¹ See Art. II, section 2, paragraph 2.

² Art. I, section 10, paragraph 3.

³ 299 U. S. 304, 318, citing Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U. S. 583, 600-601.

⁴ See, for example, Extradition Treaty with Great Britain of Dec. 22,1931, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 849.

⁵ See, for example, Naturalization Treaty with Bulgaria of Nov. 23, 1923, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 684.

⁶ See, for example, Art. XXXV of the treaty with New Granada (Colombia) of Dec. 12, 1846, Malloy’s Treaties, I, 312.

⁷ See, for example, Art. I of treaty with Panama of Nov. 18, 1903, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1349.

⁸ See, for example, Art. XXXIX of treaty with Peru of July 26, 1851, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1400. See also, Aro. VI of treaty with Persia of Dec. 13, 1856, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1373, and in this connection, Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U. S. 30.

⁹ See, for example, Art. V of convention with Switzerland of Nov. 25, 1850, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1765.

¹⁰ See treaty with Germany of Aug. 25, 1921, U. S. Treaties, III, 2596.

¹¹ See Special Claims Convention with Mexico of Sept. 10, 1923, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 676.

¹² See Art. 5 of convention with France respecting Rights in Syria and the Lebanon, of April 4, 1924, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 695.

¹³ See convention with Great Britain for the Prevention of Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors, of Jan. 23,1924, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 685, whereby the United States undertook to permit what the existing statutory law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Mellon v. Cunard S. S. Co., 262 U. S. 100, purported to forbid.

¹⁴ See, for example, protocol of Aug. 12, 1898, signed by the Secretary of State and the French Ambassador, establishing the basis of conditions for peace between the United States and Spain, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1688.

¹⁵ Conversely, if it be contended by the defeated foe that the terms exacted of it by the United States exceed those which the President fixed or laid down as the price of peace, it may for reasons of policy or as a consequence of special advantages elsewhere incorporated in the instrument, waive the point and accept the provisions of the treaty proposed to it. The acceptance by Spain of the treaty of peace with the United States signed Dec. 10, 1898, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1690, is illustrative.

¹⁶ U. S. Executive Agreements Series, No. 46.

¹⁷ U. S. Treaties, III, 2677.

¹⁸ U. S. Treaties, III, 2673.

¹⁹ See U. S. Treaties, III, 2718; also Mr. Hanihara, Japanese Ambassador at Washington, to Mr. Hughes, Secretary of State, April 10, 1924. In view of the terms of the Immigration Act of May 26,1924, which served to place a ban upon the immigration of aliens who were ineligible for American citizenship, and was thus at variance with the 1907 understanding which contemplated the admission into American territory of a very small number of Japanese immigrants under Japanese Governmental supervision, the United States felt obliged on June 16, 1924, to terminate the arrangement and to release Japan from its undertakings under it.

²⁰ U. S. Executive Agreement Series, No. 63.

²¹ U. S. Treaties, III, 2601.

²² Moore, J. B., in Political Science Quarterly, XX, 385, 397 Google Scholar.

²³ See, for example, agreement with Spain of July 26, 1914, to preserve the status quo with respect to mines or mining rights in Mexico, U. S. Treaties, III, 2840.

²⁴ See Hunter Miller’s Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America, I (Short Print), 13-14, where it is said: “In most cases where the President, by Statute, is authorized or directed to determine the existence of a particular fact or facts and upon such determination to issue a proclamation declaring that certain provisions of law are or are not operative as to certain country or countries, the act is national and not international, and such proclamations are not included as documents in the present treaty edition.”

²⁵ The writer is indebted to Mr. F. X. Ward of the Department of State for material that enables him to make the statement in the text, and adverts with gratitude to a communication from Mr. Ward of January 27, 1937.

²⁶ See Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, in relation to section 3 of the Act of Oct. 1, 1890, to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes, 26 Stat. 1244.

²⁷ See Tariff Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 1774, and reciprocal commercial agreement with France of May 28, 1898, in pursuance thereof, Malloy’s Treaties, I, 542. Also, in this connection, Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U. S. 583.

²⁸ 48 Stat. 943.

²⁹ See, for example, Reciprocal Trade Agreement with the Belgo-Luxemburg Economic Union, Feb. 27, 1935, U. S. Executive Agreement Series, No. 75.

³⁰ See, in this connection, Culbertson, William S., “Legal Aspects of the Trade Agreements Act of 1934,” American Bar Association Journal, XXI (1935), 660 Google Scholar.

³¹ Declares Dr. Culbertson, after discussing the provisions of the Act: “In judging the constitutionality of the Act, I feel confident that the courts will give weight not only to these limitations but also to two general conditions. The first is the fact that we are dealing in the Trade Agreement Act with a field in which the President has large powers of his own by virtue of the Constitution. We see in fact in the government process of the making of an agreement with foreign governments a commingling, as it were, of legislative and executive powers. The second condition which will weigh is that the orderly processes of government must go on and they cannot go on without such an Act.” (Ibid., 663.)

³² See, for example, Act of April 24, 1917, 40 Stat. 35; Act of Sept. 24, 1917, 40 Stat. 288; Act of March 3, 1919, 40 Stat. 1309.

³³ See Act of Feb. 9, 1922, 42 Stat. 363, creating a “World War Foreign Debt Commission” authorized under certain conditions to refund or convert obligations of foreign governments held by the United States, and amendment thereof, Feb. 28, 1923, 42 Stat. 1325.

³⁴ 5 Stat. 797.

³⁵ See Proclamation of the President of Texas, April 15, 1845, British and Foreign State Papers, XXXIII, 267 Google Scholar.

³⁶ 9 Stat. 108.

³⁷ 30 Stat. 750.

³⁸ 48 Stat. 1182.

³⁹ U. S. Treaty Series, No. 874. See, in this connection, Garner, James W., “Acts and Joint Resolutions of Congress as Substitutes for Treaties,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 29 (1935), p. 482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ 252 U. S. 416; American Journal of International Law, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 459.

⁴¹ Id., 433.

⁴² See Hon. Hughes, Charles E., in course of a discussion before the American Society of International Law, April 26, 1929, Proceedings, 1929, 194-196 Google Scholar.

⁴³ See, for example, Art. V of convention with Switzerland of Nov. 25, 1850, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1765; also, in this connection, Todok v. Union State Bank, 281 U. S. 449, 453, where it was declared to be an untenable view of the treaty-making power that treaties of the United States “could not affect the operation of the laws of the several States of the Union with respect to the inheritance of land.”

⁴⁴ See, for example, Art. XXXIX of treaty with Peru of July 26, 1851, Malloy’s Treaties, II, 1400; also, in this connection, Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U. S. 317, at 329.

⁴⁵ Thus according to Art. II of the treaty between the United States and Germany of Dec. 8, 1923, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 725: “With respect to that form of protection granted by National, State or Provincial laws establishing civil liability for injuries or for death, and giving to relatives or heirs or dependents of an injured party a right of action or a pecuniary benefit, such relatives or heirs or dependents of the injured party, himself a national of either of the High Contracting Parties and within any of the territories of the other, shall regardless of their alienage or residence outside of the territory where the injury occurred, enjoy the same rights and privileges as are or may be granted to nationals, and under like conditions.”

⁴⁶ See opinion of Chief Justice Hughes in behalf of the Court in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, April 12,1937, No. 419, October Term, 1936, 300 U. S.—.