WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 253 



void as in violation of the treaty of peace with Great Britain of 1783 

 and many other state statutes discriminating against ahens have been 

 similarly invalidated.^ 



99. Observance of International Law by the Constitution. 



If the Constitution proves in any respect in violation of inter- 

 national law there is no recourse except to the amending process, 

 but in view of the generality of its provisions, a conflict, incapable 

 of reconciliation by interpretation, is not likely to occur. The courts 

 have held that they must interpret the Constitution in accord with 

 international law if possible and thus have protected the immunities 

 of diplomatic officers against the constitutional clause guaranteeing 

 the accused a right " to have compulsory process for obtaining wit- 

 nesses in his favor." ■* The i8th amendment will probably be held to 

 permit the customary exemption from search of the baggage of 

 diplomatic officers. 



100. Observance of International Law by Congress. 



The observance of international law and treaty by Congress de- 

 pends upon the discretion of that body. An act of Congress if con- 

 stitutional is valid within the United States even though in direct 

 violation of international law or treaty as was illustrated by the Chi- 

 nese exclusion act of 1888. 

 In spite of the protests of China, the act remained in effect. The 



" It must be conceded," said the Supreme Court, " that the act of 1888 

 is in contravention of express stipulations of the treaty of 1868 and of the 

 supplemental treaty of 1880, but it is not on that account invalid or to be 

 restricted in its enforcement'. . . . The question wrhether our government 

 was justified in disregarding its engagements with another nation is not one 

 for the determination of the courts. . . . The court is not the censor of th* 

 morals of the other departments of the Government." ^ 



3 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. On this case see Crandall, op. cit., 

 pp. 154-160. H. Sf. George Tucker, Limitations of the Treaty Making 

 Power, Boston, 1915, has been led by what J. B. Moore calls an " appre- 

 hensive" interpretation of the Constitution {Pol. Sci. Qiiar., 32: 320) to 

 take a novel view of this case. Crandall, loc. cit., effectively deals with this 

 interpretation. See also infra, sec. 50. 



* See cases of Dubois and Comancho, Moore, Digest, 4 : 643-645 ; 

 Wright. Am. Jl. Int. Lazv, 11 : 5; and supra, sec. 45. 



5 Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U. S. 581 (1889). 



