treaty with Prussia is valid and aliens, subject to Prussia

are protected by its provisions.

1

Whether the framers of the Constitution realized

the extent of power being granted the treaty-making authorities, is not a question to be discussed within the scope of this paper but they undoubtedly realized the absolute necessity of having it exercised by the Federal government alone or they would not have surrendered every state right in its participation. In this paper the attempt has been

made to show what is the general attitude of courts, and

the opinions of men familiar with our form of government and the laws of our land, on the validity and scope of treaties of the United States.

Considering the Californian situation in the light it seems

of the views as expressed throughout this paper, clear that the treaty-making power, in the proper exercise of its function, could negotiate new treaties with the aggreived foreign nations guaranteeing them the privileges they have been deprived of by state and municipal legislation and the treaty would be upheld as "the law of the land" before which the states would be helpless. What occasion would provoke such action on the part of the Federal government is

difficult to say and is only a matter of speculation, but such an occasion can easily be conceived. With this knowledge, on the part of the state, that its legislation regulating or discriminating against the alien within its borders is subject to and may be nullified by the treaty-making power will cause due deliberation before the passage of such regulation, should there be any fear of this action by the treaty-making power of the Federal government.

Possession of power does not necessarily mean that

it will be abused. In our form of government it needs must

be that much must be left to discretion somewhere and it is

only fair to give the benefit of the doubt to the treatymaking power that it will not be arbitrarily used. This idea is well expressed by Mr. Justice Johnson in the case of Anderson v. Dunn1, when he says: "The idea is utopian that government can exist without leaving the exercise of discretion somewhere. Public security against the abuse of such discretion must rest on responsibility, and stated appeals to public opinion. people, and public functionaries, at short intervals, deposits it at the feet of the people, to be resumed again only at their will, individual fears may be alarmed by the monsters of imagination, but individual liberty can be in

Where all power is derived from the

1. 6 Wheat.204