[177] 288 U.S. 102 (1933).
[178] Ibid. 107-122.
[179] 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
[180] It is arguable that the maximum leget posteriores is not the most eligible rule for determining conflicts between "laws of the United States * * * made in pursuance thereof" (i.e. of the Constitution) and "treaties made * * * under the authority of the United States". It may be that the former, being mentioned immediately after "this Constitution" and before "treaties," are entitled always to prevail over the latter, just as both acts of Congress and treaties yield to the Constitution.
[181] 1 Stat. 578.
[182] 4 Dall. 37 (1800).
[183] Crandall, Treaties (2d ed.), 458; See Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IV, 2245; and Benton, 15 Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, 478. Mangum of North Carolina denied that Congress could authorize the President to give notice: "He entertained not a particle of doubt that the question never could have been thrown upon Congress unless as a war or quasi war measure. * * * Congress had no power of making or breaking a treaty." He owned, however, that he might appear singular in his view of the matter. Ibid. 472.
[184] Crandall, 458-462; Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations, 258.
[185] 38 Stat. 1164.
[186] Crandall, 460.