Chapter XLVIII: Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers (1)

of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Impeachment

"CIVIL OFFICER"

A Member of Congress is not a civil officer within the meaning of this section; nor is a private citizen subject to impeachment;[478] but resignation of an officer does not give immunity from impeachment for acts committed while in office.[479]

"HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS"

Most of the States have drafted their constitutional provisions on this subject in similar language. As there is no enumeration of offenses comprised under the last two categories, no little difficulty has been experienced in defining offenses in such a way that they fall within the meaning of the constitutional provisions. But impeachable offenses were not defined in England, and it was not the intention that the Constitution should attempt an enumeration of crimes or offenses for which an impeachment would lie. Treason and bribery have always been offenses whose nature was clearly understood. Other high crimes and misdemeanors which might be made causes for the impeachment of civil officers were those which embraced any misbehavior while in office. Madison, whose objection led to the insertion of the more definite phrase high crimes and misdemeanors, was the strongest advocate of a broad construction of the impeachment power. He argued that incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate should be ground for impeachment.[480] Again, in discussing the President's power of removal, he maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration, and would render the President liable to impeachment.[481] Hamilton thought the proceeding could "never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of the courts in favor of personal security."[482]

THE CHASE IMPEACHMENT

The above relatively flexible conception of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was, however, early replaced by a much more rigid one in consequence of Jefferson's efforts to diminish the importance of the Supreme Court, the first step in which enterprise was the impeachment in 1805 of Justice Samuel Chase. The theory of Chase's enemies was given its extremest expression by Jefferson's henchman, Senator Giles of Virginia, as follows: "Impeachment is nothing more than an enquiry, by the two Houses of Congress, whether the office of any public man might not be better filled by another. * * * The power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House of Representatives; and the power of trying impeachments was given equally without limitation to the Senate; * * * A trial and removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any criminality or corruption in him. * * * [but] was nothing more than a declaration of Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. _We want your offices_, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better."[483] To this theory Chase's counsel opposed the proposition that "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant offenses indictable at common law; and Chase's acquittal went far to affix this reading to the phrase till after the War between the States.

THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT

But with the impeachment of President Johnson in 1867 for "high crimes and misdemeanors," the controversy was revived. Representative Bingham, leader of the House Managers of the impeachment, defined an impeachable offense as follows: "An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose."[484] Former Justice Benjamin R. Curtis stated the position of the defense in these words: "My first position is, that when the Constitution speaks of 'treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors,' it refers to, and includes only, high criminal offences against the United States, made so by some law of the United States existing when the acts complained of were done, and I say that this is plainly to be inferred from each and every provision of the Constitution on the subject of impeachment."[485]

LATER IMPEACHMENTS

With Johnson's acquittal, the narrow view of "high crimes and misdemeanors" appeared again to win out. Two successful impeachments of lower federal judges in recent years have, however, restored something like the broader conception of the term which Madison and Hamilton had endorsed. In 1913 Judge Archbald of the Commerce Court was removed from office by the impeachment process, and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, profit or trust under the Constitution, for soliciting for himself and friends valuable favors from railroad companies some of which were at the time litigants in his court, although it was conceded that in so doing he had not committed an indictable offense;[486] and in 1936 Judge Ritter of the Florida district court was similarly removed for conduct in relation to a receivership case which evoked serious doubts as to his integrity, although on the specific charges against him he was acquitted.[487] It is probable that in both these instances the final result was influenced by the consideration that judges of the United States hold office during "good behavior" and that the impeachment process is the only method indicated by the Constitution for determining whether a judge's behavior has been "good." In other words, as to judges of the United States at least lack of "good behavior" and "high crimes and misdemeanors" are overlapping if not precisely coincidental concepts.[488]

Notes

[1] As is pointed out by Hamilton in The Federalist No. 69.

[2] Charles C. Thach, The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789 (Baltimore, 1922), 36-37.

[3] Ibid. 109.

[4] Max Farrand, Records, II, 185.

[5] Ibid. II, 572 (September 10), 597.

[6] Annals of Congress 383 ff.

[7] Ibid. 396-397; 481-482. For a thorough-going review and evaluation of this debate, _see_ James Hart, The American Presidency in Action, 152-214 (New York, 1948).

[8] Works of Alexander Hamilton, VII, 76, 80-81 (J.C. Hamilton, ed., New York, 1851). Hamilton was here simply interpreting the executive power clause in light of the views of Blackstone, Locke, and Montesquieu as to the location of power in the conduct of foreign relations. _See_ Edward S. Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.), 459-460. For a parallel argument to Hamilton's respecting "the judicial power of the United States," article 1, section 1, clause 1, _see_ Justice Brewer's opinion in Kansas _v._ Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 82 (1907).

[9] Myers _v._ United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).

[10] Ibid. 118.

[11] 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

[12] Ibid. 315-316, 318. _See also_ Ibid. 319 citing U.S. Senate Reports, Committee on Foreign Relations, vol. 8, p. 24 (February 15, 1816).

[13] Ibid. 327, citing Panama Refining Co. _v._ Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 421-422 (1935).

[14] In Youngstown Co. _v._ Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) the doctrine is advanced that the President has no power in the field of Congress' legislative powers except such as are delegated him by Congress. This doctrine is considered below in the light of previous practice and adjudication. _See_ pp. 489-499.

[15] _See_ e.g., Abel Upshur, A Brief Inquiry Into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government (1840), 116-117.

[16] The Federalist No. 67, 503.

[17] James Hart, The American Presidency in Action (New York, 1918), 28-43.

[18] 2 Dall. 400 (1790).

[19] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, I, 56.

