268 WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 



difficulty in awarding sentence and finally concluded " the defend- 

 ant cannot be imprisoned until his most Christian Alajesty 

 shall declare that the reparation is satisfactory." Apparently a de 

 facto incarceration without formal sentence of imprisonment, which 

 if given at all would have to be " certain and definite." seemed the 

 only way of satisfying the dilemma arising from the court's theory 

 that it was not only administering Pennsylvania law but also inter- 

 national law and that in this case the latter left determination of 

 the sentence to the offended king of France. This theory, derived 

 from the claim by France of a right herself to punish offenders 

 against her diplomatic representatives abroad, and supported by 

 a similar claim of the Czar in the case of his Ambassador in London 

 in 1708, is now obsolete. 



Since adoption of the Constitution, the enforcement of inter- 

 national law has been largely undertaken by the national govern- 

 ment and, where undertaken, the jurisdiction of federal courts has 

 been made exclusive.*' This does not mean, however, that states 

 are prohibited from making acts, violative of international law or 

 treaty, offenses against their own sovereignty.' The grant of 

 powers of criminal legislation to the National government by the 

 Constitution or even the exercise of such powers by Congress does 

 not in itself divest the states of power to punish similar offenses. 

 States may cooperate with the United States in enforcing interna- 

 tional law and treaty within their own boundaries so far as such 

 action does not interfere with national action. They cannot, how- 

 ever, perform acts for this purpose, which will be effective out- 

 side their borders. Thus state authorities cannot extradite per- 

 sons to foreign governments on the basis of national treaties,* unless 

 expressly authorized thereto by the treaty.^ 



A few offenses against international law and treaty are still un- 

 touched by national laws, and the states must be relied on. Thus 



^Judicial Code of 191 1, sec. 256, pars. 1-4, 8. 



7 Fox V. Ohio, 5 How. 416 (1847). 



8 Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 579 (1840); U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 

 U. S. 407, 414; Moore, Digest, 4: 240 et seq. 



^ See Mexican treaty, 1899, art. 19; Moore, Digest, 4: 244. 



