191-^] OF THE UNITED STATES. 339 



In the Virginia convention George Nicholas quoted from Black- 

 stone a passage to show the status of treaties in Great Britain, and 

 adds : 



"The president and senate have the same power of making treaties; and 

 when made they are to have the same force and validity. They are to be the 

 supreme law of the land here — this book shews us they are so in England. 

 Have we not seen in America that treaties were violated, though they are in 

 all countries considered as the supreme law of the land? Was it not there- 

 fore necessary to declare in explicit terms, that they should be so here?"'^ 



Later in these Virginia debates Mr. Corbin, assuming the unanimous 

 interpretation, argued for the wisdom of the clause : 



" It is as clear, as that two and two make four, that the treaties made are 

 to be binding on the states only. Is it not necessary that they should be 

 binding on the states? Fatal experience has proven that treaties would 

 never be complied with, if their observance depended on the will of the 

 states; and the consequences would be constant war. For, if any one state 

 could counteract any treaty, how could the United States avoid hostility with 

 foreign nations? Do not gentlemen see the infinite dangers that would 

 result from it, if a small part of the community could drag the whole 

 confederacy into war?""' 



Such were the conditions out of which were evolved the treaty 

 clauses of the Constitution ; such was the universal contemporary 

 analysis of their purpose, significance, and import. 



It has been noted that the clause assuming to insure supremacy 

 to treaty provisions, past and future, was adopted to cover existing 

 practical controversies. Did none of them — the question asks itself 

 — reach the courts, and result in an authoritative declaration inter- 

 preting these discussed clauses? What did the courts decree when 

 British creditors sought to recover debts, and British claimants of 

 land sought to recover possession, in reliance on existing treaty pro- 

 visions? The answer is that the case of Ware z's. Hylton^^- recog- 

 nized in 1796 the rights of British creditors, and the case of Fairfax 

 vs. Hunter,^^^ decided in 1812, determined that the title of an alien 

 was saved by the treaty of peace. 



It has been noted that in debating the constitutional provision on 

 the subject, James Wilson had said: 



""Ibid., Vol. II., pp. 372-3. "=3 Dallas, 199 (1796). 



'^Mbid.. Vol. II., p. 375. "'7 Cranch, 603 (1812). 