[20] Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.), 377-378, 434-435, 446, 465, 484. "The executive [branch of the government], possessing the rights of self-government from nature, cannot be controlled in the exercise of them but by a law, passed in the forms of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson, Official Opinion (1790) 5 Ford, ed. 209 (New York, 1892-1899). "In times of peace the people look most to their representatives; but in war, to the Executive solely." Letter to Caesar A. Rodney, (1810) Monticello, 9 Ford, ed. 272.

[21] Corwin 20-21, and citations.

[22] Ibid. 21-22, and citations.

[23] Ibid. 22-24.

[24] Ibid. 386. _See also_ ibid. 281.

[25] Ford, The Rise and Growth of American Politics (New York, 1914), 293.

[26] As to the meaning of "the fourth day of March", _see_ Charles Warren, Political Practice and the Constitution, 89 Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. (June, 1941) 1003-1025.

[27] On the anti-third term tradition, _see_ Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.), 43-49, 388-392.

[28] McPherson _v._ Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892).

[29] Ibid. 28-29.

[30] Max Farrand, II, 97.

[31] In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379-380 (1890).

[32] United States _v._ Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 393 (1868).

[33] Hawke _v._ Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920).

[34] Burroughs _v._ United States, 290 U.S. 534, 545 (1934).

[35] Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).

[36] Burroughs _v._ United States, 290 U.S. 534 (1934).

[37] Ibid. 546. During the recent war, Congress laid claim in the act of September 16, 1942, to the power "in time of war" to secure to every member of the armed forces the right to vote for Members of Congress and Presidential Electors notwithstanding any provisions of State law relating to the registration of qualified voters or any poll tax requirement under State law. The constitutional validity of this act was open to serious question and by the act of April 1, 1944 was abandoned. The latter act established a War Ballot Commission which was directed to prepare an adequate number of official war ballots, whereby the service men would be enabled in certain contingencies to vote for Members of Congress and Presidential Electors; but the validity of such ballots was left to be determined by State election officials under State laws. 50 (App.) U.S.C.A. Sec. 301-302, 331, 341.

[38] 343 U.S. 214 (1952).

[39] _See_ pp. 942-944.

[40] 1 Stat. 239.

[41] 3 U.S.C. Sec. 23.

[42] 3 U.S.C. Sec. 21.

[43] Public Law 199, 80th Cong., 1st sess. By section 202 (a) of Public Law 253 of the 80th Cong., 1st sess., approved July 26, 1947, that is, eight days after Public Law 199, the "Secretary of War" and the "Secretary of the Navy" were stricken from the line of succession and the "Secretary of Defense" whose office Public Law 253 created, was inserted instead.

[44] _Cf._ 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 161 (1869), holding that a specific tax by the United States upon the salary of an officer, to be deducted from the amount which otherwise would by law be payable as such salary, is a diminution of the compensation to be paid to him, which, in the case of the President of the United States, would be unconstitutional if the act of Congress levying the tax was passed during his official term.

[45] The Federalist No. 69, 513, 515.

[46] Story's Commentaries, II, Sec. 1492.

[47] Fleming _v._ Page, 9 How. 603, 615, 618 (1850).

[48] Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 139 (1866).

[49] 1 Stat. 424 (1795); 2 Stat. 443 (1807). _See also_ Martin _v._ Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 32-33 (1827), asserting the finality of the President's judgment of the existence of a state of facts requiring his exercise of the powers conferred by the act of 1795.

[50] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VII, 3221.

[51] 2 Bl. 635 (1863).

[52] Messages and Papers of the Presidents, VII, 3215, 3216, 3481.

[53] 2 Bl. at 668-670.

[54] 12 Stat. 326 (1861).

[55] James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems under Lincoln, 118-139 (New York, 1926).

[56] _See_ the Government's brief in United States _v._ Montgomery Ward and Co., 150 F. 2d 369 (1945).

[57] United States _v._ Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 327 (1936).

[58] _See_ White House Digest of Provisions of Law Which Would Become Operative upon Proclamation of a National Emergency by the President. The Digest is dated December 11, 1950. It was released to the press on December 16th.

[59] 56 Stat. 23.

[60] Cong. Rec. 77th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 88, pt. 5, p. 7044 (September 7, 1942).

[61] 50 U.S.C.A. War, App. 1651. For Emergency War Agencies that were functioning at any particular time, consult the _United States Government Manual_ of the approximate date. The executive order creating an agency is cited by number. For a Chronological List of Wartime Agencies (including government corporations) and some account of their creation down to the close of 1942, _see_ chapter on War Powers and Their Administration by Dean Arthur T. Vanderbilt in 1942 Annual Survey of American Law (New York University School of Law, 1945), pp. 106-231. At the close of the war there were 29 agencies grouped under OEM, of which OCD, WMC, and OC were the first to fold up. At the same date there were 101 separate government corporations, engaged variously in production, transportation, power-generation, banking and lending, housing, insurance, merchandising, and other lines of business and enjoying the independence of autonomous republics, being subject to neither Congressional nor presidential scrutiny, nor to audit by the General Accounting Office.

[62] 143 F. 2d. 145 (1944).

[63] _See_ Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.) 296, 492.

[64] Exec. Order 9066, 7 Fed. Reg. 1407.

[65] 56 Stat. 173.

[66] Hirabayashi _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 81, 91-92 (1943).

[67] Korematsu _v._ United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

[68] New York Times, June 10, 1941.

[69] 7 Fed. Reg. 237.

[70] 57 Stat. 163.

