224 WRIGHT— POSITION OF FOREIGN RELATIONS 



" But," he said, " the proposition that there are legislative powers 

 affecting the nation as a whole which belong to, although not expressed in 

 the grant of powers, is in direct conflict with the doctrine that this is a 

 government of enumerated powers. That this is such a government clearly 

 appears from the Constitution, independently of the amendments, for other- 

 wise there would be an instrument granting certain specified things made 

 operative to grant other and distinct things. This natural construction of 

 the original body of the Constitution is made absolutely certain by the 

 Tenth Amendment." 



Chief Justice Taney had earlier insisted that no argument could 

 be drawn " from the nature of sovereignty, or the necessities of 

 government for self-defense in time of tumult and danger." ^ 



72. Theory of National Sovereignty in Foreign Relations. 



But though the general theory of sovereign powers, which 

 would vest in the national government all powers not expressly 

 prohibited, cannot be maintained, more support can be cited for 

 the theory if confined to the control of foreign relations. Thus 

 Willoughby says : ^ . 



" From these express grants of power to the General Government, and 

 prohibitions of treaty powers to the States, the intention of the framers 

 of the Constitution to invest the Federal Government with the exclusive 

 control of foreign afifairs is readily deducible. 



" The control of international relations vested in the General Govern- 

 ment is not only exclusive but all-comprehensive. That is to say, the au- 

 thority of the United States in its dealings with foreign powers includes not 

 only those powers which the Constitution specifically grants it, but all those 

 powers which States in general possess with regard to matters of inter- 

 national concern. 



" This appeal, however, to the fact of ' national sovereignty ' as a source 

 of federal power is not a valid one outside of the international field. It 

 cannot properly be resorted to when recognition of an international obliga- 

 tion on the part of the United States is not involved, and when, therefore, 

 the matter is purely one relatmg to the reserved powers of the States or to 

 the private rights of the individuals. To permit the doctrine to apply within 

 these fields would at once render the Federal Government one of unlimited 

 powers." 



The writer is unable to accept this doctrine. The fact that powers 



relating to the control of foreign relations are expressly enumerated 



'^ Ex Parte Merryman, Taney's reports, p. 246; Thayer, Cases on Const. 

 Law, 2: 2361, 2368. 



8 Willoughby, op. cit., pp. 451, 454. See also Ibid., p. 65. 



