234
THE GREEN BAG
fisheries was agreed upon in 1888, securing of necessity enter into agreements relating certain privileges for American citizens, to a variety of matters incidental to the pending the ratification of a treaty between conducting of hostilities. These agreements the United States and Great Britain calcu of a national character and of van-ing lated to settle the long-standing Fishery importance may be entered into by the Dispute.1 The treaty was not ratified. President. As Commander-in-Chief of the On June 15, 1891, the United States and army and navy, he alone has the power to Great Britain by a modus vivendi agreed conclude such contracts.1 The agreement to prohibit the killing of seals in certain of the subordinate military commander may parts of Behring Sea, pending negotiations be in excess of the powers impliedly con for the submission of the Behring Sea Dis ferred on him by the Commander-in-Chief. pute for arbitration.2 Prior to the settle In such case the compact is called a sponsion? ment of the Alaskan Boundary dispute, two and of course has no legal value. If the agreements were made by modus vivendi, President assents to the terms of an arrange relating to the boundary between American ment entered into by an officer in the field, and British territory; the first, in iSjS,3 re or if he himself personally directs the lating to the location of the line at a point contractual negotiations, the agreement on the Stikine River; the second, in 1899,* is in most cases a binding one upon the concerning the location of the line in the nation. There may be, however, agreements in the region about the head of Lynn Canal. form of capitulations, of a political charac "There are certain compacts between na ter, and of such far-reaching consequence as tions which are concluded," writes Wheaton, to properly require the approval of the "not in virtue of any special authority, but in the exercise of a general implied power, treaty-making power of the state in order to confided to certain public agents, as inci bind the country. Such compacts are in dental to their official stations. Such are reality not of a military character, although the official acts of generals and admirals, the occasion for them may arise from a suspending or limiting the exercise of hos condition of war.3 The protocol, for ex tilities within the sphere of their respective military or naval commands, by means of ample, entered into by the Secretary of special licenses to trade, of cartels for the State in behalf of the President, and the exchange of prisoners, of truces for the sus French Ambassador, representing the Spanpension of arms, or capitulations for the surrender of a fortress, city, or province. 1 Snow's " Lectures on International Law," zd These conventions do not, in general, re quire the ratification of the supreme power Edition, p. 65: "A cartel is not a treaty in the sense of the of the State, unless such ratification be ex Constitution, and the cartel for the exchange of pressly reserved in the act itself." 5 In its non-hostile relations with the enemy, the United States when at war must 1 Senate Ex. Doc. 113, soth Cong, ist Sess. pp. 125, 141. Also Snow's "American Diplo macy," p. 467. 2 Senate Ex. Doc. No. 55, 52d Cong, ist, Sess. p. 46. 1 U. S. For. Rel. 1878, under title Great Britain. 4 U. S. For. Rel. 1899, p. 330.
- Dana's edition of Wheaton's "International
Law," 8th Edition, Sec. 254.
prisoners between the United States and Great Britain, in 1813, was ratified by the Secretary of State, not the Senate (May 14), i Halleck, 326; but when concluded it is of such force that the sovereign power may not annul it." Henderson's Case, 1863, 2 Pittsburg R. 440. Scott's "Cases on International Law," note p. 585.
- An example of such a compact is the capitu
lation entered into between General Sherman April, 1865, and General Johnston, Commander of the Confederate forces. Wm. T. Sherman's Memoirs, II, ch. xxxiii. ' Hall's "International Law," sth Edition, p. 552-
