While the proposed covenant on human rights has not yet been completed by the United Nations, representatives of the United States are zealously at work to bring about its early completion and adoption. All drafts of that covenant so far presented contain so-called guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of peaceable assembly and association subject to such restrictions as are “prescribed by law" or necessary to protect "public safety, order, health, and morals," and subject to a declaration of emergency officially proclaimed by the authorities, in which case a State may take measures derogating from its obligations with respect to those freedoms. Some of these same objectors to limitation of the treatymaking power, so far as internal law is concerned, who insist that no treaties endangering the constitutional rights of Americans have ever been ratified, are themselves striving to effect ratification of the foregoing treaties containing generous provisions. It is these recent activities which brought into being the American Bar Association's proposed constitutional amendment.

AMENDMENT GIVES STATES NEEDED PROTECTION

The text of the proposed amendment was drawn to bring into sharp focus the whole problem of continuing the balance between State and Federal power, in the light of the existing treaty power as now construed. The proposal as drawn gives the States protections they do not now have. It brings about certainty as to internal effectiveness of treaties within the States that does not now exist.

Let those American proponents of new treaties in the social, economic, cultural, and political and civil fields, who feel that the United States must take leadership in these crusades, first assist in obtaining a constitutional amendment at home to assure American citizens that there will never be an impairment of their fundamental rights in the process. "For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time." "

Mr. DEUTSCH. On January 27, less than a month ago, the TimesPicayune of New Orleans published a cartoon on this subject which has met with wide acclaim, speaking of an important law review with the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and treaties marching along in review by the public, by justice, by Congress, by the United States as a whole, and by the judiciary, and under, shall I say, the resolution adopted by the committee whose members have appeared before you today and who were then meeting in the city of New Orleans.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show it is filed with the committee. Mr. DEUTSCH. I ask that that be filed in connection with the statement I have made and also an editorial appearing in the January 12 issue of the Times-Picayune.

(The editorial referred to follows:)

[From the Times-Picayune, January 12, 1953]

BILL OF RIGHTS INSURANCE

Senator Bricker has reintroduced into the new Congress his constitutional amendment resolution to invalidate any treaty that would contradict the Bill of Rights or subject an American citizen to trial or suit in an international court. The resolution bears the signatures of 60 Senators, or only 6 less than necessary to approve the amendment proposition in the Senate and send it on to the House. The Truman administration, through the State Department, opposed the Bricker amendment in the last Congress, asserting that the danger of the abrogation of any American right was remote and that adoption might handicap United Nations peace efforts.

But there has been no denial that as long as treaties have equal status with the Constitution as supreme law, the constitutional rights of the people can be abridged in the process of making and applying treaties. It has been pretty

50 Mr. Justice Sutherland, dissenting in Associated Press v. N. L. R. B. (301 U. S. 103, 141 (1937)).

clearly established that Congress can pass laws pursuant to a treaty that would not be valid under the Constitution. The rights reserved by the Constitution to the States or the people can be invaded and destroyed by international arrangements put in the form of a treaty and ratified by the Senate. The thinking of some of the internationalists has been that Congress would be obligated to pass laws to implement some of the codes, conventions, and arrangements devised by the eager U. N. affiliates, regardless of any constitutional considerations.

Senator Bricker's resolution seems to be more involved and more diplomatically worded than the resolution proposed by the American Bar Association a couple of years back. The ABA would simply declare that any treaty whose provisions were in conflict with the Constitution was invalid and that Congress could not pass any law pursuant to a treaty that it could not have passed independent of the treaty.

Congress, of course, will wish to get the views of the Eisenhower administra tion before it goes ahead with the amendment proposal in either form. Nevertheless it should move on to a decision. Mr. Acheson's department might be right in saying that the danger of having any right overturned is "remote." But since the mouthpieces of some of the international groups are so fond of the notion that Congress can use treaties instead of the Constitution for its authority to pass laws, many American citizens will not feel safe until that concept is squelched by something no less formidable than constitutional amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smithey?

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Deutsch, you may remember that there was considerable discussion by the Acting Secretary of State at the hearings conducted on Senate Joint Resolution 130 as to whether it would have been possible for the United States to give effect to a treaty like the Narcotics Convention if the bar proposal had been adopted. What is the position of the peace and law committee on that?

Mr. DEUTSCH. I can speak only for myself, of course, in the absence of joint study by the committee, but there is not any question in my mind that that Convention could well be adopted. It falls within the commerce power. Under our proposed amendment, you would have to have implementing legislation, in any event, by Congress. And there is not the slightest question in my mind that such questions, narcotics, white-slave traffic, and so on, are within the Federal domain, and that no real question would arise on that subject.

