The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1919-09-22
SHOES N TREATIES

II an option on a pair Of shoes were not involved in the
determination of Senator Johnsons soundness as a LAWYER, based
upon the Commercial Appeals contention that the supreme court
has the right to declare null and void a paragraph of a treaty
between this country and another country, which we contend is
equivalent to saying that the supreme court has the right to
invahdate an entire treaty, it would not be profitable to pursue
the discussion farther, SO firmly fixed are we in the senator's
wisdom and so firmly fixed is the Commercial Appeals opinion
OF its own wisdom that it looks like a'hung jury,
1t is not a question of whether a treaty the United States
makes can be higher than the constitution" any more than it is
a question OF whether shoes are as high as the moon. 1t is sim
ply a question of the jurisdiction of the supreme court over
a treaty, which is merely a contract, between this nation and
another nation.
The Commercial Appeal we'll says;
violate n on Is n article en- IN the treaty the execution OF which would
90 into court and the sapr TR% court e ~ @%saS indicate Hnaten that .an et Gae1fn r iS%,s
snd- thereby nn make that particular article null and void. OF course, the
Issue rsnsna was raj raised and proven that every paragraph in the treaty was in
constitutional rights. "' " '' ""'' :" an u''0"" " ms
Il Is a welLestablshod principle that treaties are superior to the
l Laws Of state. but treaties are not superior to the United states con-
ss : ,m, Any right bargained away by the treaty, or any privilege
z would make that part of the treaty null and void when
But what has been quoted has to do with the rights of ci-
zens OF the United States under our constitution, and witt
which a treaty cannot possibly have anything to do. Aside from
trade relations, our treaties merely define the status and privileges
OF citizens Of the United States in other countries, and the status
and privileges of citizens of other countries in the United States.
Numerous examples might be cited of violation of federal.
laws. such as have been passed on and upheld BY the supreme
court, and clearly were contrary to the constitution, where the
offender enjoyed immunity from punishment, and could not be
extradited tor the reason that there was no treaty, or because
the treaty between this country and the country offering asylum
to the offender had no agreement on the subject, even though he
hhlShl uC d NllLSn VI lHe OHtcu tSIdIeS, '
The courts and constitution of the United States extend no
farther in their jurisdiction than the states and their possessions.
No other nation owes allegiance to our courts and constitution.
The rights of American citizens in other countries are guaranteed
by the provisions in the treaties we have with those countries,
which led Blackstone, who, we are almost tempted to say, at
the risk OF further controversy, was a good lawyer, to make
this statement:
As it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in
one great society, they must necessarily divide into many, and form
each other and yet liable to mutual intercourse. Hence arises a third
nations" which depends entirely si %"t upon % the %utas, ' co%pac c,ho t1 e. Of
leagues and agreements between these several communities.
In a monarchy the power of making treaties is vested
usually in the sovereign. The constitution Of the United States
empowers the president "by and with the consent Of two-thirds
OF the senator's present to make treaties. A treaty is a formal
agreement or compact, and when duly concluded and ratified
between two nations the court OF one Of the nations has no power
to set it aside.
The supreme court, as Senator Kellogg is quoted as saving,
might declare a treaty void, but there is no obligation on the
part of the other nation. a party to the contract, to accept its
decision. If we remember correctly the German high authorities
in August, 1914, decided that the exigencies OF the occasion
required that the portion of a treaty guaranteeing the neutrality
Of Belgium should be set aside, because it was in conflict with
the constitutional right OF Germany, but Belgium did not think
so, and for five years the doctrine has been preached continu-
ousy that treaties must be observed inviolate.
II we are to concede that a court Of one nation is higher
than the treaty between two nations then we are making too
much fuss over a treaty with Germany which Squire Matthias
Erzberger may get rid OF any day he wants to have the sheriff
open court and proceed to strike out such sections as are in
conflict with the German constitution. The only recourse would
be for Chief Justice White to arm a squad of associate justices
and establish an army of judicial occupation in Germany to COM
pei observance.
We are certain that the Commercial Appeal would agree with
our opinion, expressed as an innocent bystander, that Senator
Johnson is a sound lawyer, except for the fact that an option on
a pair of shoes is involved.
We would not have offered the wager had we known that
the editorial was written by the editor who wears a number g.
1t is a part OF our religion not to become involved in contro-
versy with men who wear number & shoes, number & hats or
large watch chains. We had in mind the regular editor who
wears a number II on a D last (shoes, not hat). and are willing
to venture an additional wager of 1000 shares of Bonanza Dry
Well oil stock or a luncheon at the Little Germ that he is wrong
9hnut lnhnsnn and knows ~