176 WRIGHT— LIMITATIONS UPON NATIONAL POWERS, 



not providing for jury trial and other methods guaranteed by the 

 Constitution, might be continued.^* The court, however, suggested 

 that certain " natural rights " among these guarantees, such as that 

 requiring " due process of law," might apply even in these ter- 

 ritories.-^ Clearly the prohibition of slavery stated in amendment 

 XIII to extend to "any place subject to the jurisdiction" of the 

 United States would so apply. However, there is no international 

 custom favoring the continuance of institutions disapproved by the 

 usual standards of justice and morality.^'' 



46. Effect upon Power to Make International Agreements. 



The power to make international agreements, likewise, seems 

 almost unafifected by constitutional guarantees of private right. 

 Many of these guarantees apply to all organs of the government, 

 and hence in theory limit the treaty-making power, but a treaty 

 has never been held void in consequence.^^ The courts have 

 shown an inclination to reconcile such guarantees to treaty 

 provisions where a conflict has been alleged. The various cases 

 we have considered in which the power of the government to 

 meet responsibilities founded on treaty has been sustained likewise 

 indicates the competence of the treaty power. According to Amer- 

 ican constitutional theory and the terms of the " necessary and 

 proper clause " the national government is competent to carry into 

 effect all of its constitutional powers.^" Hence if the courts had 

 held the execution of treaties for extradition, internment, or the 

 return of deserting seamen to be in violation of constitutional 

 guarantees, they would in reality have been holding the treaty itself 

 void as beyond the competence of the treaty power.^^ This issue 

 was definitely raised in the case of the French consul referred to. 

 In this case as we have seen the California court upheld the 



-8 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197 ; Dorr v. U. S.. 195 U. S. 138. 



29 Dicta of Brown, J., in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 282 ; Dorr v. 

 U. S., 195 U. S. 138. 



^^ As to the attitude of international law on slavery see Story, J., in 

 LT. S. V. La Jeune Eugenie, 2 Mason 409 (1822). 



"1 Willoughby, op. cit., p. 493 ; Corvvfin, National Supremacy, p. 5 ; An- 

 derson, Am. Jl. Int. Law, i: 647; Wright, ibid., 13: 248, infra, sec. 173. 



"2 Marshall, C. J., in McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 316. 



33 Supra, note 15. 