[71] "During the course of the year [1945] the President directed the seizure of many of the nation's industries in the course of labor disputes. The total number of facilities taken over is significant: two railroad systems, one public utility, nine industrial companies, the transportation systems of two cities, the motor carriers in one city, a towing company and a butadiene plant. In addition thereto the President on April 10 seized 218 bituminous coal mines belonging to 162 companies and on May 7, 33 more bituminous mines of 24 additional companies. The anthracite coal industry fared no better; on May 3 and May 7 all the mines of 365 companies and operators were taken away from the owners, and on October 6 the President ordered the seizure of 54 plants and pipe lines of 29 petroleum producing companies in addition to four taken over prior thereto.

"During the year disputes between railroad companies and the Brotherhoods resulted in the establishment of twelve Railroad Emergency Boards to investigate disputes and to report to the President. The President also established on October 9 a Railway Express Emergency Board to investigate the dispute between the Railway Express and a union.

"To implement the directives of the National War Labor Board, the Office of Economic Stabilization directed the cancellation of all priority applications, allocation applications and outstanding priorities and allocations in the cases of three clothing companies and one transportation system which refused to comply with orders of the National War Labor Board." Arthur T. Vanderbilt, War Powers and their Administration, 1945, Annual Survey of American Law (New York University School of Law), pp. 271-273.

[72] 8 Fed. Reg. 11463.

[73] 56 Stat. 23.

[74] 322 U.S. 398 (1944).

[75] Ibid. 405-406.

[76] _See_ Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.) 302-303.

[77] Charles Fairman, The Law of Martial Rule (Chicago, 1930), 20-22. Albert Venn Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (7th ed.), 283-287.

[78] Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Chap. VIII, 262-271.

[79] 7 How. 1 (1849). _See also_ Martin _v._ Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 32-33 (1827).

[80] 2 Bl. 635 (1863).

[81] 4 Wall. 2 (1866).

[82] Ibid. 127.

[83] Ibid. 139-140. In Ex parte Vallandigham the Court had held while war was still flagrant that it had no power to review by certiorari the proceedings of a military commission ordered by a general officer of the Army, commanding a military department. 1 Wall. 243 (1864).

[84] 31 Stat. 141, 153.

[85] Duncan _v._ Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946).

[86] Ibid. 324.

[87] Ibid. 336.

[88] Ibid. 343.

[89] Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

[90] 317 U.S. 1, 29-30, 35 (1942).

[91] Ibid. 1, 41-42.

[92] Ibid. 28-29.

[93] 1 Stat. 577 (1798).

[94] 327 U.S. 1 (1946).

[95] Ibid. 81.

[96] _See_ Leo Gross, The Criminality of Aggressive War, 41 American Political Science Review (April, 1947), 205-235.

[97] Fleming _v._ Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850).

[98] Madsen _v._ Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341, 348 (1952). _See also_ Johnson _v._ Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 703, 789 (1950).

[99] Totten _v._ United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1876).

[100] Hamilton _v._ Dillin, 21 Wall. 73 (1875); Haver _v._ Yaker, 9 Wall. 32 (1869).

[101] Mitchell _v._ Harmony, 13 How. 115 (1852); United States _v._ Russell, 13 Wall. 623 (1871); Totten _v._ United States, note 3 above; [Transcriber's Note: Reference is to Footnote 99, above.] 40 Op. Atty. Gen. 251-253 (1942).

[102] _Cf._ the Protocol of August 12, 1898, which largely foreshadowed the Peace of Paris; and President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which were incorporated in the Armistice of November 11, 1918.

[103] Fleming _v._ Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850).

[104] Santiago _v._ Nogueras, 214 U.S. 260 (1909). As to temporarily occupied territory, _see_ Dooley _v._ United States, 182 U.S. 222, 230-231 (1901).

[105] Swaim _v._ United States, 165 U.S. 553 (1897); and cases there reviewed. _See also_ Givens _v._ Zerbst, 255 U.S. 11 (1921).

[106] 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 297 and note; 30 ibid. 303; _cf._ 1 ibid. 233, 234, where the contrary view is stated by Attorney General Wirt.

[107] Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 28-29 (1942).

[108] General Orders, No. 100, Official Records, War of Rebellion, ser. III, vol. III; April 24, 1863.

[109] _See_ e.g., Mimmack _v._ United States, 97 U.S. 426, 437 (1878); United States _v._ Corson, 114 U.S. 619 (1885).

[110] 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1590.

[111] Mullan _v._ United States, 140 U.S. 240 (1891); Wallace _v._ United States, 257 U.S. 541 (1922).

[112] Surrogate's Court, Dutchess County, New York, ruling July 25, 1950 that the estate of Franklin D. Roosevelt was not entitled to tax benefits under sections 421 and 939 of the Internal Revenue Code, which extends certain tax benefits to persons dying in the military service of the United States. New York Times, July 26, 1950, p. 27, col. 1.

[113] Farrand, I, 70, 97, 110; II, 285, 328, 335-337, 367, 537-542 (_passim_).

[114] Heads of Executive Departments except the Postmaster General have no fixed legal terms. For the history of legislation on the subject. _See_ 36 Op. Atty. Gen. 12-16 (April 18, 1929); _also_ Everett S. Brown, The Tenure of Cabinet Officers, 42 American Political Science Review 529-532 (June, 1948).

[115] _See_ Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.), New York University Press, 1948, 21-22, 74, 98-99, 257, 358-364, 372-373, 378-381, 516-519. The only question of a constitutional nature that has arisen concerning the Cabinet meeting is as to its right to meet, on the call of the Secretary of State, in the President's absence. Ibid. 402.

[116] United States _v._ Wilson, 7 Pet. 150, 160-161 (1833).

[117] 236 U.S. 79, 86 (1915).

[118] Ibid. 90-91.

