The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-07-15
consre.. Can repeal Treaty.

Senator Swanson said that the Su-
preme Court Of the United states In the
Chinese exclusion cases held that Con-
gress could repeal any provision OF q
treaty.
'Then Congress may violate the
treaty" interrupted Senator Kellogg.
Congress can annul the treaty" said
Mr.. Swanson.
congress may violate the treaty by
denouncing it" said Mr. Kellogg, but
has not, the Supreme Court time and
time again held that the right OF foreign
citizens to come TO this country, TO own
real estate. TO engage In business TO IN
herit real estate, may be legally hxed by
treaty.
i, '.rhe Supreme Court has held in the
case, of the Chinese exclusion treaty.
said lSenator Swanson. that you coulo
not make a covenant binding upon Con-
Eress with reference to the question OF
inmisration.'
"Is not the position of the Supreme
Court this" asked MIR. Kellogg, that
treaty is a supreme law OF the land un-
I'll set aside by act OF Congress-
THAT Is true" said Mr.. Swanson.
.sThen a treaty would be valid which
provided that foreign citizens may come
20 this country until Congress shall set
aside the treaty or violate IL? said MT
Kellogg
If II should contain such provision
and Congress did not want them TO
come in Congress could annul the
treaty" said Mr.. Swanson.
Suppose the council in a dispute be-
tween the United States and Japan, for
illustration" said Mr. Kellogg, should
hold It was not a domestic question pure
and simple but 1t was an international
question in which Japan was Interested,
what would be the remedy OF the United
States?'
at would be absolutely a domestic
question and SO held by every nation,
said Senator Swanson.
',Suppose the council should hold to
the contrary?' persisted Mr.. Kellogg.
Doubts Perpetuation of Fraud.
THE council could not perpetrate an
absolute fraud" said Mr.. Swanson. THE
Senator knows well 1t Is an absolute
fraud in a court to make a fraudulent
decision, that clearly such a decision is
not binding IL the contention that the
Old World has held up to this time
that immigration, though immigration is
not named In the covenant, is a solely
domestic question, then l have no doubt
the council would so properly find"
II have no doubt that immigration, the
tariff laws, coastwise traffic. duties and
all those things are purely domestic ques-
tions with which no foreign country
should have any concern. or at lease
should not interfere" said Mr.. Kellogg.
MI Swanson said he thought those
questions were absolutely excluded from
consideration by the league.
WELL" said Senator Kellogg. IF that
10 the opinion of the Senator then there
10 no objection to the Senate so stating.
Is there?"
II will express my opinions on the
reservations when I see them" said Mr..
Swanson.
Taking up Article Y. Senator Kellogg
asked Senator Swanson II 1t was his
opinion that the recommendations of the
council as to the means OF carrying out
Article X. are to be merely advisory and
are not to be binding upon this country.
They are advisory and binding on
the conscience and fair dealing and hon.
esty OF this country" replied Mr.. Swan
son.
q but are they legally binding under
this treaty?' persisted Mr.. Kellogg.
Il do not think they are legally bind
Ing" said Mr.. Swanson. There is no
use of advising any one to act legally.
A Judge does not SO; the law does
not advise a Judge enters decree"
Legality of Changes In Contract.
Senator Pittman then asked Senator
kellogg: rs the Senator of the opin-
ion that the contract could be changed
by reservation as well as by amend
ment?"
Is "a contract cannot be changed by
Reservation or amendment without the
Sonsent of the other parties Of the con-
tract to it," said Mr.. Kellogg.
III the reservations In the resolution
were adopted by the Senate in conflict
with any of the terms OF the treaty 1t
would then not be a ratification of the
present treaty would it," said Senator
Pittman.
'T think the treaty would be ratified
subject to that condition, which would
be accepted by each of the other coun-
tries II they saw At TO do So" said Mr..
Kellogg.
But 1t would be a change of contract
IL 1t were inconsistent with it," asked
Mr.. Pittman.
THAT would depend on what the
reservation was" said Mr.. Kellogg.
II say IL the reservation were incon-
slsttit with any term of the treaty II
would be a change to that extent OF the
treaty, would 1t not?" asked Senator
Pittmsn.
III the reservation changes any Of the
substantial terms Of the treaty" replied
Mr.. Kellogg. ''it is change as to this
country, anu OF course Gao De objected
TO by any other country and must either
be directly or tacitly accepted by that
country"
I'm other words" said Senator Pitt
man, ''if there is any change in any of
the terms OF the treaty by reservation
Just as we'll as by amendment then II Is
such change of the contract that was
entered into by the negotiators that it
must go back to the other signatories
tor their consent"
Senator Kellogg said that any amend
ments would have to be accepted by the
other parties IL they changed contract
In the treaty.
would Reopen Negotiations.
''If the language Of the contract is
changed" said Mr., Pittman. at Ii not
Tor the party changing 1t to determine
its effect, but the other party to the
contract has the right always to deter
mine Its effect II we change the Ian
guRge Of this contract by amendment or
reservation We may not think that the
change Of language constitutes any
change Of substance. and yet no matter
what the change Is the other contracting
party must agree as we agree OF ii
does not change the substance of the
contract. Otherwise il Is not a con-
tract. In other words. there is not a
reservation that We can place in this
treaty that does not neeessitate a re-
negotiation and reconsideration of every
contracting Power"
Does the Senator from Nevada mean
In saw" intertActed Sanator ETa n IN ny