12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
Beginning with participation in the Cape Spartel Light Convention of May 31, 1865, the United States has become a party to about a hundred multipartite administrative treaties, including revisions and amendments of the same. The number of parties to a treaty varies with the treaty, from three or four, as in the case of the Fur Seals Convention of July 7, 1911, to ninety, as in the case of the Universal Postal Convention concluded at Cairo, March 20, 1934. The agreements, usually technical in character, deal with a variety of humanitarian, economic, and cultural subjects, ranging from agriculture to whales. Many of these agreements, such as those dealing with postal matters, publicity of customs documents, and publication of customs tariffs, are primarily of concern to administrative services.
1 14 Stat. 679, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 245.
2 Complete list of treaties to 1936 in Reiff, “The United States and International Administrative Unions,” International Conciliation, No. 332, Sept. 1937, pp. 629-631. Several have been perfected since then; others are in process of being perfected. For the period since 1936, see Treaty Information Bulletin to June, 1939, and since then, the Department of State Bulletin; also, List of Treaties Submitted to the Senate 1936 (State Department Publication No. 966) and the annual lists since then. For an excellent description of the origins and functions of these administrative organizations and brief accounts of the relation of the United States thereto, see L. F. Schmeckebier, International Organizations in which the United States Participates (Washington, D. C., Brookings Institution, 1935).
3 A Monetary Stabilization Arrangement concluded by the United States, Great Britain, and France, announced on September 25, 1936 (Treaty Information Bulletin, No. 84, Sept. 1936, pp. 15–17), has not yet been published as a formal executive agreement in that series. Belgium, The Netherlands, and Switzerland subsequently indicated their cooperation with this tripartite arrangement (ibid., No. 87, Dec. 1936, pp. 15-17).
4 37 Stat. 1542, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 564.
5 49 Stat. 2741; also Post Office Print.
6 Up to 1936 there were nineteen such agreements, the first being that concluded at Berne, Oct. 9,1874, establishing a General Postal Union, 19 Stat. 577. See list cited supra, note 2.
7 Signed May 3, 1923, Santiago de Chile, 44 Stat. 2547, U. S. T. S., No. 753.
8 Signed July 5, 1890, Brussels, 26 Stat. 1518, U. S. T. S., No. 384.
9 Signed Sept. 23, 1910, Brussels, 37 Stat. 1658, U. S. T. S., No. 576.
10 Concluded at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1924, 51 Stat. 233, U. S. T. S., No. 931.
11 Beginning with that signed at Berlin, Nov. 3, 1906, 37 Stat. 1565, U. S. T. S., No. 568. For full list see note 2 supra.
12 Signed May 31, 1929, at London, 50 Stat. 1121, U. S. T. S., No. 910.
13 Beginning with that signed Dec. 3, 1903, at Paris, open to all governments, 35 Stat. 1770, U. S. T. S., No. 466; and that signed Oct. 14, 1905, at Washington, 35 Stat. 2094, U. S. T. S., No. 518, open to the American Republics. See list cited supra, note 2.
14 Beginning with that signed March 20,1883, at Paris, 25 Stat. 1372, U. S. T. S., No. 379, open to all governments; and that signed Aug. 20,1910, at Buenos Aires, 38 Stat. 1811, U. S. T. S., No. 595, open to the American Republics.
15 Hudson, M. O., International Legislation (6 vols., Washington, 1931-1937)Google Scholar.
16 In the period 1864-1914, thirty-seven (including six postal); 1919-1935, nearly sixty (including at least thirteen postal).
17 Cited supra, note 1.
18 At Paris, 24 Stat. 989; 25 ibid., 1424, 1425; U. S. T. S., Nos. 380, 380–1, 380–2, 380–3.
19 At London, 49 Stat. 3787, Exec. Agr. Ser., No. 80.
20 At Buenos Aires, 51 Stat. 152, U. S. T. S., No. 927.
21 Nov. 6, 1925, The Hague, 47 Stat. 1789, U. S. T. S., No. 834.
22 Supra, note 12.
23 Signed Dec. 9, 1932, at Madrid, 49 Stat. 2391, U. S. T. S., No. 867.
24 Cited supra, note 5.
25 Cf. Ladas, S. P., International Protection of Industrial Property (Cambridge, 1930), p. 150 Google Scholar.
26 E.g., Art. 12 of the Convention on the Protection of Submarine Cables, cited supra, note 18. About twelve others of these treaties contain such stipulations.
