The extent of the immunity from judicial control of matters of international concern is well illustrated in the case of United States ex rel. Boynton v. Blaine,15 decided in 1890, in which the general doctrine was reviewed and affirmed that mandamus will not issue to control the executive department with reference to claims prosecuted by it against foreign governments in behalf of private persons. In this case a mandamus was sought to compel the Secretary of State to pay over to the petitioner certain sums of money paid to the United States by Mexico under an award made in his favor under a convention that had been entered into between the United States and Mexico. The Secretary of State, acting under the direction of the President, was withholding the payment to the petitioner pending an investigation of fraud. The court held that the matter was still pending before the department, that the principle of res adjudicata could not be invoked against the United States by the individual claimants, and that the judicial department could not intervene.

In Luther v. Borden16 it was held that the judiciary was not competent to reverse the decision of the political departments of the National Government as to which of two contesting organizations is the de jure government of a State of the Union. A fortiori it was held that it was not competent for state courts to question the de jure character of the government from which they derived their standing as courts.

In Martin v. Mott17 it was held that the courts could not question the correctness of the decision of the President, acting under the authority of a law enacted February 28, 1795, as to the necessity for calling out the militia to repel an invasion or suppress an insurrection.

In Neely v. Ilenkel18 the court held that it was not competent for the judiciary to make any declaration as to the length of time Cuba should be occupied and controlled by the military forces of the United States, "it being," said the court, "the function of the political branch of the government to determine when such occupation and control shall cease, and, therefore, when the troops of the United States shall be withdrawn from Cuba."

15 139 U. S. 306; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 607; 35 L. ed. 183.

16 7 How. 1; 12 L. ed. 851. 17 12 Wh. 19; 6 L. ed. 537.

18 180 U. S. 109; 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 302? 45 L. ed. 448.

In United States v. Holliday19 the existence of tribal relations among Indians was declared to be a matter for political determination.