174 WRIGHT— LIMITATIONS UPON NATIONAL POWERS, 



not applicable exterritorially, thus do not interfere with the carrying 

 out of treaties giving American consular courts jurisdiction over 

 crimes committed by American citizens abroad. It was held that 

 such a consular court in Japan was not obliged to accord jury trial 

 in criminal cases. ^'^ Nor have constitutional guarantees interfered 

 with the execution of treaties for the internment of belligerent 

 troops entering the territory when the United States is neutral, 

 the return of seamen deserting from foreign vessels, and the extra- 

 dition of criminals found within the United States. Compliance 

 with the terms of the treaty has been held to accord the person 

 subject to internment,^' return^'' or extradition^^ the " due process 

 of law " required by the \''th Amendment. It is, however, doubt- 

 ful whether an extradition authorized by the President in the 

 absence of treaty would be legal though one Arguelles was thus 

 extradited to Spain under authority of President Lincoln in 1864.^** 

 Doubt has been expressed as to the power of the United States 

 to execute treaties requiring the punishment of persons for certain 

 acts, such as the acceptance of letters of marque, therein described 

 as crimes.-^ There has also been doubt of its ability to punish those 

 violating rights guaranteed by treaty or international law to 



at all, but ultra vires and void from the start. See Infra, sec. 46. As we 

 have noticed, however, the United States would be bound by such an 

 obligation because the foreign government cannot be presumed to know 

 of obscure constitutional Hmitations. Supra, sec. 31. See also Willoughby, 

 op. cit., p. 515. 



16 /n re Ross, 140 U. S. 453 (1890). 



!'■ Ex Parte Toscano, 208 Fed. Rept. 938. 



IS Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U. .S. 424 (1902); Moore, Digest, 6, 423, 



'^^ U. S. V. Jonathan Robbins, Bees Adm., 266 ; The British Prisoners, 

 I Wood and Min. 66; Neeley v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109 (1901), Moore, Digest, 

 6: 267, 270. 



20 Dicta in Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 271, 289 (1902), and Tucker v. 

 Alexandrofif, 183 U. S. 424, 431 (1902); Moore, Digest, 6: 247-253; Wil- 

 loughby, op. cit., p. 479. 



21 See Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Aspuria, Nov. 15, 1854, Moore, Digest, 

 2: 978; 5: 169; Livingston, J., in the Bello Corrimes, 6 Wheat. 152, and dis- 

 cussion by Wright, Am. Jl. Int. Lazv, 12: 79. The objection in these cases, 

 however, v.'as based on a supposed encroachment by the treaty upon the 

 power of Congress to " punish , . . offenses against the law of nations." 



