how far a provision in an agreement as to a League of Nations, which
imposes on the United States the obligation to employ its military or
naval forces in enforcing the terms of the agreement, would be
constitutional.

"It would seem that the utilization of forces, whether independently
or in conjunction with other nations, would in fact by being an act
of war create a state of war, which constitutionally can only be done
by a declaration of Congress. To contract by treaty to create a state
of war upon certain contingencies arising would be equally tainted
with unconstitutionality and would be null and inoperative.

"I do not think, therefore, that, even if it were advisable, any
treaty can provide for the independent or joint use of the military
or naval forces of the United States to compel compliance with a
treaty or to make good a guaranty made in a treaty.

"The other method of international coercion is non-intercourse,
especially commercial non-intercourse. Would a treaty provision to
employ this method be constitutional?

"As to this my mind is less clear. The Constitution in delegating
powers to Congress includes the regulation of commerce. Does
non-intercourse fall within the idea of regulation? Could an embargo
be imposed without an act of Congress? My impression is that it could
not be done without legislation and that a treaty provision agreeing
in a certain event to impose an embargo against another nation
would be void.

"Even if Congress was willing to delegate to the Executive for a