382 BURR— THE TREATY-MAKING POWER [April 20, 



" We are asked : — Upon what express statute of Congress then existing 

 can this act of the government be justified? 



"We answer, that such action of the government was justified because 

 it pertained to the foreign relations of the United States, in respect to which 

 the federal government is the exclusive representative, and embodiment of 

 the entire sovereignty of the nation, in its united character; for to foreign 

 nations, and in our intercourse with them, States and state governments, and 

 even the internal adjustment of federal power, with its complex system of 

 checks and balances, are unknown, and the only authority those nations are 

 permitted to deal with is the authority of the nation as a unit. 



" That authority the Constitution vests expressly and conclusively in the 

 treaty-making power . . . the President and Senate ... by one simple and 

 comprehensive grant : ' He [the President] shall have power, by and with the 

 advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the 

 Senators present concur.' This broad grant makes enumeration of par- 

 ticular powers unnecessary. All other delegations of powers in reference to 

 the international relations of this country are carefully and specifically enu- 

 merated and assigned, one by one, to their designated departments. In 

 reply, therefore, to the question, what law expressly justifies such action, we 

 answer, the organic law, the constitution, which expressly commits all matters 

 pertaining to our diplomatic negotiations to the treaty-making power."™" 



In 1 87 1 the steamer Monti jo owned by citizens of the United 

 States, was seized by certain persons who were desirous of accom- 

 plishing a revolution against the State of Panama. ^""^ Subsequently, 

 the State of Panama granted amnesty to the revolutionists and 

 assumed responsibility for damages done by them. The United 

 States claimed damages from the United States of Colombia of 

 which the State of Panama was a constituent part. The controversy 

 was referred to the British consul as arbitrator. It was claimed by 

 Colombia that no responsibility could rest on her for the acts of a 

 revolution within the State of Panama or for the acts of that State, 

 and that the constitution so provided. This claim was disallowed by 

 the arbitrator who held that the treaty was 



" made with the general government, and not with the separate States of 

 which the Union is composed." 



He concluded : , 



" In the event of the violation of a treaty stipulation, it is evident that a 

 recourse must be had to the entity with which the international engagements 



*^ Ibid., pp. 84-5. 



^ Moore, " International Arbitrations," Vol. II., pp. 1421-47. 



