178 WRIGHT— LIMITATIONS UPON NATIONAL POWERS, 



States bound.^' However, the state department has adhered to 

 Secretary Marcy's position and instructed negotiators to exclude 

 such provisions from future treaties. ^^ 



Finally it has been held that the treaty power violates no con- 

 stitutional guarantee when it refuses to press the claims of Amer- 

 ican citizens against foreign governments or settles them unjustly 

 by compromise.^* Conventions of the latter effect cannot be said 

 to deprive an individual of a guaranteed right, because the con- 

 stitution can guarantee no more than the government can obtain.*" 

 Where valid private claims are bartered for national advantage, as 

 were the French Spoliation claims in 1801, a moral duty of the 

 government to compensate undoubtedly exists and was acted on 

 in this case after the lapse of a century.'*^ The constitutionality of 

 the treaty, however, was not questioned. 



47. Effect on Power to Make Decisions on National Policy. 



Although important decisions on foreign policy such as the 

 recognition of foreign states, governments and belligerency, the 

 annexation of territory and the declaration of war and intervention 

 may have important effects upon the life, liberty or property of 

 individuals, such acts are considered " political questions " not 

 reviewable by the courts and are not affected by constitutional 



3" Supra, sec. 31. 



3s Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bassett', Oct. 18, 1872, Moore, Digest, 

 5: 81. This provision is omitted in consular treaties with Greece and 

 Spain, 1902, Malloy, Treaties, pp. 855, 1701 ; Corwin, National Supremacy, p. 

 15; Wright, Am. Jl. Int. Lazv, 13: 260. 



39 Comegys v. Vasse, i Pet. 193 (1828). "In as much as the govern- 

 ment is under no legal obligation to any citizen to prosecute his claim against 

 a foreign country, but is guided solely by the public interest, considerations 

 of public policy and upright dealing between states may warrant the aban- 

 donment of a claim." Borchard, op. cit., p. 367. 



•*o Corwin, National, Supremacy, p. 16, and Borchard, op. cit., p. 366 ct 

 seq. 



41 Gray v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 340, and Gushing v. U. S., 22 Ct. CI. i. 

 Meade's claim, however, though generally admitted to have been uniustly 

 settled by the Spanish treaty of 1819, has never been liquidated by the 

 United States. See Borchard, op. cit., pp. 2>77> 380. 



