Treaties entered into by the United States may be viewed in two lights; (1) as constituting parts of the supreme law of the land, and (2) as compacts between the United States and foreign Powers. Viewed in this second light this infraction is a matter outside judicial cognizance, and within the exclusive concern of the political departments.

In Taylor v. Norton,31 approved by the Supreme Court,32 Justice Curtis says: "Is it a judicial question, whether a treaty with a foreign sovereign has been violated by him; whether the consideration of a particular stipulation in a treaty has been voluntarily withdrawn by one party, so that it is no longer obligatory on the other; whether the view and acts of a foreign sovereign, manifested through his representative, has given just occa-sion to the political departments of our government to withhold the execution of a premise contained in a treaty or to the act in direct contravention of such promise? I apprehend not. These powers have not been confided by the people to the judiciary, which has no suitable means to exercise them, but to the executive and legislative departments of our government."

31 2 Curtis, 454.

32 2 Black, 481; 17 L. ed. 277.

The rule thus laid down in Taylor v. Morton has been uniformly followed in subsequent cases. In Head Money Cases,33 the court say: "A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do, and can give no redress. But a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between private parties in the courts of the country. An illustration of this character is found in treaties which regulate the mutual rights of citizens and subjects of the contracting nations in regard to rights of property by descent or inheritance, when the individuals concerned are aliens."

Again, in "Whitney v. Robertson,34 the opinion declares: "A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law. For the infraction of its provisions a remedy must be sought by the injured party through reclamations upon the other. When the stipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect, and such legislation is as much subject to modification and repeal by Congress as legislation upon any other subject. If the treaty contains stipulations-which are self-executing, that is, require no legislation to make them operative, to that extent they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment. Congress may modify such provisions, so far as they bind the United States, or supersede them altogether. By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the same footing and made of like obligation with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either power over the other. When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are incon-sistent, the one last in date will control the other, provided always the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing. If the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the legislative department, it may present its complaint to the executive head of the government, and take such other measures as it may deem essential for the protection of its interests. The courts can afford no redress. Whether the complaining nation has just cause of complaint, or our country was justified in its legislation, are not matters for judicial cognizance."

33 112 U. S. 580; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; 28 L. ed. 798. 34124 U. S. 190; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; 31 L. ed. 386.