118 WRIGHT— POSITION OF FOREIGN RELATIONS 



domestic law.^ States have uniformly refused to accept con- 

 stitutional limitations/" legislative acts^^ or omissions/^ or judicial 



for the execution of treaties made by the member states. " Unquestionably," 

 wrote Secretary of State Bryan to Ambassador Gerard on April 28, 1915, 

 " the destruction of this vessel (William P. Frye) was a violation of the 

 obligations imposed upon the Imperial German Government under existing 

 treaty stipulations between the United States and Prussia, and the United 

 States government, by virtue of its treaty rights, has presented to the Im- 

 perial German Government a claim for indemnity on account of the result- 

 ing damages suffered by American citizens." (U. S. White Book, European 

 War No. i, p. 88.) Germany had admitted its responsibility under the 

 treaty in an earlier note. (Ibid.) Under the German Constitution of 191Q 

 "The Commonwealth has exclusive jurisdiction over foreign relations" 

 (Art. 6) and though " the states may conclude treaties with foreign countries 

 in matters subject to their jurisdiction, such treaties require the assent of the 

 commonwealth." (Art. 78.) 



The responsibility of the British government for acts of the self-governing 

 dominions has never been questioned and apparently remains even though 

 these dominions are given independent representation in the League of Na- 

 tions. " Disputes," said President Wilson before the Senate Foreign Rela- 

 tions Committee, " can rise only through the Governments which have 

 international representation. In other words, diplomatically speaking, there 

 is only one ' British Empire.' The parts of it are but pieces of the whole. 

 The dispute, therefore, in the case you have supposed (dispute between the 

 United States and the United Kingdom) would be between the United States 

 as a diplomatic unit and the British Empire as a diplomatic unit." David 

 Hunter Miller, technical expert at the Peace Conference, testified to the 

 same effect : 



"Senator Hitchcock: 'So that any dispute that could arise between the 

 United States and the Dominion of Canada involves the whole British Em- 

 pire? ' 



"Mr. Miller: 'It seems so to me, Senator.'" (66th Cong., ist Sess., 

 Senate Doc. No. 106, pp. 540, 422.) 



^ Moore, Digest, 6: 309-324, especially pp. 317, 321. This ineffectiveness 

 of municipal law extends both to the right and the remedy. Thus municipal 

 law cannot alter the international law principles of responsibility. {Supra, 

 sec. 89.) In a few matters, as for instance, the protection of resident aliens, 

 international law has to a limited extent adopted the municipal responsibility 

 of a state as the measure of its international responsibility. In such cases 

 the principles of municipal responsibility become indirectly subject to inter- 

 national discussion. This, however, does not vitiate the principle stated. 

 (Borchard, op. cit., 116, 178, 170.) Nor can municipal law deprive foreign 

 states of remedies such as diplomatic intervention or the use of force recog- 

 nized by international law, though South American States have frequently as- 

 serted the contrary. (Ibid., p. 836.) 



^''''The contention of Mr. Marcy in the case of M. Dillon, French consul 

 at San Francisco, that the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the 



