The "fishing articles" of the treaty of May 8, 1871, were Articles XVIII. As to the notice of termination, see For. Rel. 1883, 413, 435, 441, 451, 464; "A modus vivendi was effected October 20, 1899, by exchange of notes between Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, and Mr. Tower, British chargé d'affaires at Washington, fixing a provisional boundary line between Alaska and the Dominion of Canada in the vicinity of Lynn Canal." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 88, citing For. Rel. 1899, 328-330. See supra, § 158. 2. AGREEMENTS UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS. (1) COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. § 753. The act of March 3, 1815, declared a repeal of discriminating duties against vessels, and products imported therein, of nations in which discriminating duties against the United States did not exist, the President to determine in each case by proclamation the application of the repeal. The acts of January 7, 1824, and May 24, 1828, likewise authorized the President to suspend by proclamation discriminating duties so far as they affected the vessels of a foreign nation, when possessed of satisfactory evidence that no such discriminating duties were imposed by that nation against the vessels of the United States. Section 11 of the act of June 19, 1886, as amended by the act of April 4, 1888, vests similar power in the President. A partial suspension is allowed by the act of July 24, 1897. On the authority of these statutes numerous arrangements have been reached with foreign states and made operative by proclamation. The evidence accepted by the President as sufficient may be a note or despatch, or a memorandum of an agreement. The proclamations relative to abolishing discriminating duties on trade with Cuba and Porto Rico of February 14, 1884, October 27, 1886, and September 21, 1887, were based on memoranda of agreements signed with Spain, February 13, 1884, October 27, 1886, and September 21, 1887. "Section 3 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890, authorized and directed the President, whenever the government of any country, producing and exporting certain enumerated articles, imposed duties or other exactions on the products of the United States, which, in view of the free introduction of the enumerated articles into the United States, were in his opinion unreasonable or unequal, to suspend as to that country the privilege of free importation, and subject the articles in question to certain discriminating duties. Ten commercial arrangements were concluded and made effective by means of this section January 31, 1891, with Brazil; June 4, the Dominican Republic; June 16, Spain; December 30, Guatemala; January 30, 1892, Germany; February 1, Great Britain; March 11, Nicaragua ; April 29, Honduras; May 25, Austria-Hungary; and November 29, Salvador. These were all terminated by section 71 of the tariff act of August 27, 1894. Section 3 of the act of 1890 having been assailed as involving an unlawful delegation of legislative power, its constitutionality was sustained by the Supreme Court in the case of Field . Clark (143 U. S. 649). Section 3 of the act of July 24, 1897, not only provides, as did section 3 of the act of 1890, for the imposition by proclamation of certain differential rates, but also for the conclusion by the President of commercial agreements, with countries producing certain enumerated articles, in which concessions may be secured in favor of the products of the United States; and it further authorizes the President, when such concessions are, in his judgment, reciprocal and equivalent, to suspend by proclamation the collection on those articles of the regular duties imposed by the act, and subject them to special rates as provided in the section. On the authority of this section the President has concluded and made effective the commercial agreements of May 28, 1898, with France; May 22, 1899, with Portugal (protocol making corrections signed January 11, 1900); July 10, 1900, with Germany; and February 8, 1900, with Italy." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 88-90. (2) INTERNATIONAL COPYRIght. § 754. "The international copyright convention signed at Berne, September 9, 1886, originally by ten states, has been acceded to by all the principal nations except Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the United States. International copyright in the United States is regulated by the law of March 3, 1891, section 13 of which empowers the President to extend by proclamation the benefits of the law to citizens and subjects of a foreign state when assured that citizens of the United States are allowed the benefit of copyright in that state on substantially the same basis as its own citizens, or when the state is a party to an international agreement which provides for reciprocity in the granting of copyright, by the terms of which the United States may at its pleasure become a party. Under the first alternative, the President has extended the benefits of the law by proclamation to subjects of Belgium, France, Great Britain and possesions, and Switzerland, July 1, 1891; Germany, April 15, 1892; Italy, October 31, 1892; Denmark, May 8, 1893; Portugal, July 20, 1893; Spain, July 10, 1895; Mexico, February 27, 1896; Chili, May 25, 1896; Costa Rica, October 19, 1899; the Netherlands and possessions, Nov. 20, 1899; Cuba, March 17, 1903; [and Norway, July 1, 1905]." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 91. (3) POSTAL CONVENTIONS. $ 755. "Following the postal convention with New Granada of March 6, 1844, numerous other conventions of the same nature were concluded by the President and ratified with the consent of the Senate. By the act of June 8, 1872, the Postmaster-General is given the power to enter into money-order agreements with the post departments of foreign governments, and by and with the advice and consent of the President, to negotiate and conclude postal conventions. In virtue of this act, conventions of this class have been concluded by the Executive without submission to the Senate. Among these are the Universal Postal Conventions, signed at Vienna, July 4, 1891, and at Washington, June 15, 1897." Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 92. (4) AGREEMENTS WITH INDIAN TRIBES. § 756. By the Indian appropriations act of March 3, 1871, it was declared that thereafter "no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power, with whom the United States may contract by treaty," but it was also declared that the obligation of any treaty previously made should not be impaired by anything in the act. The effect of the act was to require the Indian tribes to be dealt with in the future through the legislative, and not through the treatymaking power. Elk r. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94; 16 Stat. 566; Rev. Stat. § 2079. nations for the purposes of treaty making, and to render its declaration effective by refusing to recognize any subsequent treaties with them; and this view prevailed. (See, especially, Congressional Globe, 41st Cong. 3 sess. (1870-1871), part 1, pp. 763-765; part 3, pp. 1821-1825). V. ENFORCEMENT OF TREATIES. 1. DUTY OF PERFORMANCE. § 757. "When a party from necessity or danger withholds compliance with part of a treaty, it is bound to make compensation where the nature of the case admits and does not dispense with it." Opinion of Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, April 28, 1793, 7 Jeff. Works, 617. "When performance [of a treaty], for instance, becomes impossible, nonperformance is not immoral; so if performance becomes selfdestructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation in others;" but "it is not the possibility of danger which absolves, for that possibility always exists, and in every case." Opinion of Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, April 28, 1793, 7 Jeff. Works, 613, 614. When there is a treaty giving certain privileges as to repairing armed vessels of a belligerent, such treaty will be enforced by the neutral state, though the favors it confers on the belligerent may be in excess of what would be conferred by the law of nations. Moodie v. The Phoebe Anne, Dall. 319. See Bee's Adm. R. 40 76. 2. LEGISLATIVE AID. § 758. Since by the Constitution treaties made in pursuance thereof are to be the law of the land, they are to be regarded by the courts as equivalent to a legislative act when they operate directly upon a subject ; but if they merely stipulate for future legislation by Congress, they address themselves to the political and not to the judicial department, and the latter must await the action of the former. Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, cited in Mr. F. W. Seward, Act. Sec. of The particular point decided in Foster v. Neilson, viz, that art. 8 of the May 13, 1786, Mr. Jay, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, sent a circular to the governors of the various States, asking what had been done towards executing the treaty of peace of 1782-3 with Great Britain. The governor of Massachusetts, James Bowdoin, May 17, 1786, sent in answer copies of acts of the State legislature. (MS. American Letters, II. 323-345.) Other answers were received as follows: Samuel Huntington, governor of Connecticut, June 12, 1786, MS. Am. Let. II. 371; William Livingston, New Jersey, June 15, 1786, id. 410; R. Caswell, North Carolina, June 21, 1786, id. 407; Wm. Moultrie, South Carolina, June 21, 1786, id. 411; John Sullivan, New Hampshire, July 11, 1786, id, 416; Geo. Clinton, New York, July 20, 1786, id. 439; John Collins, Rhode Island, Sept. 4, 1786, id. 450; John Sullivan, New Hampshire (second reply), Sept. 18, 1786, id. 457. While a treaty is the supreme law of the land, and operates as such in all matters not requiring legislative action, yet, when made dependent on legislative action, it does not take effect until such action is had. Foster . Neilson, 2 Pet. 253; United States r. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51; A treaty is the supreme law of the land in respect of such matters only as the treaty-making power, without the aid of Congress, can carry into effect. Where a treaty stipulates for the payment of money for which an appropriation is required, it is not operative in the sense of the Constitution. Every foreign government may be presumed to know that so far as the treaty stipulates to pay money the legislative sanction is required. Turner v. American Baptist Missionary Union, 5 McLean, 347. "Where a treaty can not be executed without the aid of an act of Congress, it is the duty of Congress to enact such laws. Congress has never failed to perform that duty. But when it can be executed without legislation, the courts will enforce its provisions.” Davis, Notes, United States Treaty Volume (1776–1887), 1228, citing Davis's Notes were published in 1873. Where a treaty obviously requires |