jected to a strained interpretation to save the State's power;

91

90 but

in no case has a clear treaty provision been superseded by the state law. On the contrary, state statutes of this character have frequently been declared void when conflicting with clear treaty provisions. With respect to statutes relating to the control of natural resources and state-supported services, the attitude of the courts has been cautious, with a decided tendency in recent cases to compromise by adopting interpretations of the treaty favorable to the state power. The question, however, has been on the applicability of the treaty, not upon its validity.

92

66

A more extreme extension of the reserved powers" doctrine has been put forward in the claim that unlimited discretion in the regulation and taxation of property and inheritances is a state power exempt from interference by the treaty-making power. Treaties of the character mentioned have sometimes conflicted with the alleged exclusive right of the state to regulate the ownership, transmission and inheritance of property within its limits.93 An historical view of the many cases bearing upon this point shows that in the days of Marshall and since the Civil War the Supreme Court has uniformly and in no uncertain voice sustained the treaty power as against these alleged states' reserved powers. Only during the period preceding the Civil War was there a wavering, even then confined to dicta.96

90 Compagnie Francaise v. State Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380 (1902). 91 Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat, 259 (1817); Elkinson v. Deliesseline, supra, note 42; in re Tiburcio Parrott, 6 Sawyer 349 (1884); Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 43 (1915), Am. Jl. Int. Law, 10: 158.

92 Patsone . Pa., 232 U. S. 138, 145; Heim v. McCall, 239 U. S. 175, . 193 (1915). Am. Jl. Int. Law, 10: 162. But see Mo. v. Holland, supra,

sec. 49.

93 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199 (1796); Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch 454; Prevost v. Greenaux, 10 How. I (1856); Fredricksen v. La., 23 How. 443 (1860); Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483 (1879); Wynans Petitioner, 191 Mass. 276; People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381 (1855).

94 Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cr. 603 (1813); Chirac v. Chirac, 3 Wheat. 259 (1817).

95 Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483 (1879); Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258 (1890).

96 Supra, note 89.

97

Statesmen and text writers with few exceptions have taken a similar attitude in support of a broad treaty power. We may accept the view of a California judge in a case involving the state intestacy laws.98

"One of the arguments at the bar against the extent of this power of treaty is, that it permits the Federal Government to control the internal policy of the States, and, in the present case, to alter materially the statutes of distribution. If this was so to the full extent claimed, it might be a sufficient answer to say, that it is one of the results of the compact, and, if the grant be considered too improvident for the safety of the States, the evil can be remedied by the Constitution-making power."

66

Thus any respect that is shown by the treaty-making power to reserved powers" of the states is merely by virtue of an understanding of the Constitution. In fact such respect has often been shown and it was thus to safeguard the interests of the states 97 For supremacy of treaty power over state powers:

Anderson, C., Am. Jl. Int. Law, 1: 636;

Burr, Treaty Making Power of U. S., 1912;

Butler, The Treaty Making Power of the U. S., 1902;

Calhoun, Discourse, Works, ed. 1853, 1: 202; Elliot's Debates, 4: 463;
Corwin, National Supremacy, 1913;

Crandall, Treaties, their Making and Enforcement, 1916;

Devlin, Treaty Power under the Constitution of U. S., San Francisco,
1908;

Elliott, E. C., The Treaty Making Power, with reference to the Re-
served Powers of the States, Case and Comment, 22: 77 (1913);
Hall, J. P., State Interference with the Enforcement of Treaties,
Proc. Acad. Pol. Sci., 7: 24;

Livingston, Sec. of State, Wharton, 2: 67;

Moore, J. B., Pol. Sci. Quar., 32: 320;

Pomeroy, Introduction to the Constitutional Law of U. S., 9th ed., 1886, sec. 674;

Root, Am. Jl. Int. Law, I: 273;

Story, Commentaries on the Constitution;

Willoughby, W. W., Constitutional Law of U. S., 2 vols., 1910.

Against supremacy of treaty power over state powers:

Hayden, Am. Hist. Rev., 22: 566 (takes a historical view showing

that the political check has sometimes preserved states' rights from adverse treaties);

Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice, p. 110;

Mikell, University of Pa. Law Rev., 57, 435, 528;

Tucker, H. S., Limitations on the Treaty Making Power under the
Constitution of U. S., Boston, 1915;

Tucker, J. R., Constitution of U. S., 2 vols., 1899.

98 People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381 (1855).

that the Senate was made such an important element in treatymaking." This function the Senate has recognized, and, especially in the period before the Civil War, has frequently exercised a veto upon treaties thought to violate states' rights, or redrafted them so as to permit of state consent before the treaty became effective within its territory.100 The practice of the Senate, the opinions of statesmen and dicta of the courts indicate that, except for the most cogent reasons, the treaty power ought to exercise its powers in such way as not to interfere with the control by the states of their own land, natural resources, and public services and not to interfere unnecessarily with the enforcement by the state of its own policy with reference to the protection of public safety, health, morals and economic welfare.