27 E.g., Art. 4 of the Agreement on Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions, etc., Geneva, Nov. 8,1927, 46 Stat. 2461, U. S. T. S., No. 811; and Art. 9 of the Telecommunications Agreement of 1932, supra, note 23. The vast majority of these treaties either require the taking of “necessary measures” or leave the matter of the mode of enforcement to the good judgment of the parties.
28 See comment on Pacta sunt servanda, in Law of Treaties, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 29, (1935), p. 977 ff.; also, Briggs, H. W., The Law of Nations (New York, 1938), Editor’s Note, pp. 432, 434Google Scholar.
29 Cf. Starke, J. G., “The Convention of 1936 for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs,” this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 31 Google Scholar; and LeRoy, H. S., “Treaty Regulation of International Radio and Short Wave Broadcasting,” ibid., Vol. 32 (1938), p. 719 Google Scholar.
30 Cf. White, L. D., Introduction to the Study of Public Administration (New York, 1939)Google Scholar.
31 Bipartite agreements are frequently inadequate. See discussion in Reiff, loc. cit., pp. 645-650.
32 At first called General Postal Union. Report of the Postmaster General, 1862, p. 6, and its appendix No. 10, pp. 48–49; Reiff, loc. cit., p. 638; Sly, J. F., “The Genesis of the U. P. U.,” International Conciliation, No. 233, Oct. 1927 Google Scholar.
33 Report of the Committee Appointed by the Philippine Commission to Investigate the Use of Opium and the Traffic Therein, etc. (War Department, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1905), and other works cited in Reiff, loc. cit., p. 639, as well as the Annual Reports on Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs (U. S. Treasury Dept.), 1926 ff.
34 Cf. Stewart, I., “The International Radiotelegraph Conference of Washington,” this Journal, Vol. 22 (1928), p. 28 Google Scholar.
35 See annual Reports of the Surgeon General of the United States, 1908 ff.
36 And other special reports of the same agencies as well as the regular annual reports of other agencies such as the Smithsonian Institution (in charge of the International Exchange Service), the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the Department of Commerce, etc.
37 Supra, note 32.
38 Infra, note 136.
39 Reiff, The United States and Multipartite Administrative Treaties (Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1934), Chs. 8, 9.
40 E.g., the report of the commission of three appointed by the President in pursuance of an Act of Congress of July 4, 1898, 30 Stat. 431, to revise the statutes on patents, trademarks, etc., in so far as they related to extant treaty obligations of the United States. Report, Nov. 27, 1900, 56th Cong., 2d Sess., S. Doc. No. 20. For a complete detailed picture of the rôle of the administrator, as well as of other aspects of the enforcing process, resort must be had to hundreds of special departmental reports, collections of rules and regulations, statutes, Congressional hearings, reports, and documents, messages of the President, the diplomatic correspondence, proceedings of the international conferences and reports of the international agencies, etc. See Schmeckebier, op. cit., for very serviceable bibliographies.
41 25 Stat. 41.
42 Supra, note 18.
43 49 Stat. 1246.
44 49 Stat. 3079, U. S. T. S., No. 880.
45 U. S. Code, 1934 Ed., Tit. 46, Secs. 280, 569, 666, 667, 671, carrying forward statutory provisions of 1840, 1872, and 1886 relating to whaling vessels and seamen; Tit. 26, Sec. 999a, based on acts of 1932 and 1934 relating to a processing tax on whale oil.
46 Two other groups should be noted in passing: (5) Ancillary legislation. Thus, though the Universal Postal Conventions from the beginning have obligated parties to grant liberty of transit for foreign mails across their territory (Oct. 9,1874, Berne, 19 Stat. 577), there is no express requirement that such mails shall be protected during transit, though, undoubtedly, fulfillment of the spirit of the convention would require such protection. Nevertheless, an old provision of law, R. S. 4013 (1878), gives foreign mails so in transit the same protection as mails of the United States. Much legislation of this character exists; its pertinence to a treaty obligation may be immediate or very remote; and it may often not be distinguishable from what may be required by a reasonable implication from such an obligation. It may, on close analysis, be merely (6) “extra-treaty” legislation. On subject-matters with which certain of these treaties are concerned, e.g., safety of life at sea, sanitation, radio, labor, and the traffic in narcotics and in women and children, the United States has adopted legislation prescribing more exacting conduct or “higher” standards, operative within its jurisdiction, than those required by the corresponding treaty. For want of a better term, municipal law on the same subject as one of these international agreements, and neither essential nor ancillary to proper enforcement of the obligations contracted, may perhaps be called “extra-treaty,” without any implication that it contains standards “superior” or “inferior” to those established by the treaty.
