AND UTTERANCES OF NATIONAL ORGANS. 157 



Constitution, gives authority for this plenary power of treaty 

 making.^^ If that were accepted, however, it would free the treaty 

 power of constitutional restrictions in times of tranquility as well 

 as of necessity, a view which is not accepted. The better view 

 seems to admit that such a treaty would be unconstitutional in 

 its origin but would be valid under international law upon the 

 principle of self-preservation. 



C. With Reference to the Meeting of International Responsibilities. 



^T,. United States Bound by International Lazv and Treaty. 



Are foreign nations entitled to consider the President's interpre- 

 tation of the international responsibilities of the United States as 

 authoritative? We have noticed that the United States, as a sov- 

 ereign nation, is under international responsibilities, only in so far 

 as such responsibilities have been accepted by organs acting within 

 their apparent constitutional powers.®^ General international law 

 is presumed to have been tacitly accepted by the United States on 

 becoming a member of the family of nations.^* Treaties are formal 



^- See Congressman D. J. Lewis, Feb. 17, 1917, Cong. Rec, 64th Cong., 

 2d Sess., p. 4205, quoted, Wright, Am. Jl. Int. Law, 13: 249, and Holmes, J. 

 in Mo. v. Holland, U. S. Sup. Ct, April 19, 1920 : " Acts of Congress are the 

 supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, 

 while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of 

 the United States. It is open to question whether the authority of the 

 United States means more than the formal acts prescribed to make the 

 convention." See also Kent, Commentaries, i : 166, 176. The different 

 phraseology was actually introduced to assure the validity of treaties con- 

 cluded by the United States before 1789. Rawle, On the Constitution, p. 

 66; Farrand, op. cit., 2: 417. 



63 Supra, sec. 24 



6* Maine, International Law. N. Y., 1888, p. 37, infra, sec. 258. Dupon- 

 ceau, Jurisdiction of the Courts of the LT. S., Philadelphia, 1824, p. 3, has 

 expressed the same view : " The law of nations, being the common law of 

 the civilized world, may be said indeed to be a part of the law of every 

 civilized nation ; but it stands on other and higher grounds than municipal 

 customs, statutes, edicts or ordinances. It is binding on every people and 

 on every government. It is to be carried into effect at all times under the 

 penalty of being thrown out of the pale of civilization or involving the 

 country in war. Every branch of the national administration, each within 

 its district and its particular jurisdiction, is bound to administer it. It de- 

 fines offenses and affixes punishments and acts everywhere Propria vigore, 

 whenever it is not altered or modified by particular national statutes or 

 usages not inconsistent with its great and fundamental principles. Whether 