51. Effect upon Power to Make Decisions upon National Policy.

States' Rights have not interfered with the making and carrying out of national decisions. Such decisions as the declaration of war, recognition of foreign states and governments, annexation of territory, etc., being of external application, have never been alleged to conflict with states' rights, unless the protests of the Hartford Convention against the War of 1812 be so considered.101 The exercise of war powers, has conflicted with alleged states' reserved powers. Thus the drafting of armies was attacked as an impairment of the states' reserved power over its militia.1 Though the

102

99 Ralston Hayden, The States' Rights Doctrine and the Treaty Making Power, Am. Hist. Rev., 22: 56; Corwin, National Supremacy, 141, 302. The fathers seem to have considered the Senate a special bulwark of states' rights, Farrand, op. cit., 2: 393; The Federalist, No. 64 (Jay), Ford ed., P. 432; Elliot, Debates, 4: 137.

100 Hayden, op. cit., Am. Hist. Rev., 22: 56. For example see supra,

note 79.

101 See proposed amendment to the Constitution requiring two-thirds vote of both houses to declare war, MacDonald, Select Documents in American History, N. Y., 1898, p. 206.

102 Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 15, 16. The national government can call forth the militia, as such, only to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," which does not permit of use outside the territory (Wickersham, Att. Gen., 29 Op. 322), but under present law the militia are not used as such but are reenlisted in the national army when called out for national service. (Act June 3, 1916, 39 stat. 200, 211, secs. 70, 71, 73, 111.) The power to raise armies (Constitution, I, sec. 8,

contention at first received some judicial support in Civil War cases, ,103 it was thoroughly demolished during the World War.104

Apparently the only legal limitation upon the exercise of powers in foreign relations imposed by states' rights is that upon the power to cede state territory by treaty, which is acknowledged to evaporate before necessity.

CHAPTER VII.

LIMITATIONS UPON NATIONAL POWERS: THE SEPARATION OF

52. Nature of the Theory.

POWERS.

The doctrine of separation of powers means that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of government ought to be exercised by separate and independent departments.

"It is also essential," says the Supreme Court, "to the successful working of the system that the persons intrusted with power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to the others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no others." 1 The doctrine is implied by three clauses of the Constitution:

All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." (Art. I, sec. 1.)

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." (Art. II, sec. 1.)

"The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." (Art. III, sec. 1.)

cl. 12) is wholly distinct from the power over the militia and is not limited by the state's right to its militia. (Selective Draft Cases, 245 U. S. 366.) See Wright, Military Administration, Report of Efficiency and Economy Committee of Illinois, 1915, p. 903.

103 Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. 238 (1863), Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law, p. 2316. Lowrie, J., supported by Justices Woodward and Thompson, with Justices Strong and Read in dissent, granted a preliminary injunction on November 9, 1863. On December 12, 1863, Justice Lowrie's term expired. He was succeeded by Justice Agnew, who sided with the two former dissenting justices, thus making Justice Strong's opinion dissolving the injunction the opinion of the court.

104 Selective Draft Cases, 245 U. S. 366; Sutherland, op. cit., p. 108.

1 Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168. On impossibility of so defining the functions of the departments as to make an actually complete separation, see Goodnow, The Principles of the Administrative Law of U. S., N. Y., 1905, p. 26, and Willoughby, op. cit., p. 1262.

It will be noticed that the Congress is vested merely with "all legislative powers herein granted" while the President and the courts are vested respectively with "the executive power" and "the judicial power of the United States." The mere fact that a power is legislative in character does not, therefore, indicate its possession by Congress unless it is specifically granted to that body elsewhere in the Constitution. It has been urged, however, that all powers by nature executive belong inherently to the President2 and all powers by nature judicial to the courts. Doubtless certain inherent executive and judicial powers and privileges, necessary for the functioning of the organ, and for the preservation of its independence, such as the executive power to remove officials* and the judicial power to punish for contempts, exist aside from express delegation, but so also do inherent legislative powers, such as the power to subpoena witnesses necessary to give information essential to intelligent legislation. The general vesting of executive and judicial power cannot, therefore, be made the basis of powers other than essentially inherent power. To do so would render the subsequent express delegations of power to the President and the courts useless verbiage. Expressis unius exclusis alteris applies to the executive and judicial powers as well as the legislative."

Aside, therefore, from its assurance of certain necessary and inherent powers to each department, the theory of separation of

2 Hamilton, "Pacificus" Letter, June 29, 1793, and Roosevelt, Autobiography, pp. 388-389, quoted, Corwin, The President's Control of Foreign Relations, pp. 11, 168. See also infra, sec. 92.

3 Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 81-83, Corwin, op. cit., p. 31.

4 Parsons v. U. S., 167 U. S. 324; Willoughby, op. cit., pp. 1181-1184, and Congressional debate of 1789 on the question there cited. Infra, sec. 230. The removal power is not, however, regarded as an inherent executive power in the states. Goodnow, op. cit., p. 311.

5 In re Debs, 158 U. S. 595; Carter v. Va., 96 Va. 791; Willoughby, op. cit., pp. 1268-1270; J. P. Hall, Constitutional Law, p. 19.

6 Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168; In re Chapman, 166′ U. S. 661; Willoughby, op. cit., p. 1272.

7 See Taft, Our Chief Magistrate, pp. 73, 140, 144; Senate debate of 1831 quoted Corwin, op. cit., p. 59; and infra, sec. 92.