I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 307 



land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in 

 the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 



This language is unique in the efficacy it would seem to give to 

 provisions in treaties made under the authority of the United States, 

 and its bearing is important on the cjuestion under discussion: 

 namely, the status of treaties made respecting subjects committed 

 to Congress for legislation. It is apparent that the courts are con- 

 templated as the forum wherein the treaties are to be recognized 

 as the supreme law of the land. It is apparent likewise that it is 

 individual rights secured by treaties which the courts are to be 

 open to enforce. With political questions arising under treaties, the 

 judiciary could have nothing to do. Thus, this clause of the Con- 

 stitution is not applicable to the problem of the necessity of con- 

 gressional action when an appropriation is essential to make pay- 

 ment for territory purchased under treaty. The judiciary could 

 not assume to force action by Congress, nor to usurp its functions. 

 Neither is the clause applicable with respect to the acquisition or 

 cession of territory. These national questions are political, and are 

 not properly for the judiciary. 



We turn therefore away from the examination of these solely 

 political problems to that of individual rights — though political con- 

 siderations will still intrude themselves. The true line of approach 

 is through the proper interpretation and application of Article VI. 

 of the Constitution. Professor Mikell is very clear and precise in 

 his view of the meaning and efifect of this article. 



" So far," he says, " as the domestic or intraterritorial efifect of the exer- 

 cise of any of the powers committed by the Constitution to Congress are 

 concerned. Congress alone has any power in the premises. But Congress has 

 no power to treat with foreign nations, hence when any of these powers 

 vested in Congress are to be exercised in agreement with a foreign power, 

 the agreement with such foreign nation must first be completed by the treaty- 

 making power, but this agreement, though it is a treaty in the meaning of 

 that word as used in international law, is not a treaty in the sense intended 

 by the Constitution when it says a treaty is the supreme law of the land. 

 To be that it must be sanctioned by an act of Congress."'"" 



"" " The Extent of the Treaty-making Power of the President and 

 Senate of the United States," by William E. Mikell, U. of P. Lazv Review 

 and American Law Register, Vol. 57, p. 456. 



