271

"Mr. Mason of Virginia had remarked that the treaty power extended to the disposition of property. Relying on the testimony of Professor Berger, the Senator from Utah points out that the cited remark was made before the debate on the property clause. Both the Senator and the Professor are apparently unaware that Mr. Mason made a similar remark in 1788 during the Virginia Convention. At that time, in the course of a discussion of the ability to alienate property by treaty, Mr.
_Mason stated that "The President and the Senate can make any treaty whatsoever." (3 Elliott 509.)
 The Senator dismisses other arguments advanced by Attorney Bell on the basis that Professor Berger disagrees with these arguments. I suppose it must simplify the Senator's task considerably to accept wVithout question the views of one scholar. I should point out, however, that a vast majority of Professor Berger's colleagues reject his view.
 Several weeks ago, I introduced a statement by 15 eminent professors of constitutional law supporting the constitutional validity of transfer of property by self -executing treaty. Dean Louis Pollak of the University of Pennsylvania Law School has authored a detailed analysis, entered into the Congressional Record of January 30, 1978, which reaches a similar conclusion. In view of this weight of authority, the s-enator's blind adherence to the views of one professor appears questionable.
 Perhaps the most significant statement on this subject was made by President Washington in his message to Congress of March 30, 1796 (1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents 195). President Washington stated:
 Having been a member of the General Convention, and knowing the principles on which the Constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject; and from the first e stablishment of the Government to this moment my conduct has exemplified that opinion-that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every treaty so made and promulgated thenceforward became the law of the land.

 There is also reason to believe that this construction agrees with the opinions eu7tertained by the State conventions when they were deliberating on the Constitution, especially by those -who objected to it ... because in treaties respecting territorial and certain other rights and clims the concurrence of three-fourths of the whole number of the members of both Houses, respectively, was not made
 -ecessary.
 President Washington's view accords with that of other framers
-of the Constitution who addressed this question. The Senator f rom Utah entertains a contrary view. I agree with George Washington.

 JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
 F aced with a body of law which supports the authority of the President and the Senate to dispose of property by treaty, and with the
 bsece o anycaseholing the contrary, the Sentor from Utah finds little direct support for his position. Ie has again resorted to an atempt to disparage the committee report by raising meaningless ,distinctions.
 Hle summarily dismisses the committee's citation of a number of cases suggesting that the Constitution does not forbid the transfer of