[119] Armstrong _v._ United States, 13 Wall. 154, 156 (1872). In Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896), the Court had said: "It is almost a necessary corollary of the above propositions that, if the witness has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege, since he stands with respect to such offence as if it had never been committed." Ibid. 599, citing British cases.

[120] Biddle _v._ Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, 486 (1927).

[121] _Cf._ W.H. Humbert, The Pardoning Power of the President, American Council on Public Affairs (Washington, 1941) 73.

[122] 274 U.S. at 486.

[123] 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 363 (1901); Illinois Central R. Co. _v._ Bosworth, 133 U.S. 92 (1890).

[124] Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307 (1856). For the contrary view _see_ some early opinions of Attorney General, 1 Opins. Atty. Gen. 342 (1820); 2 ibid. 275 (1829); 5 ibid. 687 (1795); _cf._ 4 ibid. 453; United States _v._ Wilson, 7 Pet. 150, 161 (1833).

[125] Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (1916). Amendment of sentence, however, (within the same term of court) by shortening the term of imprisonment, although defendant had already been committed, is a judicial act and no infringement of the pardoning power. United States _v._ Benz, 282 U.S. 304 (1931).

[126] _See_ Messages and Papers of the Presidents, I, 181, 303; II, 543; VII, 3414, 3508; VIII, 3853; XIV, 6690.

[127] United States _v._ Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 147 (1872). _See also_ United States _v._ Padelford, 9 Wall. 531 (1870).

[128] Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 380 (1867).

[129] F.W. Maitland, Constitutional History of England (Cambridge, 1903), 302-306; 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 342 (1820).

[130] 267 U.S. 87 (1925).

[131] Ibid. 110-111.

[132] Ibid. 121, 122.

[133] 4 Wall. 333, 381 (1867).

[134] Ibid. 380.

[135] Ibid. 396-397.

[136] 233 U.S. 51 (1914).

[137] Ibid. 59.

[138] 142 U.S. 450 (1892).

[139] Knote _v._ United States, 95 U.S. 149, 153-154 (1877).

[140] United States _v._ Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 143, 148 (1872).

[141] The Laura, 114 U.S. 411 (1885).

[142] Brown _v._ Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).

[143] Farrand, II, 183.

[144] Ibid. 538-539.

[145] The Federalist No. 64.

[146] Farrand, III, 424.

[147] Washington sought to use the Senate as a council, but the effort proved futile, principally because the Senate balked. For the details _see_ Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.), 253-257.

[148] United States _v._ Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936).

[149] Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.), 467-468.

[150] "Obviously the treaty must contain the whole contract between the parties, and the power of the Senate is limited to a ratification of such terms as have already been agreed upon between the President, acting for the United States, and the commissioners of the other contracting power. The Senate has no right to ratify the treaty and introduce new terms into it, which shall be obligatory upon the other power, although it may refuse its ratification, or make such ratifications conditional upon the adoption of amendments to the treaty." Fourteen Diamond Rings _v._ United States, 183 U.S. 176, 183 (1901).

[151] _Cf._ Article I, section 5, clause 1; _also_ Missouri Pacific R. Co. _v._ Kansas, 248 U.S. 276, 283-284 (1919).

[152] _See_ Samuel Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement (2d ed., Washington, 1916), Sec. 53, for instances.

[153] Foster _v._ Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314 (1829). "Though several writers on the subject of government place that [the treaty-making] power in the class of executive authorities, yet this is evidently an arbitrary disposition; for if we attend carefully to its operation, it will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the executive character, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the definition of either. The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose, or for the common defence, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate. The power of making treaties is, plainly, neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones; and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are _contracts_ with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong, properly, neither to the legislative nor to the executive." Hamilton in The Federalist No. 75.

[154] Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 589, 598 (1884). For treaty provisions operative as "law of the land" ("self-executing"), _see_ Crandall, Treaties (2d ed.), 36-42, 49-62 (_passim_), 151, 153-163, 179, 238-239, 286, 321, 338, 345-346. For treaty provisions of an "executory" character, _see_ ibid. 162-163, 232, 236, 238, 493, 497, 532, 570, 589.

[155] _See_ Crandall, Chap. III, 24-42.

[156] 3 Dall. 199 (1796).

[157] 3 Cr. 454 (1806).

[158] "In Chirac _v._ Chirac (2 Wheat. 259), it was held by this court that a treaty with France gave to her citizens the right to purchase and hold land in the United States, removed the incapacity of alienage and placed them in precisely the same situation as if they had been citizens of this country. The State law was hardly adverted to, and seems not to have been considered a factor of any importance in this view of the case. The same doctrine was reaffirmed touching this treaty in Carneal _v._ Banks (10 Wheat. 181) and with respect to the British Treaty of 1794, in Hughes _v._ Edwards (9 Wheat. 489). A treaty stipulation may be effectual to protect the land of an alien from forfeiture by escheat under the laws of a State. Orr _v._ Hodgson (4 Wheat. 458). By the British treaty of 1794, 'all impediment of alienage was absolutely levelled with the ground despite the laws of the States. It is the direct constitutional question in its fullest conditions. Yet the Supreme Court held that the stipulation was within the constitutional powers of the Union. Fairfax's Devisees _v._ Hunter's Lessee, 7 Cr. 627; _see_ Ware _v._ Hylton, 3 Dall. 242.' 8 Op. Attys-Gen. 417. Mr. Calhoun, after laying down certain exceptions and qualifications which do not affect this case, says: 'Within these limits all questions which may arise between us and other powers, be the subject-matter what it may, fall within the treaty-making power and may be adjusted by it.' Treat. on the Const. and Gov. of the U.S. 204.

