tes. As Article II, No. 1, of the unratified
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1900 comprises a stipulation almost identical
with that of Article III, No. 1, of the present Hay-Pauncefote Treaty,
there can be no doubt that the Bard amendment endeavoured to secure
such a privilege to American coasting trade vessels as the United
States now by the Panama Canal Act grants to these vessels. But the
Bard amendment was defeated because the majority of the Senate was, in
1900, convinced that it involved a violation of the principle of
equality for vessels of all nations pronounced by Article II, No. 1, of
the unratified Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1900.

VIII.

The conflict concerning the interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty
throws a flood of light on the practice of the United States respecting
the relations between International Law and her Municipal Law.

Two schools may be said to be opposing one another in the science of
International Law with regard to the relations between International
and Municipal Law.

There are, firstly, a number of publicists who assert that International
Law is above Municipal Law and that, therefore, the rules of the former
are stronger than the rules of the latter. Accordingly, a Municipal
Court would have to apply the rules of International Law whether they
are expressly or implicitly recognised by the Municipal Law of the
State concerned or not, and even in a case where there is a decided
conflict between a rule of Municipal Law and a rule of International
Law. "_International Law overrules Municipal Law_" must be said to be
the maxim of this school of thought.

There are, secondly, other publicists who maintain that _International
Law and Municipal Law are two essentially different bodies of law_
which have nothing in common but that they are both branches--but
separate branches!--of the tree of Law. The rules of International Law
are never, therefore, _per se_ part and parcel of the Municipal Law of
a State, and a Municipal Court cannot apply the rules of International
Law unless they have been adopted, either expressly or implicitly, by
the Municipal Law of the State concerned. Should there be a conflict
between a rule of International Law and a rule of Municipal Law, a
Municipal Court can only apply the rule of Municipal Law, leaving it to
the legislature of its State to do away with the conflict by altering
the Municipal Law.

I believe that the teaching of the latter school of