those provisions, with no qualification with respect to subsequent action or any requirement with respect to reciprocity, those provisions of the convention are binding and fully applicable without any further proclamation.'
After careful consideration of the matter, I feel that this view is correct. To hold otherwise is to render the treaty worthless, until the Executive arm of the government issues a proclamation which it considers unnecessary. In the case of The Wind, the master of a vessel was prevented from bringing an action to expel sit-down strikers because a treaty gave jurisdiction of these matters to the consul, just as in the instant case. If, in addition, the Consul is not allowed to enforce this jurisdiction under 22 U.S.C.A. § 256 et seq., no remedy is available at all. See Robinson, On Admiralty, 351, fn. 272a. There is undoubtedly ground for requiring, as to treaties on the books when this statute was passes, that another proclamation be forthcoming in accordance with the statute. Cf. Dallemagne v. Moisan, 197 U.S. 169, 25 S. Ct. 422, 49 L. Ed. 709. But where the statutory procedure is already enacted, and a treaty is, at a later date, solemnly signed, ratified, and proclaimed, it does not seem unreasonable to hold that nothing further is required to allow the courts to enforce it. This is not a question of whether or not the treaty abrogates or modifies a prior existing statute (Cf. Cook v. United States, 288 U.S. 102, 53 S. Ct. 305, 77 L. Ed. 641), for it is not impossible for both the treaty and the statute to stand together. See United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U.S. 213, 222, 22 S. Ct. 629, 46 L. Ed. 878. On July 11, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt issued the Proclamation putting the treaty involved here into effect, in these words:
'And whereas the said Convention, as amended by the Senate of the United States, has been duly ratified on both parts, and the ratifications of the two governments were exchanged in the City of Athens, on the ninth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and three;
'Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof, as amended, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.
'In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed.' 33 Stat. 2135.
With the statutory procedure already enacted, it is reasonable, I feel, to regard this Proclamation as satisfying the requirement that ' * * * the President shall be satisfied that similar provisions have been made for the execution of such treaty by the other contracting party, and shall issue his proclamation to that effect, declaring this section to be in force as to such nation.'
Accordingly, therefore, I shall overrule respondent's exception to the libel on the ground that the treaty provisions cannot yet be enforced under this procedure.
Respondent has advanced other contentions, as well, in support
of his exceptions to the petition. Thus, he argues that neither the treaty nor the statute apply where the misconduct of the seamen complained of did not occur upon the vessel to which the order would be directed; that the relevant portions of the treaty have been abrogated; that granting the relief prayed for would contravene the expressed public policy of the United States; that the petition seeks deportation or extradition without conforming to the statutes governing these procedures, and, finally, that A. Georgakopoulos is not a proper party to the proceeding.
As to the first argument, the 'discord' which has happened on board is the 'unlawful and defiant refusal' of the seamen to leave the vessel. As to the second, it is true that those portions of Article 'xii which confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Consul over disputes growing out of wage adjustments have been abrogated. See The Leonidas, 'd.c., 32 F.Supp. 738, 740, reversed on other grounds, 4 Cir., 116 F.2d 440. Therefore, were a controversy over the payment of wages disclosed to be the real issue here, the Consul's petition under 22 U.S.C.A. § 256 would probably fail, for the reason that the statute only applies to situations where the Consul has 'exclusive jurisdiction of controversies, difficulties, or disorders * * * '. It may be, of course, that if the seamen actually appear before the Court in accordance with 22 U.S.C.A. § 257, that it will appear that their refusal to leave the ship grows ou; of a wage dispute. However, at this stage of the proceedings and on respondent's motion, the facts in the petition must be accepted as true, and they do not indicate that such is the case. Therefore, although it is true that parts of Article XII of the treaty have been abrogated (See The Leonidas, supra), the situation presented by these pleadings is nonetheless covered by the treaty. None of respondent's remaining contentions merit extended discussion. I feel that they are not well taken and, accordingly, shall overrule the exceptions to the petition.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.