« PreviousContinue »
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY PRESIDENTS
DECISIONS OF FEDERAL COURTS AND OPINIONS OF ATTORNEYS-GENERAL.
FRANCIS WHARTON, LL. D.,
AUTHOR OF A TREATISE ON CONFLICT OF LAWS, AND OF COMMENTARIES
IN THREE VOLUMES.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
II. RATIFICATION AND APPROVAL.
(1) As to treaty making power, § 131.
III. WHEN TREATY GOES INTO EFFECT, § 132.
VI. SUBSEQUENT WAR: EFFECT OF, § 135.
VII. SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION: EFFECT OF, § 136.
VIII. SUBSEQUENT REVOLUTION: EFFECT OF, §137.
IX. ABROGATION BY CONSENT, BY REPUDIATION, OR BY CHANGE OF CIRCUM-
X. TREATIES WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND,
(1) Argentine Republic, § 140.
(2) Austria-Hungary, § 141.
(3) Barbary Powers, § 141a.
(4) Bavaria, 142.
(5) Brazil, § 143.
(6) China, 144.
(7) Colombia and New Granada, § 145.
(8) Costa Rica and Honduras, § 146.
(9) Denmark, § 147.
(a) Treaty of 1778, § 148.
(b) Convention of 1800-01, § 148a.
(c) Treaty of 1803 (cession of Louisiana), § 148b.
(d) Subsequent treaties, § 1480.
(11) Germany, § 149.
(12) Great Britain.
(a) Treaty of 1783 (Peace), § 150.
(b) Jay's treaty (1794), § 150a.
(c) Monroe-Pinkney and cognate negotiations, § 150b.
(d) Treaty of Ghent (1814), § 150c.
(e) Conventions of 1815, 1818, § 150d.
(f) Ashburton treaty (1842), § 150e.
(g) Clayton-Bulwer treaty (1850), § 150ƒ.
(h) Treaty of Washington (1871) and Geneva tribunal, § 150g.
XII. SPECIAL TREATIES-Continued.
(17) Mexico, § 154.
(18) Netherlands, § 155.
(19) Paraguay, § 156.
(20) Peru, § 157.
(21) Portugal, § 158.
(22) Russia, § 159.
(23) Sardinia, § 160.
(a) Treaty of 1795, § 161.
(b) Florida negotiations and treaty of 1816-20, § 161a.
(25) Sweden and Norway, § 162.
(26) Switzerland, § 163.
(27) Tripoli, § 164.
(28) Turkey, ◊ 165.
(29) Venezuela, § 165a.
(30) Wurtemberg, § 166.
As to diplomatic discretion and correspondence, sce supra, §§ 78 ff.
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.,
"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 plenipotentiary 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 Department 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 commissioner 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 harm 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 full 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 governed 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.
"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 intercourse 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'