« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
ing within its terms, become effective immediately on their conclusion or their proclamation.
With regard to the control of the foreign relations of the United States by the federal government, the question whether such control is exclusive or is divided with the state governments reaches down to the very foundations of our constitutional system and of the standing, unity and power of the United States among the nations of the world. In this relation the view that, in the international sphere, powers may be ascribed to the government of the United States on grounds of "sovereignty," and the view that all federal powers must be derived from the constitution either expressly or by implication, do not necessarily lead to contradictory results. Personally, I do not hesitate to avow the opinion that all foreign-intercourse power in the United States is conferred upon the national government by the constitution, either expressly or by implication. I am thus prepared to meet the partisans of "delegated powers" on their own ground, and in so doing am able to invoke the authority of an eminent judge who is not usually charged with recreancy to states' rights theories. I refer to Chief Justice Taney, who, in the case of Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Peters, 540, as early as 1840, declared: "All the powers which relate to our foreign intercourse are confided to the general government." If, said Taney, any power of that kind remained to the States, then every State of the Union must determine for itself the principles on which it would exercise the power, and there would in the end be "no restriction upon the power but the discretion and good feeling of each particular State." Nor did Taney stop here. While admitting, as he said, "that an affirmative grant of a power to the general government is not of itself a prohibition of the same power to the States, and that there are subjects over which the federal and state governments exercise concurrent jurisdiction," he yet declared: "But, where an authority is granted to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant, there the authority of the federal government is necessarily exclusive; and the same power can not be constitutionally exercised by the States." Such was the process of interpretation by which Taney reached the conclusion already quoted.
There is yet another question to which I feel obliged to advert, and that is the question of the President's power to use force in our foreign relations. By the constitution of the United States the power to declare war is vested in the Congress. Sometimes orators and writers speak of "recognizing the existence of a state of war," as if this differed from declaring war; but the co-existence of the two phrases may be ascribed to motives of political strategy rather than to any belief or supposition that they denoted different legal conceptions. In reality the word "war" comprehends two meanings. It denotes (1) acts of war, and (2) the international condition of things called a "state of war." Acts of war do not always or necessarily develop into the general international condition of things called a state of war, but they are nevertheless war and involve the "making" of war in a legal sense. The fact is notorious that in many instances hostilities or war de facto have long preceded the formal declaration of war, and that when the declaration was made it was regarded as relating back to the time when hostilities. began. As was shown by Lieut. Col. Maurice, of the British War Office, in his "Hostilities without Declaration of War," published in London in 1883, there were less than ten clear instances in the hundred and seventy-one years, from 1700 to 1870, inclusive, where a declaration of war preceded hostilities or the actual making of war. This served to kill the project then pending for the building of a tunnel under the English Channel between Great Britain and France.
There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in the Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, so long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace. I will take the specific case which the author of the essay mentions of the capture and occupation of Vera Cruz in April, 1914, by the forces of the United States. The author discusses the question whether
this was to be considered as an act of war or as "making war." Sometimes it is helpful to visualize a question by bringing it home to ourselves. Let us suppose that some foreign power, for instance, Great Britain, or France, or Germany, feeling dissatisfied with the form of apology tendered by us for a temporary interference the week before with the movements of one of its consular or naval officers in the United States, should by military force attack and seize the port and city of Philadelphia, take control of Broad Street station and the Pennsylvania railroad, set up a military administration at the City Hall, and, using as a seat of custom the historic edifice (Independence Hall) in which we are now assembled, proceed to collect national duties and local revenues. How would this strike us? Should we gently dream that the power committing these acts of hostility was exemplifying the arts and processes of peace? In reality an affirmative answer would confound all our conceptions, moral as well as legal. Such acts would necessarily strike a Frenchman, a German, a Japanese, a Mexican, or any other human being, lawyer or layman, learned or unlearned, at home, in the same way, as acts of war, and he would not be wrong. The Greytown incident, which has often been cited to prove that such a proceeding would not be war or an act of war, can not properly be invoked as a precedent, since Greytown was a community claiming to exist outside the bounds of any recognized state or political entity, and the legality of the action taken against it was defended by President Pierce and Secretary Marcy on that express ground. It should also be superfluous to remark that the fact that the government of the United States, although it had continued to maintain diplomatic intercourse with the Huerta government, had not formally recognized it, is altogether irrelevant. One nation can not divest another of its rights and immunities as an independent state by withholding formal recognition from its government.
There is yet another matter to which I venture to advert, and that is the enormous increase within the past six or seven years of the number of publications relating to international affairs. The notoriously high cost of printing does not seem to have operated as a check on what may in industrial phrase be called the output. But
this perhaps is not the worst aspect of the matter. A vast deal of what has been published is scientifically worthless, and, to uncritical readers, harmful. It may therefore be said that one of the most serious questions that now confronts an author is that of how to treat, or whether to cite as authority, titularly pertinent publications which, although they may be found on the shelves and in the catalogues of our larger libraries, are incompetently written and essentially misleading. Such a condition of things increases an author's burdens, even though he be inclined, as I personally think he should be, to apply a proscriptive rule, and to refrain from citing such publications, unless for correction or reproof.
In conclusion, I desire again to congratulate the author of the Crowned Essay on the results of his work, and I have great pleasure in presenting to him the substantial token of his success.
The Prize of two thousand dollars was handed to the successful author by the President.
The John Scott Medals for "Useful Inventions were presented by the Board of City Trusts on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, Trustee, to Mr. C. E. K. Mees, of Rochester, N. Y.; Hon. James Hartness, Governor of Vermont; Dr. Hideyo Noguchi, of the Rockefeller Institute, New York, and Dr. E. C. Kendall, of the Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minn.
The following papers were read:
Symposium on Atomic Structure:
General Statement of the Problem," by David L. Webster,
"X-Ray Spectra," by William Duane, Professor of Bio-
"X-Ray Emission," by Bergen Davis, Professor of Physics, Columbia University.
"Chemical Evidence Concerning Atomic Structure," by Gilbert N. Lewis, Ph.D., Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of California.
The above papers were discussed by Professors Webster, Snyder and G. N. Lewis.
Stated Meeting, May 6, 1921.
WILLIAM B. SCOTT, Sc.D., LL.D., President, in the Chair.
Mr. Charles J. Rhoads, a newly elected member, subscribed the Laws and was admitted into the Society.
Letters accepting membership were received from:
Benjamin M. Duggar, A.M., Ph.D., St. Louis.
Hideyo Noguchi, M.D., New York.
Thomas B. Osborne, Ph.D., Sc.D., New Haven.
Charles J. Rhoads, A.B., Philadelphia.
David White, B.S., Washington.
The following letter was read from Miss Elizabeth S. Kite, of Philadelphia, in reference to the confusion regarding the names of the brothers Gérard:
"May I call attention to an error found in the Index to the MS. Department of the American Philosophical Society, as well as in that of the MS. Department of the Library of Congress, regarding the names of the brothers Gérard, one of whom, Conrad Alexandre Gérard, was the accredited Minister of France to America in 1778, and the other, Joseph Mathias Gérard de Raynevalle, occupied the post of Secretary to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Comte de Vergennes.
"The confusion seems to be due to a misunderstanding on the part of the author of that excellent work, 'New Material for the History of the American Revolution.' The writer, John Durand, took this material in great part from the Gérard correspondence to be found in the Archives of Foreign Affairs in Paris. In the volumes preserved there both signatures continually recur, since the replies to the letters from the French Minister in America were written and signed by his brother, the Secretary of Vergennes, and