144 WRIGHT— CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE ACTS 



truces and armistices, he is bound by the act of his agents acting 

 within their instructions. In such cases where the agent acts 

 beyond his instructions, as did General Sherman in concluding an 

 armistice with General Johnston in 1865, the President may repudiate 

 the agreement as did President Lincoln on this occasion.^^ 



In the case of treaties, full powers and instructions are generally 

 from the President alone, although ratification requires the consent 

 of the Senate. Consequently the latter retains full discretion to 

 refuse ratification of the signed instrument.^* The Senate has 

 often rejected treaties and the practice was thus justified by 

 Secretary of State Clay : -^ 



"The government of his Britannic Majesty is well acquainted with the 

 provision of the Constitution of the United States, by which the Senate 

 is a component part of the treaty making power, and that the consent and 

 advice of that branch of Congress are indispensable in the formation of 

 treaties. According to the practice of this government the Senate is not 

 ordinarily consulted in the initiatory state of a negotiation, but its consent 

 and advice are only invoked after a treaty is concluded under the direction 

 of the President and submitted to its consideration." 



Foreign nations have acquiesced in the practice though occasion- 

 ally exception has been taken to the practice of amendment or 

 reservation by the Senate on the ground that such amendments 

 present a virtual ultimatum to the foreign government to accept 

 or reject, leaving no opportunity for negotiation.-* 



"His Majesty's Government," wrote Lord Lansdowne, refusing to accept 

 the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty as amended by the Senate, " find them- 

 selves confronted with a proposal communicated to them by the United 

 States Government, without any previous attempt to ascertain their views, 

 for the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty." 



Objection is here taken to a breach of diplomatic etiquette in 

 method but the full power of the United States under international 

 law to refuse ratification or to consent only if certain alterations 

 are made, is not denied. 



-3 Halleck, International Law, 4th ed. (Baker), 2: 356, infra, sec. 167. 

 -* Supra, note 17. 



25 Moore, Digest, 5 : 200. See also Foster, Practice of Diplomacy, N. 

 Y., 1906, p. 276. 



26 Willoughby, Constitutional Law, p. 465. See also Crandall, op. cit., 

 p. 82, Moore, Digest, 5 : 201 ; Satow, op. cit., 2 : 274. See the vigorous 

 denunciation of the Senate amendment to the proposed King-Hawksburg 

 treaty of 1803 by Great Britain, Am. St. Pap., For. Rel., 3: 92-94; Hayden, 

 op. cit., p. 150. 