47 21 Stat. 37; supplemented by Act of Feb. 15, 1893, 27 Stat. 451.
48 Supra, note 13.
49 23 Stat. 118, 119, sec. 3; Report, Comm. of Navig., 1911, p. 53.
50 Supra, note 11.
51 Act of Feb. 20, sec. 26, 1 Stat. 239.
52 E.g., Acts of March 3, 1851, par. 2, 9 Stat. 589; June 8, 1872, 17 Stat. 304, pars. 103, 197, 273.
53 35 Stat. 614.
54 Hamilton Wright, Report on the International Opium Commission, etc., Sen. Doc. 377, 61st Cong., 2d Sess. (1910), p. 54.
55 July 23,1912, 37 Stat. 199; and Aug. 13, 1912, 37 Stat. 304. Report, Comm, of Navig., 1912, p. 40; 1913, p. 28.
56 Supra, note 11.
57 44 Stat. 1162.
58 Supra, note 34.
59 Act of June 7,1924, 43 Stat. 604; Preliminary Conference on Oil Pollution of Navigable Waters, Washington. June 8–16, 1926 (Washington, D. C., 1926). No treaty has resulted as yet.
60 Act of May 20, 1926, 44 Stat. 568; the Pan American Convention on Commercial Aviation, Havana, Feb. 20, 1928, 48 Stat. 1901, U. S. T. S., No. 840.
61 Act of March 2, 1929, 45 Stat. 1492; the Load Line Convention of London, July 5, 1930, 47 Stat. 2228, U. S. T. S., No. 869.
62 Act of June 24, 1910, 36 Stat. 629; requiring ocean-going steamers carrying passengers to be equipped with radio apparatus; the unratified Safety of Life at Sea Convention of London, Jan. 20,1914, Report on Conference, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Doc. No. 463 (1914); Report, Comm, of Navig., 1910, p. 27.
63 Act of March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, par. 8 proviso; the Pan American Copyright Convention of Buenos Aires, Aug. 11, 1910, 38 Stat. 1785, U. S. T. S., No. 593.
64 49 Stat. 1207; also textually reprinted as part of “Related Papers” in U. S. T. S., No. 931, p. 36 ff.
65 51 Stat. 233, U. S. T. S., No. 931.
66 T. I. B., No. 79 (April, 1936), p. 19.
67 T. I. B., No. 92 (May, 1937), p. 23. Cf. “Related Papers” in U. S. T. S., No. 931, at pp. 34-36, 51.
68 Public No. 16 (H. R. 950), 76th Cong., 1st Sesa.
69 Public No. 188 (H. R. 3576), ibid.
70 Department of State Bulletin, July 29, 1939, pp. 86–89.
71 Purpose expressed in title: E.g., Act of Feb. 29, 1888, 25 Stat. 41, to carry into effect, the Submarine Cables Convention; Act of Aug. 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 499, also J. R. of June 22, 1916, 39 Stat. 236, the Fur Seals Convention of Washington, July 7, 1911, 37 Stat. 1542, U. S. T. S., No. 564; the Whaling Treaty Act of May 1, 1936, cited supra, notes 43, 44.
Purpose of part of an act expressed therein: E.g., Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 825, par. 6, the White Slavery Agreement of Paris, May 18, 1904, 35 Stat. 1979, U. S. T. S., No. 496; Act of Jan. 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 601, par. 54, assignment of a number of Congressional documents for international exchange.
72 Ladas, op. cit., p. 152.
73 Burdick, C. K., Law of the American Constitution (New York, 1922), pp. 73–74 Google Scholar; Crandall, S. B., Treaties: Their Making and Enforcement (Washington, 1916)Google Scholar, Ch. XI.
74 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199 (1796), early settled the question of the supremacy of treaties over acts of the States. Crandall, op. cit. Cf. U. S. v. Belmont, 301 U. S. 324, 331 (1937).
