Acts or resolutions of Congress become effective upon signature by the President, or if passed over his veto, upon signature by the Clerk of the last House of Congress to act.12 Amendments to the Federal Constitution become effective upon proclamation by the Secretary of State.13 Treaties become effective as domestic law upon proclamation by the President, but as between nations. they are effective from signature if ratifications are subsequently exchanged. Only in the case of treaties is there any official proclamation by the President, yet all of these instruments, declared supreme law by article VI of the Constitution, are subject to international cognizance immediately upon becoming effective.15 Foreign nations, in fact, always taken cognizance of acts of Congress deemed to be in violation of their rights under international law or treaty as did China of the exclusion acts16 and Great Britain 12 Rev. Stat., sec. 204, amended Dec. 28, 1874, 18 Stat., 294, sec. 2, Comp. Stat., sec. 302, and supra, note 9. The Secretary of State is required to furnish copies of valid resolutions and acts of Congress and treaties to the Congressional Printer as soon as possible" after they have become "law." Rev. Stat., sec. 308.

13 Rev. Stat., sec. 205, Comp. Stat., sec. 303.

14 Rev. Stat., sec. 210, Comp. Stat., sec. 308. Treaties must be published in one newspaper in the District of Columbia to be designated by the Secretary of State, Act July 31, 1876, 19 Stat., 105, Comp. Stat., sec. 7184. "It is undoubtedly true as a principle of international law, that, as respects the rights of either government under it, a treaty is considered as concluded and binding from the date of its signature. In this regard the exchange of ratifications has a retroactive effect, confirming the treaty from its date. (Wheat, Int. Law, by Dana, 336.) But a different rule prevails where the treaty operates on individual rights. . . . In so far as it affects them it is not considered as concluded until there is an exchange of ratifications. . . . In this country a treaty is something more than a contract, for the federal constitution declares it to be the law of the land. If so, before it can become a law, the Senate, in whom rests the authority to ratify it, must agree to it. But the Senate are not required to adopt or reject it as a whole, but may modify or amend it, as was done with the Treaty under consideration. As the individual citizen, on whose rights of property it operates, has no means of knowing anything of it while before the Senate, it would be wrong in principle to hold him bound by it, as the law of the land, until it was ratified and proclaimed." Haver v. Yaker, 9 Wall., 32.

15 Infra, sec. 22.

10 Chinese Protests against Act of Oct. 1, 1888, see U. S. For. Rel., 1889, 115-150, Ibid., 1890, 177, 206, 210-219, 228-230; against Act of May 5, 1892, see Ibid., 1892, 106, 118, 119, 123, 126, 134–138, 145, 147–155, 158, cited Moore, Digest, 4: 198, 202.

of the Panama Canal tolls act of 1911.17 In the latter case Secretary of State Knox maintained that such protest was not proper until action under the statute had actually impaired British rights or as least until executive proclamation to give effect to the statute had issued but his view does not seem to have been accepted. The British ambassador replied: 18

"His Majesty's government feel bound to express their dissent. They conceive that international law or usage does not support the doctrine that the passing of a statute in contravention of a treaty right affords no ground of complaint for the infraction of that right, and that the nation which holds that its treaty rights have been so infringed or brought into question by a denial that they exist, must, before protesting and seeking a means of determining the point at issue, wait until some further action violating those rights in a concrete instance has been taken."

So also foreign nations enjoying most favored nation commercial privileges by treaty with the United States, have always applied for the advantages assured by such treaties upon the taking effect of any act or treaty which gives a favor to other nations. Thus Germany and other countries applied under most favored nation clauses for a reduction of the tonnage dues on their vessels upon passage of the act of 1884 which reduced tonnage dues upon vessels from specified ports in the western hemisphere,19 and Switzerland gained recognition of her claim for an application of the most favored nation clause in her treaty of 1855 upon the conclusion of a treaty in 1898 by which the United States had given commercial favors to France.20

16. Legislative Expressions of Opinion not of International Cog

nizance.

Though all acts, prima facie law, are subject to international cognizance without transmission through the President, whether they originate in state constitutional or legislative provisions or in national constitutional, legislative or treaty provisions, this is not

17 Mr. Innes, Chargé d'Affaires of Great Britain, to Secretary of State Knox, July 8 and Aug. 27, 1912, Diplomatic History of the Panama Canal, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Doc., No. 474, pp. 82-83.

18 Ibid., p. 101.

19 Report of Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to the President, Jan. 14, 1889, 50 Cong., 2d Sess., H. Ex. Doc., No. 74, Moore, Digest, 5: 289.

