AND UTTERANCES OF NATIONAL ORGANS. 159 



ment of a sum of money, the cession of territory, the dispatch of 

 military forces, the deHvery of a fugitive, or the release of an alien 

 held in custody, the foreign nation can hold the United States 

 bound to perform such an act, even though Congress, or the states 

 or whatever other organ may be endowed with the necessary legal 

 power to act has not been consulted. 



In practice foreign nations have acted on this theory. Where 

 the President has given an opinion against the contention of a 

 foreign nation, that nation may of course continue discussion until 

 a decision has been reached satisfactory to it or authorized by an 

 arbitration court or other body by whose decision it has agreed 

 to be bound. Where, however, the President has acknowledged the 

 justice of a foreign claim, the foreign nation has held the United 

 States bound. Thus in the McLeod case, the Italian lynching cases 

 and the Panama Canal tolls controversy the -ultimate acknowledg- 

 ment by the President of an obligation to return McLeod,*'^ to pay 

 damages"^ and to charge equal tolls upon American vessels using 

 the Canape made the cases res adjudicata. 



In many cases it would doubtless be expedient, in some it is 

 required by constitutional law,"" and in others it is required by con- 

 stitutional understanding,'^ that the President assure himself of 

 the needed cooperation of other departments before interpreting 

 an international responsibility or acknowledging a specific obligation 

 flowing therefrom, but the foreign nation is not obliged to concern 

 itself with such questions. It is entitled to present all international 

 claims to the President and to hold his voice as the voice of the 

 nation with respect to their settlement. 



35. Decisions by Subordinates to the President. 



This is true of agents acting under authority of the President 

 unless their action is promptly repudiated by the President. Thus 



67 Moore, Digest, 6: 261. 



68 Moore, Digest, 6: 839, 849. 



''''"In my own judgment, very fully considered and maturely formed, 

 that exemption ... is in plain contravention of the treaty with Great Britain 

 concerning the canal, concluded on November 18, 1901." (President Wilson, 

 Message to Congress, March 5, 1914. Cong. Rec, 51: 4313.) 



"•^ Infra, sees. 143-145. 



"1 Infra, sec. 251. 