75 Foster v. Neilson, 2 Peters 253, 314 (1829).
76 The Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 109–110 (1801); Cook v. United States, 288 U. S. 102 (1933).
77 Language of C. J. Marshall in Foster v. Neilson, cited supra.
78 Ibid.
79 Ordinarily, of course, the execution is by the legislature, since it is the principal lawmaking agency, but, in principle, any other agency with capacity to create law and possessed of jurisdiction over the subject-matter can execute. In practice, the President and his chief subordinate executive officers regularly execute, by means of their rule-making powers, numerous provisions of these administrative agreements. Treaties providing for the concluding of subordinate regional or bipartite agreements in pursuance of the general scheme of the multipartite arrangement clearly invite the use of the President’s executive agreement-making power in execution of the treaty. See Art. 13 of the Madrid Telecommunications Convention, cited supra, note 23. Conventions of the postal, industrial property, sanitary, load-line, Pan American aviation, and several other unions regularly contain such provisions. Such agreements, made in pursuance of authority granted expressly by Congress or derived from Art. II of the Constitution, become law of the land, and, if self-executing, they can be applied in the same manner as an Act of Congress. Cotzhausen v. Nazro, 107 U. S. 215 (1882).
80 E.g., the first clause in Art. I of the General Pact for the Renunciation of War, Paris, Aug. 27, 1928, 46 Stat. 2343, U. S. T. S., No. 796, reading: “The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies …” Another type of non-self-executing provision is, of course, an “executed” one. These raise no special problems in enforcement with respect to the class of treaties under discussion.
81 Art. VIII of the treaty of 1819 with Spain held not self-executing in Foster v. Neilson, supra; after examination of the Spanish text, held self-executing in U. S. v. Percheman, 7 Peters öl (1833), Marshall rendering the opinion in both cases.
82 See Dickinson, E. D., “Are the Liquor Treaties Self-Executing?” this Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 444 Google Scholar, and the scholarly and exhaustive opinions in American Express Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Customs App. 146-185 (1913).
83 The decision is made implicitly. Cf. note 70, supra.
84 E.g., in the President’s Annual Message of December 4, 1893, reminding Congress of the need for legislation to enforce the African Slave Trade Agreement of 1890 with respect to the arms and liquor traffic. II Moore’s Digest 471.
85 See, e.g., reply of Secretary of State Bayard to an inquiry from the British Government concerning the manner in which the Industrial Property Convention of 1883 was being given effect in the United States, Jan. 18, 1889, II Moore’s Digest 42-44.
86 E.g., a commission appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt on Revision of Laws relating to Safety of Life at Sea reported on Feb. 8, 1909, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Doc. No. 701, its findings undoubtedly facilitating the adoption of the Act of Aug. 1, 1912, 37 Stat. 242, which “harmonized” the law of salvage with the provisions of the Agreement on Assistance and Salvage, Brussels, Sept. 23, 1910, 37 Stat. 1658, U. S. T. S., No. 576.
87 Supra, note 40.
88 Infra, note 102.
89 E.g., the report of the Commissioner of Navigation, 1913, p. 8, referring to the Radio Convention of 1912, 38 Stat. 1672, U. S. T. S., No. 581, which by its own terms became effective on July 1, 1913, states: “the Department of Commerce, with the cooperation of the Navy Department, War Department, and the Revenue Cutter Service of the Treasury Department, began the enforcement of its self-executing provisions on Sept. 1, 1913, the earliest date at which the necessary preliminary arrangements could be completed.”
90 E.g., in Cameron Septic Tank Co. v. City of Knoxville, 227 U. S. 39 (1913), the Supreme Court deferred to the view of Congress that the Industrial Property Convention of 1883 was not self-executing. The view of Attorney General Miller to the same effect, infra, note 102, was adhered to by the Patent Office and affirmed in 1903 by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in Rousseau v. Brown, 21 App. Cases 73. Crandall, op. cit., pp. 236-237.
91 The Act of June 12, 1934, 48 Stat. 943, which repeats the provisions of law authorizing the Postmaster General to make postal agreements, subject to approval of the President, and which provides that “The decisions of the Postmaster General construing or interpreting the provisions of any treaty or convention which has been or may be negotiated and concluded shall, if approved by the President, be final and conclusive upon all officers of the United States,” is not an exception, because the determination is conclusive only upon officers of the United States and not private parties before the courts.