"If the national government has not the power to do what is done by such treaties, it cannot be done at all, for the States are expressly forbidden to 'enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.' Const., art. I. sect. 10.

"It must always be borne in mind that the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and Constitution. This is a fundamental principle in our system of complex national polity." 100 U.S. at 489-490.

[159] 100 U.S. 483 (1880).

[160] _See also_ De Geofroy _v._ Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890); Sullivan _v._ Kidd, 254 U.S. 433 (1921); Nielsen _v._ Johnson, 279 U.S. 47 (1929). But a right under treaty to acquire and dispose of property does not except aliens from the operation of a State statute prohibiting conveyances of homestead property by any instrument not executed by both husband and wife. Todok _v._ Union State Bank, 281 U.S. 449 (1930). Nor was a treaty stipulation guaranteeing to the citizens of each country, in the territory of the other, equality with the natives of rights and privileges in respect to protection and security of person and property, violated by a State statute which denied to a nonresident alien _wife_ of a person killed within the State, the right to sue for wrongful death, although such right was afforded to native resident _relatives_. Maiorano _v._ Baltimore & O.R. Co., 213 U.S. 268 (1909). The treaty in question having been amended in view of this decision, the question arose whether the new provision covered the case of death without fault or negligence in which, by the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, compensation was expressly limited to resident parents; the Supreme Court held that it did not. Liberato _v._ Royer, 270 U.S. 535 (1926).

[161] Terrace _v._ Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923).

[162] 332 U.S. 633 (1948). _See also_ Takahashi _v._ Fish and Game Comm., 334 U.S. 410 (1948), in which a California statute prohibiting the issuance of fishing licenses to persons ineligible to citizenship is disallowed, both on the basis of Amendment XIV and on the ground that the statute invaded a field of power reserved to the National Government, namely, the determination of the conditions on which aliens may be admitted, naturalized, and permitted to reside in the United States. For the latter proposition Hines _v._ Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 66 (1941) was relied upon.

[163] This occurred in the much advertised case of Sei Fujii _v._ State of California, 242 P. 2d, 617 (1952). A lower California court had held that the legislation involved was void under the United Nations Charter, but the California Supreme Court was unanimous in rejecting this view. The Charter provisions invoked in this connection [Arts. 1, 55, and 56], said Chief Justice Gibson, "We are satisfied * * * were not intended to supersede domestic legislation".

[164] Clark _v._ Allen, 331 U.S. 503 (1947).

[165] 1 Cr. 103, 109 (1801).

[166] Foster _v._ Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314 (1829); Strother _v._ Lucas, 12 Pet. 410, 439 (1838); Edye _v._ Robertson (Head Money Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 598, 599 (1884); United States _v._ Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 419 (1886); Bacardi Corp. _v._ Domenech, 311 U.S. 150 (1940).

[167] The doctrine of political questions is not always strictly adhered to in cases of treaty interpretation. In the case of the "_Appam_" it was conspicuously departed from. This was a British merchant vessel which was captured by a German cruiser early in 1916 and brought by a German crew into Newport News, Virginia. The German Imperial Government claimed that under the Treaties of 1799 and 1828 between the United States and Prussia, the vessel was entitled to remain in American waters indefinitely. Secretary of State Lansing ruled against the claim, and the Supreme Court later did the same, but ostensibly on independent grounds and without reference to the attitude of the Department of State. The Steamship Appam, 243 U.S. 124 (1917). Although it is a principle of International Law that, as respects the rights of the signatory parties, a treaty is binding from the date of signature, a different rule applies in this country as to a treaty as "law of the land" and as such a source of human rights. Before a treaty can thus operate it must have been approved by the Senate. Haver _v._ Yaker, 9 Wall. 32 (1870).

[168] _See_ Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, (2d ed.), 165-171, with citations.

[169] Madison Writings (Hunt ed.), 264.

[170] "We express no opinion as to whether Congress is bound to appropriate the money * * * It is not necessary to consider it in this case, as Congress made prompt appropriation of the money stipulated in the treaty" (the Treaty of Paris of 1899 between Spain and the United States). De Lima _v._ Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, 198 (1901). For a list of earlier appropriations of the same kind, _see_ Crandall, 179-180, n. 35.

[171] Willoughby, On the Constitution, I (2d ed., New York, 1929), 558. _See also_ H. Rept. 2630, 48th Cong., 2d sess., for an exhaustive review of the subject.

[172] Edye _v._ Robertson (Head Money Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 598-599 (1884). The repealability of treaties by act of Congress was first asserted in an opinion of the Attorney General in 1854 (6 Op. Atty. Gen. 291). The year following the doctrine was adopted judicially in a lengthy and cogently argued opinion of Justice Curtis, speaking for a United States circuit court in Taylor _v._ Morton, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,799 (1855). The case turned on the following question: "If an act of Congress should levy a duty upon imports, which an existing commercial treaty declares shall not be levied, so that the treaty is in conflict with the act, does the former or the latter give the rule of decision in a judicial tribunal of the United States, in a case to which one rule or the other must be applied?"

