AND UTTERANCES OF NATIONAL ORGANS. 165 



39. Understandings do not Require Forbearance in Pressing Inter- 

 national Claims. 

 The distribution of constitutional powers among various organs 

 in the national and state governments of the United States often 

 makes it very difficult for the President actually to satisfy claims 

 which he has admitted to be valid under international law. In fact 

 these constitutional limitations are well known to foreign nations. 

 The United States has sometimes urged such difficulties as an 

 excuse for failure to meet the obligation promptly. While such 

 a plea has no validity whatever, under international law®*' it remains 

 to be seen whether there is an international understanding whereby 

 nations withhold pressure on just claims in view of constitutional 

 difficulties in the delinquent state. 



'■ Every nation," said Justice McLean, " may be presvmied to know that, 

 so far as the treaty stipulates to pay money, the legislative sanction is 

 required. . . . And in such a case the representative of the people and the 

 States exercise their own judgment in granting or withholding the money. 

 They act upon their own responsibility and not upon the responsibility 

 of the treaty-making power." ^'^ 



The theory is attractive for delinquent states. Unfortunately 

 for them it is not practiced. No such understanding of interna- 

 tional law exists. The United States did not withhold pressure 

 from France when she pleaded the refusal of her legislature to 

 appropriate for carrying out the claims treaty of 183 1.^® Nor have 

 European nations withheld pressure from the United States in 

 similar circumstances. Congress has always, though generally with 

 much protestation by the House of its untrammeled discretion, 

 appropriated money where treaty or international law has required,*^ 



Britain protested. See Moore, Digest, 5: 205-206; Crandall, op. cit., pp. 

 85, 381; Wright, Minn. Lazv Rev., 4: 16; supra, sees. 27, 28. It has been the 

 usual practice to submit such explanatory notes to the Senate. See Cran- 

 dall, op. cit., pp. 86-89 ; Moore, Digest, 5 : 207, 284. 



^^ See supra, sec. 22 ^t ^^Q- 



^"^ Turner v. Am. Baptist Missionary Union, 5 McLean, 347, 1852, para- 

 phrased in Wharton, Digest, 2 : jt,; Moore, Digest, 5 : 222. 



^^ President Jackson recommended reprisals on this occasion. (Moore, 

 Digest, 7: 123-126.) See also note of Secretary of State Livingston to the 

 French government, supra, chap, i, note 3, and of Mr. Wheaton, Minister 

 to Copenhagen, to Mr. Butler, Attorney General, Jan. 20. 1835. Wharton, 

 Digest, 1 : 36. 



®^ Infra, sees. 149, 256. 



