« ZurückWeiter »
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY PRESIDENTS
AND SECRETARIES OF STATE,
DECISIONS OF FEDERAL COURTS AND OPINIONS OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL.
FRANCIS WHARTON, LL. D.,
ALTHOR OF A TREATISE ON CONFLICT OF LAWS, AND OF COMMENTARIES
ON AMERICAN L'111'.
IN TIIREE VOLUMES.
I. NEGOTIATION, $ 130.
(1) As to treaty making power, 131.
(2) As to legislation, $ 131a. III. WHEN TREATY GOES INTO EFFECT, Ø 132. IV. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION, $ 133.
V. “FAVORED NATION," 134. VI. SUBSEQUENT WAR: EFFECT OF, Ø 135. VII. SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION: EFFECT OF, 136. VIII. SUBSEQUENT REVOLUTION: EFFECT OF, $137. IX. ABROGATION BY CONSENT, BY REPUDIATION, OR BY CHANGE OF CIRCUM
STANCES, ) 137a. X. TREATIES WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL ARE TIE SUPREME LAW OF TIIE LAND,
BUT MAY BE MUNICIPALLY MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION, 138.
(1) Argentine Republic, ) 140.
(a) Treaty of 1778, ø 148.
(d) Subsequent treaties, 8 1480.
(a) Treaty of 1783 (Peace), $ 150.
(h) Treaty of Washington (1871) and Genova tribunal, 150g.
XII. SPECIAL TREATIES–Continued.
(17) Mexico, / 154.
(a) Treaty of 1795, Ø 161.
(6) Florida negotiations and treaty of 1816–20, Ø 161a.
As to diplomatic discretion and correspondence, sce supra, Ø 78 ff.
As to Indian treaties, see infra, 0 210. When treaties are exchanged between two sovereigns, the better practice is for the representative of each sovereign to take priority over that of the other in the copy of the treaty which is to be retained by his own government. Mr. Monroe, Sec. of State, to Mr. J. Q. Adams; Mar. 13, 1815. MSS. Inst.,
Ministers. “It is the practice of the European Governments, in the drawing up of their treaties with each other, to vary the order of naming of the parties, and of the signatures of the plenipotentiaries, in the counterparts of the same treaty so that each party is first named, and its p!eni. potentiary signs first in the copy possessed and published by itself. This practice has not been invariably followed in the treaties to which the United States have been parties, and having been omitted in the treaty of Ghent, it became a subject of instructions from this Depart. ment to your predecessor. The arrangement was therefore insisted on at the drawing up and signing of the commercial convention of July 3, 1815, and was ultimately acquiesced in on the part of the British Government, as conformable to established usage. You will consider it as a standing instruction to adhere to it, in the case of any treaty or convention that may be signed by you.”
Mr. Adams, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rush, Nov. 16, 1817. MSS. Inst., Ministers. “I deem it to be my duty to state that the recall of Mr. Trist, as com. missioner of the United States, of which Congress was informed in my annual message, was dictated by a belief that his continued presence with the Army could be productive of no good, but might do much barm by encouraging the delusive hopes and false impressions of the Mexicans, and that his recall would satisfy Mexico that the United States had no terms of peace more favorable to offer. Directions were given that any propositions for peace which Mexico might make should be received and transmitted, by the commanding general of our forces, to the United States.
"It was not expected that Mr. Trist would remain in Mexico, or continue in the exercise of the functions of the office of commissioner, after he received his letter of recall. He has, however, done so, and the plenipotentiaries of the Government of Mexico, with a knowledge of the fact, have concluded with him this treaty. I have examined it with a fall sense of the extraneous circumstances attending its conclusion and signature, which might be objected to; but, conforming as it does, substantially, on the main questions of boundary and indemnity, to the terms which our commissioner, when he left the United States in April last, was authorized to offer, and animated as I am by the spirit which has gorerned all my official conduct towards Mexico, I have felt it to be my duty to submit it to the Senate for their consideration, with a view to its ratification."
President Polk, Mexican Treaty Message, Feb. 22, 1848.
As to criticisms on this negotiation, see infra, | 154. . ** Until about the beginning of the eighteenth century treaties between European powers were generally written in Latin, but it has since been customary for negotiators of countries which do not use the same language to prepare their treaties in both languages; for instance, in the case of an American negotiating with a German plenipotentiary, the English version would appear side by side, article for article, with the German; and in Spain, or in the Spanish-American Republics, the English and Spanish languages would be used in the same way. Treaties between the United States and the British Government have been signed in the English language only. Our treaties with Russia are an exception to the general rule, most of them being written in French and English.
"The French language is much used in diplomatic and social inter. course in Europe between persons of different nationalities. It is there generally so far regarded the common medium of communication that it is the exception to the rule to find a person in polite society who is not able to converse in and write it."
Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Miss Fraser, Nov. 18, 1874. MSS. Dom. Let. “The effect of adhesion to a treaty is to make the adhering power as much a party to all its provisions and responsibilities as though a like treaty had been concluded ad hoc between it and the other signatory. For example, were the United States to adhere' to the proposed treaty between Great Britain and Zanzibar and effect such adhesion'