¹ 175 U. S. 677, 700.Google Scholar See Triquet, v. Bath, 3 Burr. 1478;Google Scholar Respublica, v. De Longchamps, 1 DaU. Ill;Google Scholar Hilton, v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 163;Google Scholar West Rand Mining Co. v. The King, [1905] 2 K. B. 391;Google Scholar Picciotto, Relation of International Law to the Law of England and of the United States.Google Scholar

² History of the Criminal Law of England, Vol. II, pp. 37.Google Scholar See Beale, “Jurisdiction of Courts over Foreigners,” 26 Harvard Law Review, 193,194.Google Scholar See also Mortensen, v. Peters, 8 Sess. Cas. 93 Google Scholar; United States v. Siem, 299 Fed. 582, 583.Google Scholar

³ See Field, “The Doctrine of Political Questions in Federal Courts,” 8 Minnesota Law Review, 485.Google Scholar

⁴ See the Gul Djemal, 296 Fed. 563.Google Scholar See also the cases involving international recognition, discussed infra.

⁵ See United States Anderson, v., 9 Wall. 56;Google Scholar the Protector, 12 Wall. 700;Google ScholarPubMed the Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, 603;Google Scholar Hamilton, v. McClaughry, 136 Fed. 445, 449;Google Scholar In re Wulzen, 235 Fed. 362, 365;Google ScholarPubMed United States v. Oglesby Grocery Co., 264 Fed. 691, 692.Google Scholar See also United States v. Yorba, 1 Wall. 412;Google Scholar Hornsby, v. United States, 10 Wall. 224;Google Scholar More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70.Google Scholar

⁶ United States v. One Hundred and Twenty-Nine Packages, Fed. Cas. No. 15,941, p.288.Google Scholar

⁷ [1916] 2A. C. 77,107.Google Scholar

⁸ See De la, Croix v. Chamberlain, 12 Wh. 599, 600;Google Scholar Foster, v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253;Google Scholar Garcia, v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511.Google Scholar

⁹ 2Pet. 253, 307.

¹⁰ 2 Pet. 253, 309.

¹¹ 137 U. S. 202, 212.Google Scholar See also Watts, v. United States, 1 Wash. Terr. 288, 295;Google Scholar Wilson, v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24, 32.Google Scholar

¹² The Kodiak, 53 Fed. 126,130.Google Scholar See also the Marianna Flora, 11 Wh. 1, 39;Google Scholar In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 499, 502, 503;Google ScholarPubMed the James, G. Swan, 50 Fed. 108, 110.Google Scholar

¹³ The Grace and the Ruby, 283 Fed. 475, 478.Google Scholar

¹⁴ 13 Pet. 415, 420. See also Foster, v. Globe Venture Syndicate, 69 L. J. Ch. 375, 377.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See the Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1;Google Scholar United States v. Palmer, 3 Wh. 610;Google Scholar Gelston, v. Hoyt, 3 Wh. 246;Google Scholar Dickinson, “The Unrecognized Government or State in English and American Law,” 22 Michigan Law Review, 29,118.Google Scholar

¹⁶ 278 Fed. 294, 296. For the same reason, questions of diplomatic character are exclusively for the executive to decide. United States v. Liddle, 2 Wash. C. C. 205;Google Scholar United States v. Ortega, 4 Wash. C. C. 531;Google Scholar United States v. Benner, Baldw. 234;Google Scholar Ex parte Hitz, 111 TJ. S. 766;Google Scholar In re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403;Google Scholar the Rogday,> 279 Fed. 130;+279+Fed.+130;>Google Scholar Savie v. City of New York, 193 N. Y. Supp. 577.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Doe, v. Braden, 16 How. 635.Google Scholar See also United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 423–4;Google Scholar In re Taylor, 118 Fed. 196;Google Scholar Johnson, v. Browne, 205 U. S. 309, 317;Google Scholar Charlton, v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 468 Google Scholar. Even in matters affecting private rights, a construction adopted by the political departments weighs heavily in the courts. Charlton, v. Kelly, supra. See Terlinden, v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 288;Google Scholar United States v. Jordan, 1 Extraterritorial Cases 259. See also Ware, v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 260;Google Scholar Taylor, v. Morton, 2 Curtis 454, 461;Google Scholar Charlton, v. Kelly, supra. Google Scholar And also Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580,598;Google Scholar the Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 581, 602;Google Scholar Techt, v. Hughes, 229 N. Y. 222, 242, 243.Google Scholar

¹⁸ 16 How. 635, 657.

¹⁹ 2 Curtis 454, 461.Google Scholar

²⁰ 112 U. S. 580, 598.Google Scholar

²¹ Taylor, v. Morton, 2 Curtis 454;Google Scholar Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580;Google Scholar Whitney, v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190.Google Scholar

²² 149 U. S. 698, 713.Google Scholar

²³ 130 U. S. 581, 606.Google Scholar See also Nishimura, Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 659;Google Scholar Buga-jewitz, v. Adams, 228 U. S. 585, 591.Google Scholar

²⁴ See O’Reilly, v. Brooke, 209 U. S. 45, 52.Google Scholar

²⁵ The Invincible, 2 Gall. 29;Google Scholar Underhill, v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250;Google Scholar Oetjen, v. Central Leather Co., 246 U. S. 297;Google Scholar Ricaud, v. American Metal Co., 246 U. S. 304;Google Scholar Hewitt, v. Speyer, 250 Fed. 367;Google Scholar Earl Line S. S. Co. v. Sutherland S. S. Co., 254 Fed. 126;Google Scholar the Adriatic, 258 Fed. 902.Google Scholar See also American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347.Google Scholar

²⁶ 2 Gall. 29, 44.Google Scholar

²⁷ 254 Fed. 126, 129.Google Scholar

²⁸ For more systematic analysis and the citation of additional cases, see Field, “The Doctrine of Political Questions in Federal Courts,” cited supra. Google Scholar See also Corwin, President’s Control of Foreign Relations;Google Scholar Wright, Enforcement of International Law through Municipal Law in the United States, pp. 17, 19, 25, 28, 29, 44, 48, 84, 86, 92, 101, 106, 143, 201, 218, and passim; Google Scholar Wright, Control of American Foreign Relations, pp. 1, 47, 75, 107, 143,191, 247, 251, and passim. Google Scholar