ested. Such conventions are not
treaties within the meaning of the Constitution, and, as treaties,
supreme law of the land, conclusive on the courts, but they are
provisional arrangements, rendered necessary by national differences
involving the faith of the nation and entitled to the respect of the
courts. They are not a casting of the national will into the firm and
permanent condition of law, and yet in some sort they are for the
occasion an expression of the will of the people through their political
organ, touching the matters affected; and to avoid unhappy collision
between the political and judicial branches of the government, both
which are in theory inseparably all one, such an expression to a
reasonable limit should be followed by the courts and not opposed,
though extending to the temporary restraint or modification of the
operation of existing statutes. Just as here, we think, this particular
convention respecting San Juan should be allowed to modify for the time
being the operation of the organic act of this Territory [Washington] so
far forth as to exclude to the extent demanded by the political branch
of the government of the United States, in the interest of peace, all
territorial interference for the government of that island." Wright, The
Control of American Foreign Relations, 239, quoting Watts _v._ United
States, 1 Wash. Terr., 288, 294 (1870).
[229] Quincy Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations (New
York, 1922), 245.
[230] Crandall, 103-104.
[231] Ibid. 104.
[232] Willoughby, On the Constitution, I, 539.
[233] Wallace McClure, International Executive Agreements (Columbia
University Press, 1941), 98.
[234] Tyler Dennett, Roosevelt and the Russo-Japanese War (New York,
1925), 112-114.
[235] McClure, International Executive Agreements, 98-99.
[236] Ibid. 99-100.
[237] Willoughby, On the Constitution, I, 547.
[238] Wallace McClure, International Executive Agreements (Columbia
University Press, 1941), 97, 100.
[239] McClure, International Executive Agreements, 141.
[240] 301 U.S. 324 (1937).
[241] Ibid. 330-332.
[242] 315 U.S. 203 (1942).
[243] Ibid. 229-230. Citing The Federalist, No. 64.
[244] Ibid. 230. Citing Guaranty Trust Co. _v._ United States, 304 U.S.
126, 143 (1938).
[245] Ibid. 230-231. Citing Nielsen _v._ Johnson, 279 U.S. 47 (1929).
[246] Ibid. 231. Citing Santovincenzo _v._ Egan, 284 U.S. 30 (1931);
United States _v._ Belmont, 301 U.S. 3
|