OCR Text |
Show -18- customs within the limits permitted by the federal constitution.^ To such ex- tent the decisions of the Supreme Court may be superseded, just as the law announced by the Court may be changed by an act of Congress in respect to any matter within its legislative control. A permissible federal treaty with a foreign nation while in force suspends all prior inconsistent decisions and statutes, both state and federal, and all existing compacts between the States so far as necessary to make the federal treaty effective.^! But by iron logic, however awkward in diplomacy, a sub- sequent act of Congress abrogates inconsistent previsions of prior treaties be- tween the United States and foreign nations without the consent of the latter, and without even the courtesy of notice.42 For' all of these reasons, decisions of the United States Supreme Court do not of necessity fix the status of sovereign rights in American waters def- initely and finally. Such decisions, unless limited to the mere interpretation of the Federal constitution, may subsequently be modified or even abrogated by the development of international law and also by political action of either the federal government or the States under the co-ordinate provisions of the constitution. Besides, the principles supporting the usual finality of Supreme Court decisions in private litigation may not apply with equal force and Ct. 409, 413, 65 L. Ed. 847, 855 (1921), holds that the United States is not bound by a. decision in a suit to which it is not a party. This was approved in Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574, 591, 42 Sup. Ct, 406, 413, 66 L. Ed. 771, 779 (1922) • The same rule applies to the States * 4°In Poole v. Fleeger's Lessee, 11 Pet. (U.S.) 185, 209, 9 L. Ed. 680, 690 and 955 (1837), it was declared that a boundary compact between Kentucky and Tennessee, made with the consent of Congress, must be upheld as ". . • a part of the general rights of sovereignty, belonging to independent nations. • ? (which) . . . equally belong to the States of this Union . . « (because not) . • • surrendered under the Constitution of the United States." (Italics added); see also, Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. (U.S.) 1, 5 L. Ed. 547 (1823); Pennsylvania v, Wheeling & B. Bridge Co., 13 How. (U.S.) 518, 14. L. Ed. 249 (1851). Geofroy v. Riggs, 133- U. S. 258, 10 Sup. Ct. 295, 33 L. Ed. 6i|2 (I89O); Trctt v. State of North Dakota, Ul N. D. 6ll+* 171 K. W. 827, U A.L.R* 1372 and ncte (1919); United States v. Lee Yen Tai, I85 U.S. 213, 22 Sup. Ct. 629, I4.6 L-. Ed. 878 (1902); J. Eibas y Hijo v. United States, 19U U.S* 3lij., 2l.j. Sup. Ct. 727, 48 L. Ed, 99J4. (1901+); Tfard v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 5CI4.J 16 Sup. Ct. IO76, 1+1 L. Ed. 2kk (I896); Neoly v. Henckle, 180 U.S. 109, 21 Sup. Ct. 302, I4.5 L. Ed. khe (1901). ^Thoiaas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 261+, 271, 18 Sup. Ct. 3I4G, 342, !j.2 L. Ed. 7^0, 7I4.3 (I898) , whore it is said: "It is well settled that an cot of Congress may supersede a prior treaty, and that any questions that may arise are beyond the sphere of judicial cognizance, and must be met by the political department of the Government." See also, The Head-Money Cases, 112 U.S. 58O, 5 Sup. Ct. 2I4.7, ¦ 26 L. Ed. 798 (1881+). The ot>llr;aticn of a sovereign contract rises no higher than the honor of the nation, which assumed it; and, until a very recent era, the only remody for its breach, was war to enforce its terms. |