OCR Text |
Show From the standpoint of policy there is obviously a vast difference be- tween interstate compacts and compacts between individual states and foreign powers., Where compacts among the states would serve any useful purpose- ^-4 it is believed that no 'serious objection could be urged against them* The only question would be whether an inter-state agreement offered the best solution of a particular problem ^ the answer depending upon the special circumstances c One may reasonably doubt whether, in most cases, the inter-state compact would accomplish the desired end more satisfactorily than uniform legislative enactments passed as a result of an investigation conducted by commissioners appointed by the states concerned. Irrespective of any advantages or dis- advantages that may result from compacts among the states however^ it is believed that there are fatal objections to any system of compacts or agree- ments between the individual states and foreign powers * Of this latter class of agreements; history furnishes no example, and one may express surprise at the enthusiasm with which they have recently been advocated as the only solution of many of our foreign problems ^ The absence of agreements between individual states of "bably be reluctant to declare an agreement, denominated by Congress as a compact, to be a "treaty"' and thus unconstitutional Both points of view are perhaps plausible, but it is evident that the practical difficulty of inducing Congress to consent to agreements of real importance renders discussion of thei: constitutionality rather academic No state has ever yet attempted to share the federal prerogative, and when the interests of a considerable part of the country call for agreements with a foreign power covering a certain subject., "that subject would seem to come within the field restricted to the central government; 0 The tendency of the courts to construe broadly the federal treaty-making power seems to strengthen this view. See notes (1919) 33 Harv, Lc Rev& 281 $ Comment a (1920) 29 Yale Law Journal, Ife Missouri v0 Hal land (1920) 252 U3 S, 1+16, 1*0 Sup. Ct« 3&2o No.treaty has ever been declared unconsitutional by any court, state or federalo ^See the remarks of Professor Ernst Freund at p.j 6l of the Report* supra note 1« ^On page3 27 and 28 of the Report, aupra note 1, it is asserted "that: "„ . 0 it is therefore absolutely necessary, for the future international self- respect of this country, that this power (of the states to make compacts with foreign powers) should be promptly exercised by the leading commercial States of the United States*" The accuracy of this statement may be questioned* It is submitted that the treaty-making power of the United States is open to a much broader and more effective use than appears to be supposed, and that it is altogether adequate to enable this country to "share in world legislation1 to such an extent as is desirable. See 5 Moore, International Law Digest (1906) sscc 736; 2 Hyde, International Law (1922) sees, U95«502o Concerning the scope of the federal powor to make treaties., the United States Supreme Court has saids "That the treaty power extends to all proper subjects of negotiatiom between our government and the governments of other nations, Is clear • «. * o The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in t«rms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument againsi the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the (638) |