As to the necessity of legislation to execute treaties that purport to modify revenue laws, see Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 135 et seq. In 1816 the Senate passed a bill to carry into effect the commercial convention of 1815 with Great Britain, the bill so passed providing that so much of any existing act as might be contrary to the provisions of the convention should be deemed and taken to be of no effect. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, passed a bill enacting seriatim the provisions of the treaty. The Senate refused to concur, on the ground that the treaty was operative of itself, and therefore that the act should be declaratory only. On the other hand, the House insisted that legislation was necessary to carry the treaty into effect. A committee of conference, Rufus King being chairman of the managers on the part of the Senate and John Forsyth chairman of the managers on the part of the House, agreed on a bill, which was then adopted. The principle upon which this adjustment was made was thus explained by Mr. Forsyth: “Your committee understood the committee of the Senate to admit the principle contended for by the House, that whilst some treaties might not require, others may require, legislative provision to carry them into effect; that the decision of the question, how far such provision was necessary, must be founded upon the peculiar character of the treaty. itself." See Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 135-140. By Article X. of the treaty between the United States and Prussia, of May 1, 1828, jurisdiction over disputes between the masters and seamen of vessels of the contracting parties was conferred on their respective consuls. In June, 1844, the Prussian consul at New Bedford, Massachusetts, applied to Mr. Justice Story for the enforcement of an award in such a case. Judge Story decided that the article could not be executed without an act of Congress, and prepared a bill for the purpose, which was found among his papers after his death, and which was sent to the Department of State. The President submitted the matter to Congress with a recommendation that such legislation be adopted as might be necessary to give effect to the treaty. President Polk, annual message, Dec. 2, 1845; Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of "The prohibition of Art. II. of the treaty of 1880 not only covers the importation, transportation, purchase, or sale of opium by American citizens in China, but extends also to vessels owned by such citi zens, whether employed by themselves or by others in the opium trade.... The provision of the treaty is not self-executing. The enforcement of the prohibition, as to American citizens in China, is expressly dependent upon appropriate legislation' on the part of the United States. .. There certainly appears little room to doubt that if the treaty as to opium is dependent on appropriate legislation,' it can not become effective in the absence of such legislative action." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, May 14, 1886, MS. See, also, Mr. Denby, min, to China, to Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, No. The international convention for the protection of industrial property, signed at Paris March 20, 1883, requires legislation to give it effect, and, in the absence of such legislation, is inoperative. Rousseau . Brown (1903), 21 App. D. C. 73. 3. APPROPRIATIONS OF MONEY. $ 759. Jay's treaty was approved by the Senate by the requisite two-thirds majority. Its ratification was proclaimed by the President on February 29, 1796, and this proclamation was communicated to the two Houses of Congress on March 1, 1796. On the one side it was maintained that the power of the President and Senate as to treaties was absolute, and that the House of Representatives was bound, under the Constitution, to make the appropriations necessary to carry the treaty into effect. On the other side it was contended that under the Constitution the consent of the House was requisite to pass appropriations to carry the treaty into effect, and that this was as much known to the other contracting party as was the consent of the Senate to the preliminary adoption of the treaty. On the latter assumption the House, on March 24, 1796, called on the President for the facts relative to the treaty. On March 30, 1796, the President declined to give such information, his reasons being stated in a message to the House, given below. See also 8 Lodge's Hamilton, Federal ed., 161–181. For the action taken in Congress on the Jay treaty, see Crandall, Treaties, On April 30, 1796, the House, by a vote of 51 to 48, resolved that provi- "We conceive the constitutional doctrine to be that though the President and Senate have the general power of making treaties, yet wherever they include in a treaty matters confided by the Constitution to the three branches of legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles, and that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the legislature, are perfectly free to pass the act or to refuse it, governing themselves by their own judgment whether it is for the good of their constituents to let the treaty go into effect or not. On the precedent now to be set will depend the future construction of our Constitution, and whether the powers of legislation shall be transferred from the President, Senate, and House of Representatives, to the President and Senate, and Piamingo, or any other Indian, Algerine, or other chief." Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Monroe, Mar. 21, 1795, 4 Jeff. Works, 134. "Having been a member of the general convention, and knowing the principles on which the Constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject; and from the first establishment of the government to this moment my conduct has exemplified that opinion, that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every treaty so made and promulgated thenceforward became the law of the land. It is thus that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations, and in all the treaties made with them we have declared, and they have believed, that, when ratified by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, they became obligatory. As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the assent of the House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty; as the treaty with Great Britain exhibits in itself all the objects requiring legislative provision, and on these the papers called for can throw no light; and as it is essential to the due administration of the government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with your request." President Washington, special message, Mar. 30, 1796, on Jay's treaty, Jefferson, before entering into negotiations for the purchase of lands lying at the mouth of the Mississippi, obtained from Congress a provisional appropriation of two million dollars for that purpose. Unexpectedly, his commissioners, being confronted with H. Doc. 551-vol 5-15 unanticipated conditions, agreed to purchase the whole Louisiana territory and to pay therefor a sum many times in excess of the provisional appropriation. Jefferson at first drafted a message to submit the treaty to both Houses of Congress, but he afterwards decided to submit it to the Senate only. He informed the House, however, by his annual message, on the same day, that the treaty, as soon as the Senate had approved it, would be communicated to Congress for the exercise of their functions, as to those conditions which are within the powers vested by the Constitution in Congress." After the treaty was approved and the ratifications were exchanged, it was communicated to Congress for consideration in its legislative capacity, the President saying: “You will observe that some important conditions can not be carried into execution but with the aid of the legislature." The measures proper for the execution of the treaty were voted without any reassertions of the principle of independent responsibility laid down by the House in 1796. 66 See Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement, 128–130. Although the action of Congress in its legislative capacity may be necessary to carry into effect a treaty duly approved by the President and Senate, such action may be regarded as a political duty under ordinary circumstances, and in no case has such legislative aid been heretofore refused. Cushing, At. Gen., 1854, 6 Op. 296. "The question of the prerogatives of the House, when the efficiency of a treaty depends upon its action, came again into prominence in relation to the treaty of 1868 with Russia for the cession of Alaska. In that treaty it was provided that the territory should be transferred on the exchange of ratifications (art. 4), and that Russia should be paid an indemnity of $7,200,000. The treaty was ratified by the Senate on May 28, 1867, there being but two voices in the negative. On June 20, 1867, President Johnson issued a proclamation in which, after reciting the treaty, he declared: Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, have caused the said treaty to be made public to the end that the same and every clause and article thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.' The territory was transferred by Russia to the United States on October 18, 1867. When, however, the question of appropriation came before Congress at the ensuing session, it was at once seen that there was a marked division of opinion. The majority of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives reported as follows: The committee reports to the House the following bill, making an appropriation to carry the treaty into effect, with a recommendation that it be enacted into a law: "A bill to enable the President of the United States to fulfill the treaty between the United States and Russia of March 30, 1867. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, that there be, and hereby is, appropriated $7,200,000 in coin to fulfill the stipulations contained in the sixth article of the treaty with Russia, concluded at Washington on the 30th day of March, 1867." A minority report was made in which the worthlessness of the territory ceded was asserted, and in which the rejection of the purchase was recommended. "The majority report, while conceding that there were cases in which the assent of the House to a treaty might be properly withheld, limited such right to cases plainly inconsistent with the fundamental principles, purposes, or interests of the Constitution.' It was further asserted that where a treaty is limited to objects consistent with the interests of the government, its first and highest duty is to enact such measures as are necessary to carry the treaty into effect.' It was urged that as the Alaska treaty had infringed no constitutional sanction, laws to carry it into execution should be passed. Protracted debate ensued, beginning on June 30 and proceeding through July, the discussion relating far more to the constitutional rights of the House in such issues than as to the expediency of the purchase of Alaska. The tendency of the majority of the House was evidently to sanction the Alaska purchase, but to couple the approval of the treaty with a reservation of the right of the House to approve or disapprove in all cases in which the sanction of the House is necessary to execute a treaty. The following amendment, adopting this view, passed the Committee of the Whole by a vote of 98 to 49, and the House, on July 14, 1868, by a vote of 113 to 43: "Whereas the President of the United States, on the 30th of March, 1867, entered into a treaty with the Emperor of Russia, by the terms of which it was stipulated that, in consideration of the cession by the Emperor of Russia to the United States of certain territory therein described, the United States should pay to the Emperor of Russia the sum of $7,200,000 in coin; and whereas it was further stipulated in said treaty that the United States shall accept of such cession, and that certain inhabitants of said territory shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights and immunities of citizens of the United States; and whereas the subjects thus embraced in the stipulations of said treaty are among the subjects which by the Constitution of the United States are submitted to the power of Congress, and over which Congress has jurisdiction; and it being for such reason necessary that the consent of Congress should be given to said stipulation before the same can have full force and effect; having taken into consideration the said treaty, and approving of the stipu |