ndian] titles confirmed many
years before * * *"
[173] United States _v._ Schooner Peggy, 1 Cr. 103 (1801).
[174] Foster _v._ Neilson, 2 Pet. 253 (1829).
[175] United States _v._ Percheman, 7 Pet. 51 (1833).
[176] Willoughby, On the Constitution, I, (2d ed.), 555.
[177] 288 U.S. 102 (1933).
[178] Ibid. 107-122.
[179] 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
[180] It is arguable that the maximum _leget posteriores_ is not the
most eligible rule for determining conflicts between "laws of the United
States * * * made in pursuance thereof" (i.e. of the Constitution) and
"treaties made * * * under the authority of the United States". It may
be that the former, being mentioned immediately after "this
Constitution" and before "treaties," are entitled always to prevail over
the latter, just as both acts of Congress and treaties yield to the
Constitution.
[181] 1 Stat. 578.
[182] 4 Dall. 37 (1800).
[183] Crandall, Treaties (2d ed.), 458; _See_ Messages and Papers of the
Presidents, IV, 2245; and Benton, 15 Abridgment of the Debates of
Congress, 478. Mangum of North Carolina denied that Congress could
authorize the President to give notice: "He entertained not a particle
of doubt that the question never could have been thrown upon Congress
unless as a war or _quasi_ war measure. * * * Congress had no power of
making or breaking a treaty." He owned, however, that he might appear
singular in his view of the matter. Ibid. 472.
[184] Crandall, 458-462; Wright, The Control of American Foreign
Relations, 258.
[185] 38 Stat. 1164.
[186] Crandall, 460.
[187] _See_ Jesse S. Reeves, The Jones Act and the Denunciation of
Treaties, 15 American Journal of International Law (January, 1921)
33-38. Among other precedents which call into question the exclusive
significance of the legislative role in the termination of treaties as
international conventions is one mentioned by Mr. Taft: "In my
administration the lower house passed a resolution directing the
abrogation of the Russian Treaty of 1832, couched in terms which would
have been most offensive to Russia, and it did this by a vote so nearly
unanimous as to indicate that in the Senate, too, the same resolution
would pass. It would have strained our relations with Russia in a way
that seemed unwise. The treaty was an old one, and its construction had
been constantly the subject of controversy between the two countries,
and therefore, to obviate what I felt would produce unneces
|