92 It may be necessary and bona fide. See Reports, Comm, of Navig., 1913, p. 28, with respect to the London Radiotelegraph Convention of 1912; also, Register of Copyrights, 1929, p. 24, with respect to probable membership in the Berne Copyright Union. The delay may be otherwise. See charges by E. S. Rogers concerning legislation necessary to enforce treaty obligations with respect to trade-marks and other industrial rights, Hearings on H. R. 13486, 69th Cong., 2d Sess., Jan. 6, 1927.
93 Infra, note 154.
94 Infra, discussion at notes 151, 152.
95 Infra, notes 148, 149.
96 As by the attachment of conditions or qualifications. Infra, note 102.
97 Cited, notes 14,156,157; also revisions of Washington, June 2, 1911, 38 Stat. 1645, U. S. T. S., No. 579; and The Hague, Nov. 6, 1925, 47 Stat. 1789, U. S. T. S., No. 834.
98 Set forth in Ladas, op. cit., Ch. 7; Cameron Septic Tank Case, cited supra, note 90; General Electric Co. v. Robertson, 21 F. (2d) 214 (1927); ibid, 25 F. (2d) 146 (1928); Robertson v. Gen. Elec. Co., 32 F. (2d) 495 (1929).
99 Ladas, op. cit., pp. 150–151.
100 Judge Putnam for C. C. A. (First Circuit) in United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co., 155 Fed. 842 (1907); Judge Archbald for C. C. A. (Third Circuit) in Hennebique Const. Co. v. Myers, 172 Fed. 869, 889–890 (1909); and the highly persuasive view of Judge Soper, D. C., in Gen. Elec. Co. v. Robertson, 21 F. (2d) 214 (1927).
101 Supra, note 85.
102 On April 5, 1889, Attorney General Miller gave it as his opinion that Art. 2 of the Industrial Property Convention of 1883, which provided for “national” treatment, was not self-executing but executory, and, furthermore, that it was conditioned upon reciprocity. 19 Op. Atty. Gen. 273. It remained necessary, therefore, for Congress to amend R. S. 4902 to give the foreigner (in this case, a Swiss) the same right to file a caveat as the citizen of the United States had; and Congress might refuse to so amend R. S. 4902 until it was assured of reciprocity for American citizens with respect to filing caveats under Swiss law. Ladas, op. cit., p. 171, states that the provision was intended by the parties to be “common legislation” for the union, i.e., “self-executing” in American terminology, and, pp. 155-156, not conditioned on reciprocity. (Sec. 4 of the Act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1225, 1227, amended R. S. 4902 and extended the privilege to any person.)
103 Ladas, op. cit., p. 155. The other administrative agencies of the Government are in no position to deviate from this opinion. See note 3, in Brown, J. L., Industrial Property Protection Throughout the World (Dept. of Commerce, Trade Promotion Series, No. 165, Washington, 1936), p. 162 Google Scholar.
104 Legislation cited and discussed in Judge Soper’s opinion, p. 220, cited supra, note 100.
105 Rousseau v. Brown, at p. 76, cited supra, note 90, followed by others cited and approved by Judge Parker, C. C. A. (Fourth Circuit), in Robertson v. Gen. Elec. Co., cited supra, note 98.
106 Cameron Septic Tank Co. Case, supra, note 90. “… The Supreme Court was careful not to say that the Treaty of Brussels was not self-executing. On the contrary, it explained that it was immaterial whether the treaty was self-executing or not”—i.e., for the purposes of deciding that particular case. Language of J. Soper, cited supra, note 100.
107 Judge Soper, loc. cit., p. 220, pointed out the misconstruction placed by Congress and others upon the adoption of legislation by other members of the Union (see 57th Cong., 2d Sess., H. Rep. No. 3426, Jan. 31,1903). The Supreme Court in the Cameron Case, at p. 49, noted the construction of Congress but did not undertake to approve or disapprove of it.
108 Ladas, op. cit., p. 166, n. 2; also correspondence with Government of Switzerland quoted in the Cameron case, supra.
109 See Crandall, op. cit., passim.
110 Cf. Ladas, op. cit., Ch. VII. To these may soon be added certain cases now pending in the courts involving libels filed against cargoes of whale oil aboard the ships Frango, Ulysses, and Watertown, processed from short whales in violation of the 1931 Whaling Treaty and the 1938 Act in enforcement thereof. Letter from Department of Justice to writer, Dec. 18, 1939. A number of cases involving damages to submarine cables have appeared in the courts, but in each instance the damage appears to have been inflicted within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not within the jurisdiction defined by the relevant treaty.