Mr. SMITHEY. How about the growing of poppies without a license? Is that a State function?

Mr. DEUTSCH. I think that will fall within the narcotics question, but, mind you, there is nothing that the members even of this great committee can write that will not come up for ultimate judicial discussion and determination with differences of opinion and dissenting views. Even the members of our committee do not agree on everything.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holman, do you want to make a statement for the committee?

Mr. HOLMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF FRANK E. HOLMAN, SEATTLE, WASH., PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to express my appreciation for the opportunity of coming and presenting, perhaps I should say, my views on this great question. I want to also express my very deep appreciation and gratitude to Senator Bricker for the time over the last several years that he has, in his busy routine, accorded me

by way of an opportunity of discussing with him the remedy by way of a constitutional amendment to correct what we think in the American Bar Association is one of the greatest constitutional crises that this country has ever faced. And even though the hour is somewhat late and you have been very patient, sir, but because this is now going to be the record in the matter, which, as I understand, will be submitted to the present Secretary of State for scrutiny and comment, and will be submitted also, perhaps, to the present Attorney General and to others, I am going to make rather a full statement of my views. In the first place, by way of introducing myself, my name is Frank E. Holman, age 67, a lawyer from Seattle, having practiced law a little over 40 years. I have a biographical sketch that I will submit for the record.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF FRANK E. HOLMAN

PERSONAL DATA

Born Sandy City, Utah, January 7, 1886; A. B., University of Utah, 1908; Rhodes scholar, Oxford, England, 1908: B. A. in Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1910; M. A., Oxford, 1914; admitted Washington bar, 1911; admitted Utah bar, 1912; instructor in law, University of Utah, 1912-13; dean, Utah Law School, 1913-15; chairman, Utah State Board of Bar Examiners; vice president, Utah State bar, 1923; practiced at Salt Lake City, 1915-24; practiced at Seattle, 1924 to date; admitted to practice, United States Supreme Court, 1921; admitted to practice in various Western States and Federal courts; senior partner, Holman, Mickelwait, Marion, Prince & Black, Seattle; president, Seattle Bar Association, 1941; president, Washington State Bar Association, 1945; chairman, committee for revision of Washington corporation laws; member, American Bar Association; member, house of delegates, continuously since 1942; member, special committee for the organization of the nations for peace and law, 1944 and 1945; member, special committee for peace and law through United Nations, 1946 and 1947; member, membership committee, 1943 and 1944; member, committee on jurisprudence and judicial reform, 1943; member, Washington committee associated with the American Bar Association committee on improving the administration of justice; Coconvenor, Seattle Regional Conference on World Court, 1946; coconvenor, proposed Seattle regional conference on progressive development of international law, 1947; member, committee on credentials and admissions of the house of delegates, 1946-47; member, board of directors, American Bar Association endowment; member, advisory board of the American Bar Association Journal; member, committee on assistance to lawyers in devastated countries, 194951; member, committee on scope and correlation of work, 1950-53; president of the American Bar Association, 1948-49; ex-officio member, American Bar Association board of governors, 1949-50; chairman, alien enemy hearing board for the western district of Washington; member, national panel of alien enemy examiners; member, Seattle Armed Forces Advisory Committee; member and vice president, board of national directors of American Rhodes scholars; life member of the Oxford Union; trustee, School of Public Law (Washington, D. C.); member, American Society of International Law; member, board of directors of the Pacific National Bank of Seattle; member, advisory board of Seattle Children's Orthopedic Hospital; honorary member, the Order of the Coif; honorary member, Phi Delta Phi (Ballinger Inn and Tillman D. Johnson Inn), international legal fraternity; honorary member, District of Columbia Bar Association; honorary member, Canadian Bar Association; member, Monday Club, Seattle; member, Rainier Club, Seattle (president, 1950-51); Veterans of Foreign Wars certificate of merit "for outstanding contributions toward preservation of our American way of life," December 20, 1950; Cross of Chevalier of the Legion of Honor (France), January 1951; Marine Corps League meritorious service award in appreciation and gratitude for distinguished service in the interests of the United States of America, the United States Marine Corps and the Marine Corps League, September 21, 1951; American freedom award, 1952.

