Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-fb4gq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:42:52.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are the Liquor Treaties Self-Executing?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Edwin D. Dickinson
Edwin D. Dickinson*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an earlier issue of this Journal the writer called attention to some of the questions raised by the recent liquor treaties and among them to the question whether legislation is required to make Article II of the treaties effective.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , July 1926 , pp. 444 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1926

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See this JOURNAL, Vol. 20, pp. I l l , 113-114.

2 See this JOURNAL, Vol. 20, pp. 340, 342-343.

3 43 Stat. L. 1761; also this JOURNAL, Supplement, Vol. 18, p. 127.444

4 (1924) 3 F. (2d) 145.

5 (1925) 5 P. (2d) 838. See 24 Michigan Law Eeview, 281.

6 5 F. (2d) 838, 845.

7 (1925) 7 F. (2d) 488, 490.

8 United States v. The Sagatind (1925), 8 F. (2d) 788.

9 April 5, 1926. Unreported at the time of writing. Since reported in 11 F. (2d) 673.

10 VI, 2.

11 I I I , ii, 1.

12 Annals, 6th Cong., 614; Crandall, Treaties, 2d ed., 230.

13 (1801) 1 Cr. 103.

14 l C r . 103, 110.

15 2 Malloy, Treaties, 1651, 1654

16 (1829) 2 Pet. 253, 314. See Pollard v. Kibbe (1840), 14 Pet. 353, 415; Head Money Cases (1884), 112 U. S. 580, 598; Maiorano v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. (1909), 213 U. S. 268, 272; 38 Cyc. Law and Proc. 961, 972. "Although a treaty is primarily a contract between nations it operates by virtue of Article VI of the Constitution as a municipal law and so far as it prescribes a rule by which rights of individuals under it may be determined the courts look to the treaty as they would to a statute for a rule of decision."Crandall, op. cit., 160.

17 (1833) 7 Pet. 51.

18 See Little v. Watson (1850), 32 Me. 214; Puget Sound Agricultural Co. v. Pierce County (1861), 1 Wash. Terr. 159.

19 Op. cit., 162.

20 See the treaty with Russia of April 17, 1824, Art. V (2 Malloy, Treaties, 1512, 1513), and the Act of 1828 (4 Stat. L. 276); the Convention for the Protection of Submarine Cables of March 14, 1884, Art. XII (24 Stat. L. 989, 996), and the Act of 1888 (25 Stat. L. 41); the Convention for the Protection of Fur Seals of Dec. 14,1911, Art. VI (37 Stat. L. 1542), and the Act of 1912 (37 Stat. L. 449); the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds of August 16, 1916, Art. VIII (39 Stat. L. 1702), and the Act of 1918 (40 Stat. L. 755), sustained in Missouri v. Holland (1920), 252 U. S. 416.

21 See the treaty with Spain of Feb. 22, 1819, Art. IX (2 Malloy, Treaties, 1651, 1655), and Humphrey's Adm'x v. United States, Devereux's Court of Claims Reports, 164.

22 See Crandall, op. cti., 164-182; Turner v. American Baptist Missionary Union (1852), 5 McL. 344, 347.

23 Crandall, op. cit, 183-199.

24 See 4 Stat. L. 359; In re Sheazle (1845), 21 Fed. Cas. 1214,1217; 9 Stat. L. 78; 2 Moore, Digest, 298; 9 Stat. L. 175; Crandall, op. cit., 233 ff.

25 United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co. (1906), 148 Fed. 31, (1907) 155 Fed. 842.

26 155 Fed. 842, 845.

27 Crandall, op. cit., 200 ff.

28 Ware v. Hylton (1796), 3 Dall. 199; Hauenstein v. Lynham (1879), 100 U. S. 483;Asakura v. City of Seattle (1924), 265 U. S. 332; Crandall, op. cit, 153-160.

29 Crandall, op. cit., 161.

30 Ibid., 235.

31 Chew Heong v. United States (1884), 112 U. S. 536.

32 See United States v. Robins (1799), 27 Fed. Cas. 825; In re Sheazle (1845), 21 Fed. Cas.1214; In re Metzger (1847), 17 Fed. Cas. 232; In the Matter of Metzger (1847), 5 How. 176.Cf. In the Matter of Metzger (1847), 1 Barb. 248. The cases cited arose before the Act of 1848, in 9 Stat. L. 302. See also United States v. Rauscher (1886), 119 U. S. 407, 419; Charlton v. Kelly (1913), 229 U. S. 447, 464.

33 Wright, Control of American Foreign Relations, 355; also this JOURNAL, Vol. 12, pp. 64, 83.

34 See 36 Harvard Law Review, 609.

35 Stat. L. 1225.

36 Ibid., 531.

37 Stat. L. 29.

38 Ibid., 668.

39 U. S. 188.

40 U. S. 188, 196.

41 Query: Will the treaties lapse under Article VI if the decision in United States v. The Sagalind, supra, is approved and Congress fails to act?

42 See Crocker, The Extent of the Marginal Sea (1919); Paulus, "La mer territoriale," Revue de Droit International, 3d series, V, 397 (1924); Wilson, Les eaux adjacentes aux territoires des etats (1925); and this JOURNAL, Vol. 20, pp. 340, 341-2.