WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 245 



power to the national government does not of itself deprive states 

 of concurrent power, unless the power is by nature exclusive.^" The 

 express prohibition of treaty-making and of agreement-making with- 

 out consent of congress prevents them from extraditing criminals 

 without express authorization by congress or treaty. Justice Taney 

 held in 1839 ^bat extradition belonged " exclusively to the Federal 

 Government " and the action of Governor Jenison of Vermont in 

 issuing a warrant for the arrest of one Holmes charged with mur- 

 der in Canada was " repugnant to the Constitution of the United 

 States." ^1 



However, the states still have power to meet many international 

 responsibilities involving action within their own borders. Thus the 

 jurisdiction of state courts usually extends to many cases involving 

 the enforcement of treaty provisions such as those according civil 

 rights, rights of property and inheritance to resident aliens, and in 

 such cases, under the Federal Constitution they are obliged to apply 

 the treaty as the supreme law of the land. State courts usually also 

 have jurisdiction under common law to give justice to aliens in civil 

 cases and to punish many offenses against the law of nations such 

 as libels and conspiracies against foreign governments. The state 

 executive ordinarily has power to employ the militia to preserve 

 order and accord aliens within the state's territory the protection 

 required by international law and treaty and state legislatures gen- 

 erally have power to pass acts for the punishment of offenses against 

 international law.^^ 



91. National Power to Meet International Responsibilities. 



Does the national government have power to take over the entire 

 burden from the states? Authorities say yes, and have rested on 

 three theories. The argument drawn from the assumed enjoyment 

 by the national government of sovereign powers with respect to 

 matters transcending state limits has been discussed and found want- 

 ing.^^ Repudiating this argument, Willoughby says: ^* 



10 Cooley V. Board of Port Wardens, 13 How. 294. 



11 Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 579 (1840) ; Moore, Digest, 4: 242. 

 ^^ Infra, sees. 98, no, 136. 



^^ Supra, sec. 71. 



1* Willoughby, op. cit., p. 64. See also ibid., p. 451. 



