14:6 WRIGHT— CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE ACTS 



tion of an official note stating such reservations.^^ The terms 

 of such a note must be consented to by all the organs constituting 

 the treaty power of each state. Thus, as is the case with the 

 treaty itself, unless the President and Senate have each consented 

 to amendments, reservations or interpretations, the United States 

 is not bound. Attempts of either to act separately have been 

 unavailing. The Supreme Court said in reference to a joint 

 resolution passed by a majority of the Senate, stating the purpose 

 of the Senate in ratifying the treaty annexing the Philippines : ^° 



" We need not consider the force and effect of a resolution of this 

 sort. . . . The meaning of the treaty can not be controlled by subsequent 

 explanations of some of those who may have voted to ratify it." Justice 

 Brown, concurring, said : 



" It can not be regarded as part of the treaty, since it received neither 

 the approval of the President nor the consent of the other contracting power. 

 . . . The Senate has no right to ratify the treaty and introduce new terms 

 into it, which shall be obligatory upon the other power, although it may 

 refuse its ratificatiton, or make such ratification conditional upon the adop- 

 tion of amendments to the treaty." 



A similar fate has met interpretations or reservations made by 



the President without consent of the Senate, even when accepted 



by the other signatory. Thus explanatory notes signed by the 



communicated to that government and accepted as the true interpretation of 

 the article. It was, however, omitted in the exchange copy given by that 

 government. This omission being noticed later, a special protocol was 

 signed in 1871, recognizing the interpretation. Crandall, op. cit., p. 88. 



28 In negotiating the treaty of 1850 with Switzerland, the American 

 negotiator agreed that the unqualified most-favored-nation clause of article 

 10 should be interpreted absolutely. In 1898, Switzerland claimed under 

 this clause, the benefits offered to France under a reciprocity agreement of 

 May 30, 1898. At first the United States objected that to admit the claim 

 would be contrary to her accepted interpretation of identical most-favored- 

 nation clauses, but " It was found upon an examination of the original cor- 

 respondence that the President of the United States was advised of the 

 same understanding and that the dispatch in which it was expressed was 

 communicated to the Senate when the treaty was submitted for its approval," 

 consequently customs officials were directed to admit Swiss importations at 

 the reduced rate. Moore, Digest, 5 : 284. 



29 Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States (1901), 183 U. S. 176. 

 " The power to make treaties is vested by the Constitution in the President 

 and Senate, and while this proviso was adopted by the Senate, there is no 

 evidence that it ever received the sanction or approval of the President." 

 N. Y. Indians v. U. S. (1898), 170 U. S. i. See also Moore, Digest, S: 210; 

 Crandall, op. cit., p. 88. 



