AND UTTERANCES OF NATIONAL ORGANS. 141 



to demand proof of the constitutional competence of all organs or 

 agents assuming to make agreements for the United States, before 

 exchanging ratifications. " Qui cum alio contrahit, vel est vel debet 

 esse non ignarus condicienis eius," said Ulpian.^^ Furthermore, the 

 authority of agents of the state is usually strictly construed. 

 " Those dealing with them are ordinarily bound by their actual 

 authority and not as in private law by their ostensible authority." ^* 

 This, however, is subject to certain exceptions. The international 

 court of arbitration in the Metzger case held that '' limitations upon 

 official authority, undisclosed at the time to the other govern- 

 ment," do not " prevent the enforcement of a diplomatic agree- 

 ment.'' ^^ 



25. Signature under Authority of the Treaty Pozver. 



The first step^'' in the making of international agreements, if of a 

 formal and permanent character, is exchange of " full powers " by 



governments are assumed to take notice." Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, 

 to Mr. Mendonga, Brazilian Minister, October 26, 1894, Moore, Digest, 

 5: 361. 



13 Digest of Justinian, Lib. L, Tit. xvii, cited by Crandall, Treaties, 

 Their Making and Enforcement, p. 2, who adds : " To know the power of 

 him with whom negotiations are conducted requires a knowledge not only 

 of his special mandate and powers, the exhibition of which may always be 

 demanded before the opening of negotiations, but also of the fundamental 

 law or constitution of the state which he professes to represent, and of 

 any limitations which may result from an incomplete sovereignty." Gefficken, 

 in a note to Hefft'er, Das Europaische Volkerrecht der gegenwart, p. 201, 

 says : " Without doubt a government should know the various phases that 

 the project must follow at the hands of the other contractant; it is nr>t 

 able to raise reclamations if the treaty fails in one of these phases." 



1* Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, p. 184. 



15 Metzger (U. S.), Haiti, Oct. 18, 1894, U. S. For. Rel., p. 262, cited 

 Borchard, loc. cit. See also Trumbull (Chile) z: U. S., Aug. 7, 1892, Moore, 

 International Arbitrations, p. 3569. 



1^ The conclusion of a treaty involves three steps: (i) exchange of 

 full powers, negotiation and signature, (2) consent to ratification with or 

 without reservations and ratification, (3) exchange of ratifications. Often 

 legislation must be passed before the treaty becomes executable and " putting 

 into effect " may be considered a fourth step in the conclusion of a treaty. 

 In the United States legislation is not needed for self-executing treaties 

 which are executable after proclamation by the President. However, under 

 international law, the treaty is complete and binding after exchange of rati- 



