The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-07-24
By William Howard Taft.

W IiOSstru ldlt-
 Copyright 1919, by Public Ledger
 Co.,, Philadelphia
 Some ob1ectors to the Lea Gue con- tend that the United States cannot by treaty agree to do anything which it is the function of Congress to do under the Constitution, and, there fore, that it cannot agree to declare and make war, to levy an embargo or to limit it's armament in the future on the happening of conditions, as provided in the covenant They would thus seriously curtail the na- tiona1 faculties of the United States. If the United States may not prom ise to do anything that Congress is given power to do under the ConSti- tuition, the scope of it's treaty-nlaking g faculty is in most narrow limits for the things that Congress may do cov- CT nearly the whole field of govern mental action. Take a common in stance. No money can be paid ex- cept by Congressional appropriation. If the reasoning of these objectors be correct, the President and the Senate may not by treaty agree to pay money, although they have done 1t in repeated instances since the fouuda- tion of the Government. The House of Representatives, called upon by Washington to appropriate money to meet the promises of the Jay treaty, raised the question whether that House must not be consulted before such an obligation became binding on it. Washington, just fresh from the Constitutional Convention, left no doubt in his reply that the promise to pay was within the treaty-making power, and that it was the duty of CnnCraSS fn ro1.--SiSa the money was appropriated.
 The power to promise and legally bind oneself is the faculty of a free man. The disability in this regard of a minor interferes with his busi- ness activities and his usefulness, and it is imposed on the theory that he cannot be safely trusted to deal with his own affairs or make contracts in respect to them It is a permanent status of this kind in which these objectors to the covenants of the League would put the United States. The power of nation to make legal promises as to it's future course is one which enables it to secure actual benefits and most valuable counter promises from other nations. If these objectors are right, the United States is a very disabled member of the family of nations.
 Nothing in the Constitution war rants such a view. Our fundamen- tai law gives our government the treaty-making power without ex- press limitation, and vests it's exer- else in the President and two-thirds of the Senate. The Supreme Court has said it has wide scope and has found no limitations upon 1t, except to suggest that it could not be exer- cised to change our form of Govern ment, nor could it provide for doing things which are forbidden to the Government by the Constitution, nor could 1t cede land belonging to a state without It's consent. In other respects the treaty fs said by the Court to authorize contracts with other nations covering subject matter which are usually included in treaties between nations.
 It is a mistake to say that a prom ise in a treaty by our Government to do something which 1t is the business of Congress under the Constitution to do conflicts with Congressional au- authority. Indeed. a treaty is, un- der our Constitution, a part of the