111 Cf. Annual Reports, under “Legal Division,” “Law Department,” or “Litigation,” since 1927.
112 See the numerous cases regularly discussed in the Annual Report on Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs since 1926.
113 35 Stat. 1639.
114 51 L’Union Postale 50–60 (March, 1926).
115 44 Stat. 841, 863.
116 45 Stat. 2492, U. S. T. S., No. 762.
117 T. I. B., No. 38 (Nov. 1932), pp. 8–9.
118 44 Stat. 2559, U. S. T. S., No. 754.
119 League of Nations Doc. II. Economic and Financial Questions. 1928. II, 52; II ibid. 1931. II. A. 9.
120 20 Stat. 709, U. S. T. S., No. 378.
121 14 Stat. 339.
122 Legislation formally legalizing the customary system of weights and measures in terms of the material metric standards adopted by the International Union after 1875 is, however, highly desirable. See Briggs, Lyman J., “A Proposal for Legislation to Fix the Standards of Weights and Measures in the United States,” mimeo., U. S. Bureau of Standards, ca. 1937 Google Scholar; and Hearings on H. R. 7869, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., before Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, H. R., Aug. 12, 1937.
123 25 Stat. 1465, U. S. T. S., No. 381.
124 Letter to the writer, from Smithsonian Institution, June 25, 1932.
125 U. S. T. S., No. 491-A.
126 Pan American Union, Congress and Conference Series, No. 22, p. 43.
127 With Peru, Exec. Agr. Ser., No. 103; Mexico, ibid., No. 108; Chile, ibid., No. 112; Cuba, ibid., No. 123.
128 See Ladas, S. P., The International Protection of Trade Marks by the American Republics, (Cambridge, 1929)Google Scholar, passim, and the implied criticism in Art. 34 of the Convention on Trade Marks and Commercial Protection, Washington, Feb. 20, 1929, 46 Stat. 2907, U. S. T. S., No. 833.
129 35 Stat. 1979, U. S. T. S., No. 496.
130 61st Cong., 2d Sess., S. Doc. No. 214, Pt. 2 (Jan. 31, 1910), p. 14.
131 38 Stat. 1672, U. S. T. S., No. 581. See Report, Comm, of Navig., 1915, p. 31, and I. Stewart, loc. cit.
132 45 Stat. 2760, U. S. T. S., No. 767.
133 U. S. T. S., No. 510.
134 In the United States, in contradistinction to the practice in many other countries, the preparation and publication of pharmacopoeias is not under Government direction and control. However, the various Federal health services adopt them as standards for their official use, delegates from a limited number of the several departments attend the decennial meetings of the U. S. P. Convention; the Hygienic Laboratory publishes a Digest of Comments and changes in the works; and the Pure Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 768, as well as the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act of June 25, 1938, 52 Stat. 1040, adopted by reference the standards in those compilations as the standards to be applied in the administration of the acts. See Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin, Nos. 23, 75, and 107.
135 New York Times, June 20, 1937. Text of Agreement and Protocol and Report of the delegate of the United States to the London Sugar Conference in 75th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Ex. T. (June 30, 1937); T. I. B., No. 92 (May, 1937), p. 19; ibid, No. 102 (March, 1938), p. 67. Letter to the writer from Department of State, Oct. 28, 1937.
136 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, etc., Vol. Ill, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., Sen. Doc. 348, pp. 2877–2879; Reports of the Surgeon General, 1911, pp. 119–120; 1912, p. 131; 1913, pp. 240–241.
137 Reports, ibid., 1927, p. 1; 1929, p. 120.
138 Id.
139 35 Stat. 2094, U. S. T. S., No. 518.
140 Report, Surgeon General, 1912, pp. 57-58.
141 Concluded at The Hague, Jan. 23, 1912, 38 Stat. 1912, U. S. T. S., No. 612.
142 Records of the Second Opium Conference, Geneva, Nov. 17, 1924-Feb. 19, 1925 (Geneva, 1925), 2 vols. League Doc. C.760.M.260.1924.XI, Vol. 1, pp. 114–117.
