Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-08-18
that, and become boosters for the
slogan. See America First.
AND THE
CONSTITUTION

A AND THE
CONSTITUTION
IT is stated by IN American q,
l present in Paris that the treaty
of 1903, by the terms of which WI
acquired that portion Of the Unitet
States known ~ the Louisiana
Purchase" contains a clause givine
France a perpetual right to expor,
wines to the coded territory. A
considerable part of the state oil
Montana is included in the Louis.
lana Purchase. No representation
on the part of the French govern
ment to the effect that the Eigh'
teenth amendment infringes the
terms of that treaty has been made,
and until this has been done the
matter is only worth discussion
from a theoretic and speculative
point Of view. But. even if such a
protest were made, the thirsty
spirit who hopes to drink French
champagne within the limits of the
old Louisiana purchase, now COM
posing quite a number of states, has
slight encouragement. 1t is not
likely that the French will make
any such claim of the superior
force of the treaty over the consti-
tuition or that, if they did, it would
be allowed at Washington. We be-
lieve that in some cases in the past
the supreme court of the United
States has held that a treaty obi
CATION has superior force over a
statute enacted by congress. We
do not know that a case has ever
arisen before in which it was al
legged that a constitutional amend
ment contradicted or infringed on
the obligations of a treaty. We
understand that the Washington
government has refused to discuss
the matter until the question is
raised officially, and we 4 read
lily see that it would put our gov
eminent in a painful position to do
SO, because just 10Y we are taking
a position with respect to the Mex
lean constitution that is exactly
the reverse of the position we
would undoubtedly take with
France if it urged the superior
force of a treaty contract over our
constitution as amended.
American citizens were guaran-
teed certain mining rights and GER
tain commercial privileges under a
treaty made with the Diaz govern
ment years ago. The amended
Mexican constitution forbids such
rights. Our contention with Mexico
is that. these treaty rights having
been granted American citizens, no
change in the constitution can
annul them. Conceding for the sake
Of argument that it is true that the
treaty under which we acquired
French soil provided that France
should have a perpetual right to ex-
port her wines to the coded terri
tory. it would surely put Uncle
Sam in a most delicate position to
argue at one and the same time that
no treaty rights in Mexico could be
changed by a change in the consti-
tuition and on the other hand to
argue that treaty rights of France
could be made null and void by a
change in our constitution. The
reason we have not recognized the
present government in Mexico up
to date is that we are trying to get
them to admit that our old treaty
rights are superior in force to their
new constitution where the two
conflict. BY this concession, Amer
lean citizens would preserve valu-
able property rights and trade priv
ileges granted before the revolu-
ton, but which are in conflict with
the provisions of the new Mexican
constitution.
Another consideration arises for
lawyers to split hairs over on this
question of the right of the French
to export wines to the ceded terri
tory in perpetuity. If that clause is
in the treaty of 1908, then it is one
of the considerations of the sale. If
one party refuses to perform the
conditions of a contract OF sale. the
sale is null and void in law. Are
we bound in honesty and equity to
carry out the terms of 4 sale con-
tract, even if the party injured by
such breach of contract has no rem
edy at law? AS a general principle,
any court of equity would answer
that question in the affirmative and
~~-->1 !, - 1s.,> $40 - As,p rNn.