Citing the supremacy clause of the Constitution, Justice Curtis said: "There is nothing in the language of this clause which enables us to say, that in the case supposed, the treaty, and not the act of Congress, is to afford the rule. Ordinarily, treaties are not rules prescribed by sovereigns for the conduct of their subjects, but contracts, by which they agree to regulate their own conduct. This provision of our Constitution has made treaties part of our municipal law. But it has not assigned to them any particular degree of authority in our municipal law, nor declared whether laws so enacted shall or shall not be paramount to laws otherwise enacted. * * * [This] is solely a question of municipal, as distinguished from public law. The foreign sovereign between whom and the United States a treaty has been made, has a right to expect and require its stipulations to be kept with scrupulous good faith; but through what internal arrangements this shall be done, is, exclusively, for the consideration of the United States. Whether the treaty shall itself be the rule of action of the people as well as the government, whether the power to enforce and apply it shall reside in one department, or another, neither the treaty itself, nor any implication drawn from it, gives him any right to inquire. If the people of the United States were to repeal so much of their constitution as makes treaties part of their municipal law, no foreign sovereign with whom a treaty exists could justly complain, for it is not a matter with which he has any concern. * * * By the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, power is conferred on Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and to lay duties, and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying those powers into execution. That the act now in question is within the legislative power of Congress, unless that power is controlled by the treaty, is not doubted. It must be admitted, also, that in general, power to legislate on a particular subject, includes power to modify and repeal existing laws on that subject, and either substitute new laws in their place, or leave the subject without regulation, in those particulars to which the repealed laws applied. There is therefore nothing in the mere fact that a treaty is a law, which would prevent Congress from repealing it. Unless it is for some reason distinguishable from other laws, the rule which it gives may be displaced by the legislative power, at its pleasure. * * * I think it is impossible to maintain that, under our Constitution, the President and Senate exclusively, possess the power to modify or repeal a law found in a treaty. If this were so, inasmuch as they can change or abrogate one treaty, only by making another inconsistent with the first, the government of the United States could not act at all, to that effect, without the consent of some foreign government; for no new treaty, affecting, in any manner, one already in existence, can be made without the concurrence of two parties, one of whom must be a foreign sovereign. That the Constitution was designed to place our country in this helpless condition, is a supposition wholly inadmissible. It is not only inconsistent with the necessities of a nation, but negatived by the express words of the Constitution. * * *" _See also_ The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616 (1871); United States _v._ Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, 108 U.S. 491, 496 (1883); Botiller _v._ Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889); Chae Chan Ping _v._ United States, 130 U.S. 581, 600 (1889); Whitney _v._ Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888); Fong Yue Ting _v._ United States, 149 U.S. 688, 721 (1893); etc. "Congress by legislation, and so far as the people and authorities of the United States are concerned, could abrogate a treaty made between this country and another country which had been negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate." La Abra Silver Mining Co. _v._ United States, 175 U.S. 423, 460 (1899). _Cf._ Reichert _v._ Felps, 6 Wall. 160, 165-166 (1868), where it is stated obiter that "Congress is bound to regard the public treaties, and it had no power * * * to nullify [Indian] titles confirmed many years before * * *"

[173] United States _v._ Schooner Peggy, 1 Cr. 103 (1801).

[174] Foster _v._ Neilson, 2 Pet. 253 (1829).

[175] United States _v._ Percheman, 7 Pet. 51 (1833).

[176] Willoughby, On the Constitution, I, (2d ed.), 555.

[177] 288 U.S. 102 (1933).

[178] Ibid. 107-122.

[179] 124 U.S. 190 (1888).

[180] It is arguable that the maximum _leget posteriores_ is not the most eligible rule for determining conflicts between "laws of the United States * * * made in pursuance thereof" (i.e. of the Constitution) and "treaties made * * * under the authority of the United States". It may be that the former, being mentioned immediately after "this Constitution" and before "treaties," are entitled always to prevail over the latter, just as both acts of Congress and treaties yield to the Constitution.

[181] 1 Stat. 578.

[182] 4 Dall. 37 (1800).

[183] Crandall, Treaties (2d ed.), 458; _See_ Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IV, 2245; and Benton, 15 Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, 478. Mangum of North Carolina denied that Congress could authorize the President to give notice: "He entertained not a particle of doubt that the question never could have been thrown upon Congress unless as a war or _quasi_ war measure. * * * Congress had no power of making or breaking a treaty." He owned, however, that he might appear singular in his view of the matter. Ibid. 472.

[184] Crandall, 458-462; Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations, 258.

[185] 38 Stat. 1164.

[186] Crandall, 460.

[187] _See_ Jesse S. Reeves, The Jones Act and the Denunciation of Treaties, 15 American Journal of International Law (January, 1921) 33-38. Among other precedents which call into question the exclusive significance of the legislative role in the termination of treaties as international conventions is one mentioned by Mr. Taft: "In my administration the lower house passed a resolution directing the abrogation of the Russian Treaty of 1832, couched in terms which would have been most offensive to Russia, and it did this by a vote so nearly unanimous as to indicate that in the Senate, too, the same resolution would pass. It would have strained our relations with Russia in a way that seemed unwise. The treaty was an old one, and its construction had been constantly the subject of controversy between the two countries, and therefore, to obviate what I felt would produce unnecessary trouble in our foreign relations, I indicated to the Russian ambassador the situation, and advised him that I deemed it wise to abrogate the treaty, which, as President, I had the right to do by due notice couched in a friendly and courteous tone and accompanied by an invitation to begin negotiations for a new treaty. Having done this, I notified the Senate of the fact, and this enabled the wiser heads of the Senate to substitute for the house resolution a resolution approving my action, and in this way the passage of the dangerous resolution was avoided." The resolution in question, it should be added, was a joint resolution, and purported to ratify the President's action. The President himself had asked only for ratification and approval of his course by the Senate. William Howard Taft, The Presidency (New York, 1916), 112-114. Two other precedents bearing on outright abrogation of treaties are the following. The question whether to regard the extradition article of the Treaty of 1842 with Great Britain as void on account of certain acts of the British Government was laid before Congress by President Grant in a special message dated June 20, 1876, in the following terms: "It is for the wisdom of Congress to determine whether the article of the treaty relating to extradition is to be any longer regarded as obligatory on the Government of the United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. Should the attitude of the British Government remain unchanged, I shall not, without an expression of the wish of Congress that I should do so, take any action either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals under the treaty of 1842." Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IX, 4324, 4327. Three years later Congress passed a resolution requiring the President to abrogate articles V and VI of the Treaty of 1868 with China. President Hayes vetoed it, partly on the ground that "the power of modifying an existing treaty, whether by adding or striking out provisions, is a part of the treaty-making power under the Constitution. * * *" At the same time, he also wrote: "The authority of Congress to terminate a treaty with a foreign power by expressing the will of the nation no longer to adhere to it is as free from controversy under our Constitution as is the further proposition that the power of making new treaties or modifying existing treaties is not lodged by the Constitution in Congress, but in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as shown by the concurrence of two-thirds of that body." Ibid. 4470-4471. The veto would seem to have been based on a quibble.

