States with any foreign nation can become the subject of
judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is
subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement,
modification, or repeal," 112 U.S. 580, 599. This doctrine was
affirmed and followed in WHITNEY v. ROBERTSON, 124 U.S. 190,
195. It will not be presumed that the legislative department
of the Government will lightly pass laws which are in conflict
with the treaties of the country; _but that circumstances may
arise which would not only justify the Government in
disregarding their stipulations, but demand in the interests
of the country that it should do so, there can be no question.
Unexpected events may call for a change in the policy of the
country._

In the same opinion the Supreme Court calls attention to an act passed
in 1798, declaring that the United States were freed and exonerated from
the stipulations of previous treaties with France. This subject was
fully considered by Justice Curtis, who held, as the Supreme Court says
(Page 602): "That whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost
gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the power to do so
was a prerogative of which no nation could be deprived without deeply
affecting its independence."

We observe, therefore, that under our own ideas of international law the
United States claims the right to disregard its stipulations if the
interests of the country should require it. And the same right we should
concede to other nations. Particularly to Germany in the present
instance, when we find her battling for her very existence against
enemies that seek to destroy her, against enemies that surround her on
all sides, against enemies that do not hesitate to bring troops into the
conflict from the wilds of Africa and Asia, and who do not hesitate to
drag Japan into this war, causing her to disregard Chinese neutrality in
her effort to capture a small settlement, lawfully occupied in China by
a handful of German soldiers.

In this connection I quote the British sentiment, as expressed by
Gladstone regarding Belgium neutrality in the year 1870:

But I am not able to subscribe to the doctrine of those who
have held in this House, what plainly amounts to the assertion
that the simple fact of the existence of a guarantee is
binding to every party to it, irrespective altogether of the
particu