20 Moore, Digest, 5: 283-285.

true of legislative resolutions not law. Thus resolutions of a single house of congress or concurrent resolutions not submitted to the President are not law according to the Constitution and have not been noticed by foreign nations.21 This has been expressly held by the courts with reference to such resolutions purporting to interpret treaties.22 Thus the houses of Congress have been able to pass resolutions on such questions as Irish independence without

21 Secretary of State Seward wrote Mr. Dayton, the minister to France, with reference to a House Resolution declaring "that it does not accord with the policy of the United States to acknowledge a monarchical government erected on the ruins of any Republican government in America, under the auspices of any European power," reference being to the Maximilian government in Mexico: "This is a practical and purely Executive question, and the decision of it constitutionally belongs not to the House of Representatives, nor even to Congress, but to the President of the United States. ... While the President receives the declaration of the House of Representatives with the profound respect to which it is entitled, as an exposition of its sentiments upon a grave and important subject, he directs that you inform the government of France that he does not at present contemplate any departure from the policy which this government has hitherto pursued in regard to the war which exists between France and Mexico. It is hardly necessary to say that the proceeding of the House of Representatives was adopted upon suggestions arising within itself, and not upon any communication of the Executive department; and that the French Government would be seasonably appraised of any change of policy upon this subject which the President might at any future time think it proper to adopt." Corwin, op. cit., p. 42, citing McPherson's History of the Rebellion, pp. 349-350.

22" There is," said the Supreme Court in refusing to apply an amendment to which the Indians had not consented, "something which shocks the conscience in the idea that a treaty can be put forth as embodying the terms of an arrangement with a foreign power or an Indian tribe, a material provision of which is unknown to one of the contracting parties, and is kept in the background to be used by the other only when the exigency of a particular case may demand it." N. Y. Indians v. U. S., 170 U. S. 1 (1898). The Supreme Court said in reference to a joint resolution passed by a majority of the Senate stating the purpose of the Senate in ratifying the treaty annexing the Philippines: "We need not consider the force and effect of a resolution of this sort. . . . The meaning of the treaty cannot be controlled by subsequent explanations of some of those who may have voted to ratify it." Justice Brown concurring said: "It cannot be regarded as part of the treaty since it received neither the approval of the President nor the consent of the other contracting power." Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S., 183 U. S. 176 (1901), Moore, Digest, 5: 210.

arousing international controversy.23 So also a concurrent resolution could not be made effective to denounce a treaty. The effort of the Senate to incorporate a reservation in the Peace treaty of 1919 giving a concurrent resolution, this effect would have proved futile. The treaty, not being able to amend the Constitution, could not make a concurrent resolution a law of either international or domestic effect.24

17. Self-Constituted Missions Forbidden.

To prevent private negotiations with foreign nations, the Logan Act of 1799 was passed, after the attempt to make peace with France of the self-constituted mission of Dr. George Logan, a Philadelphia Quaker, had annoyed the government. The statute provides a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment up to six months for every citizen of the United States: 25

'Who without the permission or authority of the government, directly or indirectly, commences or carries on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government, or an officer or agent thereof, with an intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the government of the United States; and every person, being a citizen of, or resident within the United States, and not duly authorized, who counsels, advises or assists in any such correspondence with such intent."

This act expressly excepts application by American citizens to foreign government for redress of injuries, and in general presentation of claims by an individual is not considered a violation of the principle that the representative organs of government communicate officially only with the representative organs of other governments. However, in practice the department of state in the United States and the foreign office in other states generally refuse to consider claims not officially presented by the claimant's government.26

23 See House Resolution on Ireland, March 4, 1919, Senate Resolution, June 6, 1919, and proposed 15th reservation to the Treaty of Versailles, passed by a majority of the Senate March 18, 1920.

24 Infra, sec. 62.

25 Rev. Stat., sec. 5335, Moore, Digest, 4: 449.

26 Moore, Digest, 6: 607-610, supra, note 3.

18. Missions of De Facto Governments Unofficially Received.

27

One other exception is recognized in the unofficial reception of agents of belligerent communities. Thus the British foreign. Secretary communicated unofficially with Mason and Slidell, the Confederate emissaries in England, and the President of the United States communicated unofficially with representatives from South Africa after the proclamation of annexation by Great Britain had made the status of that country one of rebellion.2 Such unofficial communication with representatives of de facto governments is justified by the right of foreign states to take measures for protecting their citizens in a region outside the actual control of the de jure government, and is not a real exception to the rule.20

B. All Acts of the President Subject to International

Cognizance.

19. Communications of the President to Congress:

The President's representative character also implies that foreign nations are entitled to take cognizance of all his official utterances whether communicated by diplomatic note, public proclamation or public communication to Congress. Presidents have always maintained that communications of the latter character are not subject to the cognizance of foreign states, but in fact they have often been noticed, as when France protested against the threatening language of President Jackson's message of December, 1834, suggesting reprisals 30 and Austria protested against President Taylor's comments on Kossuth's revolution of 1848.31 In the 27 Moore, Digest, 1: 209.

28 The proclamation of annexation was issued July 1, 1900. On May 21 and 22, 1900, the South African delegates were received by the Department of State and President McKinley, and they were received by President Roosevelt on March 14, 1902. The war ended with the treaty of Vereeniging, May 31, 1902. Moore, Digest, 1: 213.

29 See Earl Russell, British Foreign Secretary, to Mr. Adams, U. S. Minister, Nov. 26, Moore, Digest, 1: 209.

30 Moore, Digest, 7: 124-125.

31" The publicity which has been given to that document has placed the Imperial Government under the necessity of entering a formal protest, through it's official representatives, against the proceedings of the American