“The present convention shall be in force for ten years from the date hereof, and further until the end of one year _after either of the contracting parties_ shall have given notice to the other of its intention to terminate the same,--_each of the contracting parties_ reserving to itself the right of giving such notice _to the other_ at the end of the said term of ten years; and it is hereby agreed between them, that, on the expiration of one year after such notice shall have been received _by either from the other party_, this convention and all the provisions thereof shall altogether cease and determine.”
It is admitted, as I understand, that, without this provision, the treaty could not be terminated, except by Act of Congress; but it is said, that, under this provision, no such Act is required. It is difficult to understand the ground of this distinction; for there is nothing in this provision to take power from Congress and confer it upon the Senate alone. Point out the words, if they exist. They are not there. How, then, can you infer them? The treaty is to be terminated on notice from _either party_; and this notice must proceed from _the same power_ which, in the absence of such provision, would be competent to act. The mode of action is different, but _the acting power_ is the same in both cases.
This treaty may be terminated on notice from “either of the contracting parties.” In other treaties, having a similar provision, other equivalent terms are employed: as in the treaty with Greece in 1837, and with Sardinia in 1838, where the term “high contracting parties” is employed; the treaty with Hanover in 1840, and with the Hanseatic Republics in 1852, where the term “Government of the United States on the one part” is employed; and, again, in the treaty with New Granada in 1844, where the term “one of the two Governments” is employed. These terms are all identical in meaning; and they signify that the notice in all cases must be _an act of the Government_.
Who, then, for this purpose, is the Government, under the Constitution of the United States? Surely, the power that can abrogate a treaty, and nothing short of this; and this power, we have already seen, is represented by an Act of Congress alone.