[188] 229 U.S. 447 (1913).

[189] Ibid. 473-476.

[190] Clark _v._ Allen, 331 U.S. 503 (1947).

[191] Charlton _v._ Kelly, 229 U.S. 447 (1913).

[192] Fed. Cas. No. 13,799 (1855).

[193] 2 Pet. 253, 309 (1829).

[194] Acts of March 2, 1829 and of February 24, 1855; 4 Stat. 359 and 10 Stat. 614.

[195] In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891), where the treaty provisions involved are given. The supplementary legislation was later reenacted as Rev. Stat. Sec. 4083-4091.

[196] 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3181-3195.

[197] Baldwin _v._ Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 683 (1887).

[198] Neely _v._ Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 121 (1901). A different theory is offered by Justice Story in his opinion for the Court in Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 (1842), in the following words: "Treaties made between the United States and foreign powers, often contain special provisions, which do not execute themselves, but require the interposition of Congress to carry them into effect, and Congress has constantly, in such cases, legislated on the subject; yet, although the power is given to the executive, with the consent of the senate, to make treaties, the power is nowhere in positive terms conferred upon Congress to make laws to carry the stipulations of treaties into effect. It has been supposed to result from the duty of the national government to fulfil all the obligations of treaties." Ibid. 619. Story was here in quest of arguments to prove that Congress had power to enact a fugitive slave law, which he based on its power "to carry into effect rights expressly given and duties expressly enjoined" by the Constitution. Ibid. 618-619. But the treaty-making power is neither a right nor a duty, but one of the powers "vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Article I, section 8, clause 18.

[199] Geofroy _v._ Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890). _See also_ Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. _v._ Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 541 (1885), which is cited in the Field opinion in support of the idea that no cession of any portion of a State's territory could be effected without the State's consent. The statement is the purest obiter.

[200] Ibid. 267.

[201] The majority of the cases, as was pointed out earlier, dealt with the competence of the treaty-making power to grant aliens the right to inherit real property contrary to State Law. The nearest the Court ever came to lending countenance to the State Rights argument in this connection was in Frederickson _v._ Louisiana, 23 How. 445 (1860). _See_ ibid. 448.

[202] 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

[203] Ibid. 433-434.

[204] Ibid. 435.

[205] 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

[206] Ibid. 318. "The treaty-making power vested in our government extends to all proper subjects of negotiation with foreign governments. It can, equally with any of the former or present governments of Europe, make treaties providing for the exercise of judicial authority in other countries by its officers appointed to reside therein." In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 463 (1891).

[207] Jefferson excepted out of the treaty-making power the delegated powers of Congress, though just what he meant by this exception is uncertain. He may have meant that no international agreement could be constitutionally entered into by the United States within the sphere of such powers, or only that treaty-provisions dealing with matters which are also subject to the legislative power of Congress must, in order to become law of the land, receive the assent of Congress. The latter interpretation, however, does not state a limitation on the power of making treaties in the sense of international conventions, but rather a necessary procedure before certain conventions are cognizable by the courts in the enforcement of rights under them, while the former interpretation has been contradicted in practice from the outset.

Various other limitations to the treaty-making power have been suggested from time to time. Thus, it has been contended that the territory of a State of the Union could not be ceded without such State's consent, _see above_; also, that while foreign territory can be annexed to the United States by the treaty-making power, it could not be incorporated with the United States except with the consent of Congress; also, that while the treaty-making power can consent to the United States being sued for damages in an international tribunal for an alleged incorrect decision of a court of the United States, it could not consent to an appeal being taken from one of its courts to an international tribunal.

The first of these alleged limitations may be dismissed as resting on the unallowable idea that the United States is not as to its powers a territorial government, but only the agent of the States. In the words of Chancellor Kent: "The better opinion would seem to be, that such a power of cession of the territory of a State without its consent does reside exclusively in the treaty-making power, under the Constitution of the United States, yet sound discretion would forbid the exercise of it without the consent of the local government who are interested, except in cases of great necessity, in which the consent might be presumed." 1 Comm. 166-167 and note. This seems also to have been substantially the view of Marshall and Story. _See_ Willoughby, On the Constitution, I (2d ed., 1929), 575-576. The second suggested limitation, which was urged at tremendous length by Chief Justice White in his concurring opinion for himself and three other Justices, in Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 310-344 (1901), boils down simply to the question of correct constitutional procedure for the effectuation of a treaty; and much the same may be said of the third alleged limitation. This limitation was first suggested in connection with the Hague Convention of 1907 providing for an International Prize Court as a result of appeal from the prize courts of belligerents. To this arrangement President Taft objected that the treaty-making power could not transfer to a tribunal not known to the Constitution part of the "judicial power of the United States," and upon this view of the matter dispensation was finally granted the United States in a special protocol whereby this nation was allowed, in lieu of granting appeals from its prize courts to the International Court, to be mulcted in damages in the latter for erroneous decisions in the former. It is submitted that President Taft's position was fallacious, for the simple reason that not even the whole American nation is entitled to judge finally of its rights or of those of its citizens under the law which binds all nations and determines their rights; and that, therefore, the whole American nation never had any authority to create a judicial power vested with any such jurisdiction. _See_ Edye _v._ Robertson (Head Money Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 598 (1884). The law of nations seems of itself to presuppose a tribunal of nations with coextensive jurisdiction. Thus there is no reason why a completely independent nation like the United States may not consent to be bound by the decisions of such a tribunal without any derogation from its rightful sovereignty. And if "the authority of the United States" is the authority of the nation in the field of foreign relations--if the National Government has constitutional powers coextensive with its international responsibilities--we must conclude that such consent can be validly given through the existing treaty-making power. _See_ Favoring Membership of the United States in the Permanent Court of International Justice, H. Rept. 1569, 68th Cong., 2d sess.

