No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
American Participation in International Conferences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
The participation of the United States in the Opium Conference, and in the London and Paris conferences with reference to the operation of the Dawes plan, has brought forward the question of the right of the executive to participate in such conferences. Sharp criticism has been levelled at the executive on the ground that the President is without right to send representatives, either official or unofficial, to such gatherings without the prior authorization of Congress. This question has now been in the foreground of discussion intermittently for twelve years and is worthy of some analysis.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1926
References
1 Washington made clear his point of view in a message to the Senate, Feb. 18, 1791, with reference to sending a minister to Portugal (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I, 127-128); for a still earlier opinion of Jefferson on the matter see Ford, ed., Writings of Jefferson, V, 161.
2 James Madison, Writings, ed. by G. Hunt, IX, 91-93; Opin. Att'y. Gen. XXII, 186.
3 Opin. Att'y. Gen. VII, 186 ff., 247 fi.
4 Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, 20-26; Moore, Digest of International Law, IV,737-739.
5 See, for statement of the principal acts inthis connection, Q. Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations, 325. There has been important legislation subsequent to its publication, including provision for an embassy at Havana (Public, No. 385,67th Congress),and an Act for the Reorganization and Improvement of the Foreign Service of the United States (the Rogers Bill—Public, No. 135, 68th Congress).
6 Senate Executive Journal, 1,95-96,99,150,152,163,164,241-242, 244,245, 265,310,311,318-319,326-327,431, 436,471; II, 25, 35,156-158; III, 32,35, 45,46; Randolph to Bayard,MS. Inst. U. S. Mins., Dept, of State, II, 348-352; Pickering to Bayard, ibid., I l l , 208-211.
7 Senate Executive Journal, II, 346-354, 451-454, 470-471.
8 ‘ Ibid., I l l , 457-459, 473, 554, 567.
9 H. Ex. Doc. 289, Serial 1615, 43 Cong. 1 seas.
10 Ibid.,
11 Ibid., Statutes at Large, XVII, 368
12 Senate Executive Journal, XXVII, 52.
13 Stat. at Large, XXVII, 349.
14 Stat. at Large, XXXI, 637,1179; XXXIV, 118, Sen. Ex. Doc. 744,61 Cong. 3 sess., p. 3.
15 Richardson, Messages and Papers, VIII, 127.
16 Ibid., 176.
17 ibid., IX, 111.
18 Congressional Record, 62 Cong. 3 sess., XLIX, 4411.
19 March 4, 1913, ibid., 4835-4836, 4847.
20 Ibid., 4855.
21 Congressional Record, 63 Cong. 1 sees., L, 1611-1612; 67 Cong. 4 sess., LXIV, 929,990,1058.
22 This was not true of the Act of March 1, 1893, which provided for the grade of ambassador,for the law specifically said, “ This provision shall in no wise affect the duties,powers, or salary of such representative.” Stat. at Large, XXVII, 497. It is interesting and pertinent that this departure from a tradition as old as the government, like the one under discussion, was made without a word of comment, explanation, or criticism.
23 See, for example, Stat. at Large, XXXVIII, 237, 768, 773, etc.
24 M See, for example, Stat. at Large, XXXVII, 642.
25 “ Ibid., 636, 637, etc.
26 For “ authorization,” see ibid., XXXIV, 1422, and for the appropriation, XXXV, 680.
27 It is to be contrasted with laws giving directions or powers, or limiting the authority of federal bureaus. A joint resolution approved Aug. 17, 1912, provided “ That the several Federal bureaus doing hygienic and demographic work are hereby authorized to prepare and install exhibits at the exhibition to be held in connection with the Fifteenth International Congress on Hygiene and Demography… . Provided, That such exhibits … can be prepared and installed without requiring any special appropriation for this purpose.” Stat. at Large, XXXVII, 642. Such an authorization is proper when directed to a bureau,but to require the President to get such authorization to engage in a discussion, for such is the work of a conference, is an entirely different matter.
28 Congressional Record, 63 Cong. 1 sess., L, 1466.
29 Ibid., 1611-1612; Stat. at Large, XXXVIII, 236-237.
30 Stat. at Large, XXXVIII, 450, 1126; ibid., XXXIX, 259, 1055.
31 Stat. at Large, XXXIX, 1134.
32 Congressional Record, 67 Cong. 4 sess., LXIV, 1520; Sen. Ex. Doc. 287, 67 Cong. 4 aess.
33 See, for example, Stat. at Large, XLI1, 1548.
34 Ibid., 141.
35 Congressional Record, 67 Cong. 4 sess., LXIV, 929.
36 See, for examples, Stat. at Large, XXXVIII, 1222; XXXIX, 475, 618, 894, 1168; XLI,
37 1, 279, 367.
38 Congressional Record, 66 Cong. 2 sess., LIX, 270.
39 Ibid., 267.
40 Ibid., 66 Cong. 1 sess., LVIII, 7329.
41 Congressional Record, 66 Cong. 1 sess., LVIII, 7329.
42 Ibid., LIX, 271.
43 Ibid., LVIII, 7331, 7333, 7339, etc.
44 Ibid., 7332, 7335, etc.
45 lbid., 7331, 7335.
46 Congressional Record, 7346, 7348; and for Senate action, LIX, 267.
47 See, for example, Stat. at Large, XLII, 363.
48 Congressional Record, 66 Cong. 1 sess., LVIII, 3503.
49 Ibid., 3390, 3502. 49 Ibid., 3504, 3584, 3921.
50 House Joint Resolution, 195, 68th Cong. (Public Resolution 20, approved May 15,1924). It is significant to observe that one of the reasons publicly stated for the retirement of the American delegation from the Opium Conference was that an agreement could not be reached which would accord with the limitation set by Congress in this act. (See letter of the Hon. Stephen G. Porter, announcing the withdrawal of the American Delegation,printed in the Journal for April, 1925, p. 380.)
51 See, for example, Stat. at Large, XLII, 822.