250 WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 



seems to give an opportunity for a full cooperation of the federal 

 courts in meeting international responsibilities. This jurisdiction, 

 however, with exception of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme 

 Court which includes cases affecting diplomatic officers and consuls, 

 is subject to regulation by congress. Thus in fact, aside from the 

 recourses offered diplomatic officers and consuls to the Supreme 

 Court, the federal courts can aid in the meeting of international re- 

 sponsibilities only in so far as congress has specifically conferred 

 jurisdiction upon them. Their jurisdiction has in fact been extended 

 to most of the cases described in the Constitution and their appli- 

 cation of international law and treaties, in prize cases, cases affecting 

 foreign sovereigns, diplomatic, military and naval officers, cases 

 affecting domiciled aliens, sojourning foreign vessels and others is 

 an effective means of meeting many international responsibilities. 

 Congress has defined a considerable number of crimes at interna- 

 tional law, such as piracy, offenses against neutrality, offenses 

 against foreign ministers and offenses against foreign currency, 

 which are made punishable by the federal courts."^ 



95. Power of Congress to Meet International Responsibilities. 



Aside from the exercise of specific powers, such as the appro- 

 priation of money, the regulation of commerce, provision for the 

 punishment of piracies and offenses against the law of nations, 

 declaration of war, grant of letters of marque and reprisal, making 

 of rules concerning capture, maintenance and regulation of an army 

 and navy. Congress can " make all laws which shall be necessary 

 and proper for carrying into execution . . . all . . . powers vested 

 by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in 

 any department or officer thereof." This clause unquestionably con- 

 fers power upon Congress sufficient to meet every possible inter- 

 national responsibility. Accepting the doctrine of the Supreme 

 Court that the exercise of sovereignty may be limited only by its 

 own consent,'^ it follows that every international responsibility must 



^~ Infra, sees. 113-118. 



28 The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, quoted with ap- 

 proval in the Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S. 581 (1889). See also infra, 

 sec. 138. 