143 In 1936 and 1937. See League Doc. C.299.M.182.1936.XI; U. P. Hubbard, “The Cooperation of the United States with the League of Nations 1931-1936,” Int. Conciliation, No. 329, pp. 363–372; and N. Y. Times, May 29, 1937; June 14, 19, 22, 27, 1938.
144 35 Stat. 1918, U. S. T. S., No. 489.
145 The International Institute of Agriculture (Berkeley, Calif., 1931), p. x.
146 Concluded at Paris, May 4, 1910, 37 Stat. 1511, U. S. T. S., No. 559.
147 Report, Postmaster General, 1920, p. 125.
148 27 Stat. 886, U. S. T. S., No. 383. See II Moore’s Digest of International Law 470-472.
149 J. R., March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1169.
150 25 Stat. 1469, U. S. T. S., no. 382. The Smithsonian Institution had “endeavored on several occasions previous to the passage of the resolution to have the Congress take action in the matter.” Letter, Smithsonian Institution to the writer, March 16, 1927.
151 Supra, notes 18 and 71, the Act of Feb. 29, 1888, containing no such authorization.
152 37 Stat. 302.
153 Report, Comm, of Navig., 1914, p. 23; 1915, pp. 30–31.
154 Supra, note 14. Accession announced to Swiss Confederation May 30, 1887.
155 Act of March 3,1897, 29 Stat. 693; Ladas, International Protection of Industrial Property, p. 155.
156 27 Stat. 958, U. S. T. S., No. 385.
157 32 Stat. 1936, U. S. T. S., No. 411. See Act of July 4,1898, 30 Stat. 431; Sen. Doc. 20, 56th Cong., 2d Sess., Dec. 4, 1900; Act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1225; and Message of President Taft to Congress, May 10, 1912, 62nd Cong., 2d Sess., H. Doc. 749, recommending another commission of revision.
158 Supra, note 14.
159 49 Stat. 1539.
160 Letter to writer from Department of State, July 31,1932. American cable companies, however, have settled directly such claims for indemnification in infrequent cases that have arisen, without the intervention of the Department of State. (Letters to writer from Western Union and Commercial Cable companies.)
161 Letters to writer from the Office of Naval Records and Library, Navy Department, March 26, 1927, and the Bureau of Navigation, Department of Commerce, July 11, 1932.
162 If any amendment is attempted, it should include changing the rule with regard to consent to ratification from two-thirds of the Senate to a simple majority of both Houses. So many treaties nowadays have the quality of statutes, certainly the hundred herein described, that the House of Representatives ought to be permitted to participate in the process. At present, it must cooperate in enforcing treaties dealing with many subjects within its legislative competence to which it has not given its formal consent.
163 See Ladas, op. cit., p. 173.
164 E.g., Comparative Print of (1) 1929 Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, (2) 1914 Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, and (3) United States Statutory Provisions Relating to Matters Covered by Above Conventions, Arranged in Parallel Columns. 1932. (Confidential, Printed for use of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 72d Cong., 2d Sess.) Also, in Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, H. R., 74th Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 3413 (1936). Cf. Vallance, W. R., “The International Convention for Regulation of Whaling and the Act of Congress giving Effect to its Provisions,” this Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 112 Google Scholar. The Bureau of Fisheries appears in this case to have directed the preparation of the draft legislation.
165 Hearings on Berne Copyright Union, before Senate Committee on Patents, on H. R. 12549, 71st Cong., 3d Sess. (1931); before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on S. 1928, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934); and before a subcommittee, ibid, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. (1937). Also, supra, note 164.
166 E.g., the legislation implementing the Convention relating to Masters and Officers on Board Merchant Ships, adopted by the International Labor Conference, Oct. 24, 1936, in Vol. I, No. 5, July 29, 1939.
167 As was done in the case of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1929, Exec. Order No. 7548, Feb. 5, 1937, T. I. B., No. 89 (Feb. 1937), pp. 12–14, and with respect to the several whaling agreements, Department of State Bulletin, March 30, 1940, p. 350, citing the Federal Register.
168 As by the Bureau of Narcotics, supra, note 112, or the devoting of a special section of the regular annual report to the matter, as by the Communications Commission, the Public Health Office, the Register of Copyrights, the Commissioner of Navigation, and the Postmaster General.
