WRIGHT— POSITION OF FOREIGN RELATIONS 127 



insisted upon discussion with the President, through the Depart- 

 ment of State,^^ have accepted the President's interpretation of 

 the responsibihties as the voice of the nation^- and the United 

 States has acquiesced.^^ 



Thus, though the Presidency is primarily an office under the 

 constitution, it is also an office with distinctive functions and, it 

 may be added, enjoying privileges^* under international law. Does 

 it follow that an attempt to alter the international functions of the 

 office by constitutional amendment would involve a violation of 

 international law? We believe not. Such an amendment would 

 be a matter for international cognizance but no complaint would be 

 justified if a new organ capable of performing the international 

 functions of the president were substituted. International law is 

 concerned only with the existence of a definite organ capable of 

 giving satisfaction to demands based on international law or treaty, 

 not with its precise form.^^ Doubtless the authority might be a 

 council or a congress though there is an unquestionable tendency 

 for international law to favor organs for international communica- 

 tion of the traditional form, that is the Chief Executive acting 



"^ Supra, note 26. If some international organ of settlement is utilized 

 it must of course be on the basis of express agreement. In the absence of 

 treaty, arbitration is voluntary. See Wright, Columbia Lazv Rev., 20: 146. 



32 Foreign states have insisted that executive interpretations of treaties 

 are binding even though not submitted to the Senate (See controversies v^rith 

 reference to notes explaining Mexican Peace Treaty of 1848 and Clayton- 

 Bulwer treaty vi^ith England, 1850, Moore, Digest. 3: 138; 5: 205; Wright, 

 Minn. Law Rev., 4: 22; Crandall, Treaties, their Making and Enforce- 

 ment, 1916, pp. 85, 381) and that the President's messages to Congress are 

 subject to mternational cognizance. (See President Jackson's threat of 

 reprisals against France, Dec, 1834, and President Taylor's comments on the 

 Hungarian revolt of 1848, Message, March 18, 1850, and protest's thereat, 

 Moore, Digest, 7 : 125 ; i : 222. See also infra, sees. 19, 20. 



33 In the various lynchings of aliens, especially Italians, the govern- 

 ment has paid the indemnities demanded. Though expressly stated to be 

 gratuities, the uniform practice seems to indicate a sense of responsibility. 

 (jMoore, Digest, 6: 837.) The United States has sometimes refused to ac- 

 cept presidential interpretations of responsibility. Infra, sees. 34-38. 



3* The President apparently enjoys sovereign's immunities under inter- 

 national law. See Satow, Diplomatic Practice, 1917, i: 6; Willoughby, 

 Constitutional Law, 2: 1300, et seq.; Oppenheim, op. cit., sec. 356. 



35 Hall, op. cit., p. 20, supra, note 15. 



