I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 325 



obligations, there is a natural resolution of forces in favor of joint 

 action by the treaty-making power and by Congress. Party govern- 

 ment tends that way; a sense of responsibility toward the people and 

 of delicacy toward the other contracting nation, would wish to avoid 

 any possible friction. Today it has become a matter almost of legis- 

 lative precedent, that Congress shall fix duties when questions of 

 reciprocity arise. ^^^ The present action of the government with 

 respect to Canadian reciprocity above set forth is a conspicuous and 

 opportune example. This is legislative precedent of high significance 

 as to future political action : it is no more. The validity of treaty 

 provisions dealing with this and kindred subjects is sustained and 

 controversy thereon foreclosed by the series of cases examined. 

 Apart from the undeviating current of declared doctrine on the sub- 

 ject, the cases of United States z's. Schooner Peggy,^^^ and of Geofroy 

 z's. Riggs ^^° are judgments that certain Acts of Congress were super- 

 seded by treaty provisions, while the case of Fok Yung Yo vs. 

 United States"' gives to a treaty the effect of a statute. If a treaty 

 be neither of wholly national import nor executory in its nature, and 

 assume to create and declare individual rights and obligations, then 

 those rights and obligations must, if the treaty itself is to have the 

 force of law, have the same validity as though created by legislative 

 action and receive recognition in the courts. There is no escape 

 from this position. Assume the premise that Article VI. of the Con- 

 stitution means what it says, and logic itself writes the conclusion. 

 But if legislative action were necessary to give treaty provision the 

 force of law intraterritorially, then not the treaty but the legislative 

 act would be " the supreme law of the land," Article VI. qua treaties, 

 means nothing, and the statement, that a treaty to be the supreme 

 law of the land '' must be sanctioned by an act of Congress " lacks 

 logical coherence. As well say that a recommendation in a Presi- 

 dent's message is " the supreme law of the land when sanctioned by 

 an act of Congress." Either treaty provisions can, without further 

 action, give to the rights created and declared thereby the force of 

 law, or they cannot. If not, they cannot be called " the supreme law 

 of the land." 



'^ Supra, pp. 38-42. ''^ Supra, pp. 95-97- 



^^'^ Supra, pp. 76-78. ^""^ Supra, p. loi. 



