have claimed
this to be unconstitutional"
The CONFLICT between n treaty obliga-
ton and subsequent Congressional action
has been considered by our Supreme
Court and disposed OF quite simply and
summarily. And It should be noted,
perhaps, that the discussion takes no
account Of any moral Issue involved.
g. 1914. Mr.. Justice Field said;
A treaty u primarily . contract be-
tween two or more independent nations.
and 10 so regarded by writer's on public
law. For the infraction of Its provi-
sions . remedy must be sought BY the
injured party through reclamations upon
the other. When the stipulations are
not self-sxscuting they can only be
enforced pursuant to legislation to
carry them into effect. and such lsgisla-
and repeal by Congress a. legislation
upon any other subject. II the treaty
contains stipuiations which are sslf-exs-
cutting. that ID. require no legislation to
make them operative, to that extent
they have the force and effect Of .
legislative enactment Congress may
modify such provisions. % far A. they
bind the United States. or superseds
them altogether. BY the Constitution
. treaty II placed on the same footing,
and made OF like obligation. with an
act OF legislation. Both are declared
by that instrument to be the supreme
law OF the land. and no superior EN-
cscy 10 given to either over the other.
when the two relate to the same sub
ject the courts will always sndeavor
to construs them 20 a. to give effect 10
both, II that can be done without vfo-
lating the language Of either; but II
tho two are Inconsistent. the one last
in date will control the other. pro-
vided always the stipulation of tho
treaty on the subject 10 seif-executinE.
II the country with which the treaty
Is made Is dissatisfied with the action
OF the legislative department Il may
present its complaint to the executive
head OF the government. and take such
other measures as II may deem essen-
The fact Is. Of course. that a treaty
binds only what may be termed the
honor Of nation. and many writer's on
law" says Professor Minor
in his recent Republic OF Nations" ''lay
down the doctrine that a nation is Jus
t'hed In violating. and Is bound to vio-
late, a treaty II its execution becomes
morally impossible by reason of the
destructive damage such execution would
infiiot on itself or on another nation"
There can be. therefore. no such thing
as an unconstitutional treaty In any
sense in which a law may be said to be
Any convention en-
tered into by the United States through
tho prescribed instrumentalities would
be a constitutional treaty. But II would
not abrogate or affect the exercise OF
other constitutional powers through
other instrumentalitieB. even though
such exercise would operate to contra
vene the terms OF the treaty. 1t would
be unfortunate were It otherwise for
reasons which need not be amplifed.
1t may be stated finally that no one
nation In the past has had a monopoly
OF treaty breaking or OF the violation
OF neutral territory or Of unnecessary
cruelty in time Of war. The conscious
Tess and realization Of these facts by
the delegates now at Paris might tend
to hasten concurrence In the terms and
conditions OF a just and lasting peace.
ARCHIBALD r WATSON.
NEW York, April 10.