SPEECHES AND ARTICLES

The Inns of Court (Washington Law Review, 1926)
History of British India (Monday Club, 1932)

England's Problem in Ireland (Monday Club, 1933)

Oxford and Rhodes Scholarship (English-Speaking Union, 1934)

The Constitution on the Supreme Court (Argus Press, 1936)

Two Frenchmen Visit America-deTocqueville and Beaumont (Monday Club, 1938)

Alien Enemy Control (Monday Club, 1942)

The Basic Problem of Peace (Argus Press, 1944)

The Lawyer's Challenge (Washington Law Review, 1944)

Forms of Government (American Bar Association Journal, April 1946)

World Government-No Answer to America's Desire for Peace (American Bar Association Journal, October.1946)

Precedents and Prefaces-Elizabeth to Blackstone (American Bar Association
Journal, July 1947)

The Value of a University Education (University of Utah Press, 1947)
The Stubborn Facts of Peace (Argus Press, 1947)

The Proposal for an International Bill of Rights (Argus Press, 1948)

Our Common Heritage (Argus Press, 1949)

International Proposals Affecting Human Rights (Argus Press, August 1949) Must America Succumb to Statism (American Bar ssociation Journal, October 1949)

The American Form of Government ("I Am an American Day." Seattle, May 1950)

Giving America Away (Seattle Rotary Club, October 1949)

Treaty Lawmaking (American Bar Association Journal, September 1950)
Wake Up, America (Seattle Rotary Club, December 1951)

The United Nations-A Hope or a Menace? (Knights of the Red Cross of Constantine, Seattle, Wash., March 8, 1952)

Mr. HOLMAN. I have never been active in partisan politics, actually, and though I am not saying this by way of making any point of pride out of it, I have never made a political speech in my life.

My wife says that I will always make a speech on this particular question whenever I am invited. I would also like to make it clear that in the efforts that I have tried to make during the last 4 years to alert the American people to the dangers of what has been called treaty law and executive agreements, and the need for constitutional amendment, that I represent no organization, not even the American Bar Association, officially, and that I have never accepted any compensation by way of fees or otherwise for travel expense or for other matters in connection with this program.

I should also state that I was originally a member, one of the original members of this committee on peace and law when it was set up in 1944, which was a year before the organization of the United Nations. In 1944, with the termination of World War II expected, and with proposals in the air, if I may say so, by reason of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, and by reason of declarations by the State Department, with those proposals which eventually resulted in the organization of the United Nations, the American Bar Association, not by appointment or by its board of governors, which usually exercises the power to appoint committees, but by spontaneous action of the house of delegates, a committee was organized, headed by Judge Ransom, of New York, and the name then was known as the proposals for the organization of nations for peace and law. I was the western member on that committee. There was one other western member, Judge Schloss, of California, a very eminent jurist, and the other members came from the Midwest and the eastern part of the United States.

I want to make it crystal clear for the purposes of the record, the American Bar Association has never taken a position against the United Nations as such or proposals for the organization of nations for peace and law with respect to a security organization to discuss and to attempt to secure the peace. This original committee had its name changed a little later when the United Nations was organized, and its present name is the Committee on Peace and Law Through the United Nations. So any criticism that has been leveled against the American Bar Association or against myself-and I have often received that criticism-that this movement for constitutional amendment is an attack on the United Nations as such is untrue. Since the organization of the committee in 1944-Judge Ransom, by the way, the chairman of the committee, sat at San Francisco as an observer from one of the nonofficial organizations since its organization this committee has prepared a careful report annually and semiannually and made its findings and recommendations to the house of delegates.

While I myself, beginning with the meeting of the State bar in California at Santa Barbara in September 1948, announced the idea that it would require a constitutional amendment to meet this great crisis, it took the American Bar Association several years to come to that conclusion. I point that out merely to show that the conclusion which the American Bar Association came to, first, in February of last year at the February meeting was not a hasty conclusion. As you probably know, Mr. Chairman, when you start out to convince a jury not of 12 men, but you start out to convince a jury of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, of some 280 lawyers drawn from all over the United States and selected by their local bars and elected, you have quite a jury to talk to. I think you will recognize that, Senator Smith. And you will recognize that the American Bar Association house of delegates cannot be pushed around either by an American bar president or by anyone else.

I went off the committee at that time. Mr. Alfred J. Schweppe, after the death of Judge Ransom, assumed the chairmanship. And I have not been on the committee since because there should not be two men from Seattle, and because I wanted to be a free lancer in this movement.

So this committee, before it made any recommendations at all to the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, studied this question from September 1948, this question of the constitutional amendment, until February 1952, because there was considerable opinion, which you will have later voiced here, by the section on international law of the American Bar Association, and by others, that our constitutional rights could be sufficiently protected by reservations in treaties or understandings in treaties and that the constitutional amendment might not be necessary. But by February 1952, by an overwhelming vote of the house of delegates, and against the opposition of the section on international law, the house of delegates actea and adopted the text of a proposed amendment as to treaties. And when you read, sir, Mr. Smithey, this morning from the February report, the impression may have been gained by some that the house of delegates was reserving the matter of executive agreement because they did not think it ought to go into the same amendment. That was not true. They were reserving it in that particular