The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-07-24
No Limit Placed Upon
 Treaty=Making Power Is
 Contention Of Advocates
United Only Certain Things, But Also to
 Honorably Fulfill Them, They Say.

law of the land, so that if provisions of the treaty are in form legislative and of present operation, they have the same effect as a statute of Con- gress. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that provisions in re- spect to inmi grafton in a treaty, if in the form of law having present oper- ation, will repeal inconsistent acts of Congress previously enacted In turn, act of Congress can repeal such provisions of a treaty so far as they have legal effect in this country. A treaty thus may be legislative in ef- feet or it may be only promisory as it's language shall indicate. This is an exceptional feature in the domes- tic effect of treaties of the United States. No other country has it. Is it likely that a power which may re- peal an act of Congress would not in clude authority to promise what it would be Congresss constitutional function to perform?
 The treaty-naking power and Congress are agencies of the same government. Indeed, in their func- tional capacity they are the Govern ment. The Government promises, through the one and performs through the other. It promises to pay money by treaty. It performs it by Con- gressional appropriation. There is no other way It agrees to make war in the future on the happening of a condition. It performs the promise by a Congressional declara- ton of war and preparation for the struggle. If Congress refuses to per- form the promise, either to pay the money or make the war, as it has the arbitrary power to do, then it and the Government in whose name it acts m erely violate that Governments s lawful promise. It is exactly the same situation as it would have been if Congress had been given the power to make treaties. Congress might have promised and then a subsequent Congress might have refused to per- form the promise. In either case it would be merely the Government making a lawful promise and violating 1t. There is thus no conflict between the power of one agency to promise for the Government and the function of another agency of the same Gov ernmant to do the thing which is the performance of the promise.
 One of the very common treaty op- legations between nations is that to declare and make war and, on the other hand, that to refrain from making war. It is, therefore, clear ly within the scope of the treaty making power of the United States. as described by the Supreme Court, to agree to make war in the future or to refrain from it. We have already done it in a number of notable i'm stances We have guaranteed the integrity of Panama, which may in- volve us in war, and we have en- tered into a somewhat similar obli- gation with Cuba. We have entered into twenty treaties or more to re- frain from making war for a certain time. There is nothing in the Gov enant, even if Article x is held to impose. a direct obligation to make war, which takes away from Con gress or obstructs it in any way in exercising the function of declaring or making war or refraining there from except a moral and legal obli- gatton to fulfill promise of the Gov ernment lawfully made. There Is no attempted delegation to any other body to declare or make war for the United States. If war is to be de- c1ared or carried on, Congress must do it. Congress, though legally and