[208] 5 Pet. 1 (1831).

[209] 6 Pet. 515 (1832).

[210] Ibid. 558.

[211] Holden _v._ Joy, 17 Wall. 211, 242 (1872); United States _v._ 43 Gallons of Whiskey, etc., 93 U.S. 188, 192 (1876); Dick _v._ United States, 208 U.S. 340, 355-356 (1908).

[212] The New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 (1867).

[213] The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737, 757 (1867).

[214] United States _v._ 43 Gallons of Whiskey, etc., 93 U.S. 188, 196 (1876).

[215] The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616 (1871). _See also_ Ward _v._ Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 511 (1896); and Thomas _v._. Gay, 169 U.S. 264, 270 (1898).

[216] 16 Stat. 544, 566; Rev. Stat Sec. 2079.

[217] Ward _v._ Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896).

[218] Lone Wolf _v._ Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903).

[219] Cherokee Nation _v._ Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U.S. 641 (1890).

[220] The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616, 621 (1871).

[221] Choate _v._ Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 677-678 (1912); Jones _v._ Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899).

[222] For an effort to distinguish "treaties," "compacts," "agreements," "conventions," etc., _see_ Chief Justice Taney's opinion in Holmes _v._ Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 570-572 (1840). Vattel is Taney's chief reliance.

[223] Story, Comm. Sec. 1403. The President has the power in the absence of legislation by Congress, to control the landing of foreign cables on the shores of the United States, 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 13 and 408 (1898, 1899).

[224] Crandall, Treaties (2d ed.) Chap. VIII. _See also_ McClure, International Executive Agreements (Columbia University Press, 1941), Chaps. I and II.

[225] Crandall, 102; McClure, 49-50.

[226] Crandall, 104-106; McClure, 81-82.

[227] Tucker _v._ Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424, 435 (1902).

[228] Ibid. 467. The first of these conventions, signed July 29, 1882, had asserted its constitutionality in very positive terms. "The power to make and enforce such a temporary convention respecting its own territory is a necessary incident to every national government, and adheres where the executive power is vested. Such conventions are not treaties within the meaning of the Constitution, and, as treaties, supreme law of the land, conclusive on the courts, but they are provisional arrangements, rendered necessary by national differences involving the faith of the nation and entitled to the respect of the courts. They are not a casting of the national will into the firm and permanent condition of law, and yet in some sort they are for the occasion an expression of the will of the people through their political organ, touching the matters affected; and to avoid unhappy collision between the political and judicial branches of the government, both which are in theory inseparably all one, such an expression to a reasonable limit should be followed by the courts and not opposed, though extending to the temporary restraint or modification of the operation of existing statutes. Just as here, we think, this particular convention respecting San Juan should be allowed to modify for the time being the operation of the organic act of this Territory [Washington] so far forth as to exclude to the extent demanded by the political branch of the government of the United States, in the interest of peace, all territorial interference for the government of that island." Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations, 239, quoting Watts _v._ United States, 1 Wash. Terr., 288, 294 (1870).

[229] Quincy Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations (New York, 1922), 245.

[230] Crandall, 103-104.

[231] Ibid. 104.

[232] Willoughby, On the Constitution, I, 539.

[233] Wallace McClure, International Executive Agreements (Columbia University Press, 1941), 98.

[234] Tyler Dennett, Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War (New York, 1925), 112-114.

[235] McClure, International Executive Agreements, 98-99.

[236] Ibid. 99-100.

[237] Willoughby, On the Constitution, I, 547.

[238] Wallace McClure, International Executive Agreements (Columbia University Press, 1941), 97, 100.

[239] McClure, International Executive Agreements, 141.

[240] 301 U.S. 324 (1937).

[241] Ibid. 330-332.

[242] 315 U.S. 203 (1942).

[243] Ibid. 229-230. Citing The Federalist, No. 64.

[244] Ibid. 230. Citing Guaranty Trust Co. _v._ United States, 304 U.S. 126, 143 (1938).

[245] Ibid. 230-231. Citing Nielsen _v._ Johnson, 279 U.S. 47 (1929).

[246] Ibid. 231. Citing Santovincenzo _v._ Egan, 284 U.S. 30 (1931); United States _v._ Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937).

[247] Ibid. 233-234. Citing Oetjen _v._ Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 304 (1918).

[248] 315 U.S. at 228-234 _passim_. Chief Justice Stone and Justice Roberts dissented, chiefly on the question of the interpretation of the Litvinov Agreement, citing Guaranty Trust Co. _v._ United States, Note 3 above.

[249] McClure, p. 391.

[250] Ibid. 391-393; United States Department of State Bulletin, September 7, 1940, pp. 199-200.