Imagini ale paginilor

and fear now felt by the American people. Fear of the effect of international treaties among our people would, in time, destroy the public support essential as a foundation for constructive participation in world affairs. Such a needless risk can be avoided by submitting Senate Joint Resolution 1 to the States for their ratification.

As a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 1, I hope that your committee will act favorably upon the proposal and I ask that this statement be incorporated in the record as an expression of my strong support. STATEMENT OF BERNARD BERNSTEIN ON BEHALF OF B’NAI B’RITH,

WASHINGTON, D. C. The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name and whom you appear for?

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I am Bernard Bernstein, appearing on behalf of Mr. Frank Goldman, who is the president of B'nai B'rith, and our headquarters is here in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I am appearing on behalf of Mr. Frank Goldman, the president of B'nai B'rith. B'nai B'rith is an organization with over 300,000 members throughout the United States and in addition has branches abroad.

We wish to make a few remarks on the policy aspect of the problem presented by the Bricker resolution rather than on its strictly legal or constitutional aspects. We are particularly interested in two current problems that are affected by the proposed constitutional amendment, (1) the problem of protection of human rights and (2) the security interests of the United States. Our comments are directed to these two problems as they are affected by the Bricker resolution.

During the last 10 years great forward strides have been made in awakening the conscience of the people of the world to a profound concern for the protection of human rights. The protection of human rights is a basic concept in our way of life. Everyone is this country, whatever his religious belief or political point of view, would agree on that proposition. But the protection of human rights is not only a good end in itself. It seems to us that it is also an important factor in promoting the security interests of the United States.

We find ourselves now, and we have been for some years since the end of the Second World War, in the midst of a great crisis between ourselves and our allies on the one hand and the Soviet power on the other hand. One of the larger aspects in that crisis is the protection of the freedom of the individual. The United States has greatly strengthened itself in this worldwide struggle by being the champion of the international protection of human rights. Beginning with the enunciation in 1941 of the four freedoms by President Roosevelt, great strides in the direction of protecting human rights have been made. The downtrodden people of the world today know that we are serious and sincere when we express our desire to help them develop their human freedom.

By contrast Soviet communism has been demonstrating to the world, the mockery of Communist pratings about their desire to protect human freedom. The Godless character of communism makes no distinction between Jew and Christian. All religious groups and all freedom-loving people everywhere are threatened by Soviet communism. The Communist persecution of 212 million Jews residing be

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

hind the Iron Curtain is not solely evidence that Soviet communism is engaging in the crime of genocide. It is evidence that Soviet Russia and its satellites are entering a new stage in preparing their countries for war against the western way of life.

Several proposed treaties are now or may soon be awaiting action by the Senate, about which some people in the United States have expressed concern and with respect to which they have wanted to express their point of view. But there is reason to believe that the movement for the proposed constitutional changes which we are discussing here today is an outgrowth of the fears of this group concerning the implications of the Genocide Convention, the proposed human rights covenants, and the Conventions on Freedom of Information and Transmission of News. This group fears that these proposed treaties will interfere with domestic questions within this country.

The persons so concerned have had full opportunity, and no doubt will continue to have full opportunity, to express their views about the proposed treaties before the public, before the Government, before the State Department, before the United Nations, and before the Congress of the United States. Those views have been so amply and effectively expressed that thus far, not one of these conventions has been ratified by the United States.

Furthermore, with respect to the proposed convention on gathering of news the position of our own Government has changed. With respect to the proposed human rights covenants, our Government has insisted upon the inclusion of articles, which eliminate the issue which has been so fully discussed in these hearings, namely, the protection of our basic relations between the Federal Government and the State governments.

B'nai B'rith urges that proposed treaties be considered and dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as has been the situation throughout our history since the adoption of the Constitution. There is ample opportunity to debate and study each proposed treaty as the treaty is being considered by the executive branch of the Government or when the proposed treaty is submitted to the Senate for ratification.

After such debate, we should not doubt the continued ability of the President and the Senate to make sound decisions on any proposed treaty. On the other hand if, instead of continuing this old practice, our country enacts the proposed constitutional amendment, the world will probably think we do not really mean to support the international approach for the protection of human rights or the international approach to the solution of many vital problems facing our country and the rest of the world today.

The Bricker resolution, if adopted as an amendment to the Constitution, will not only undermine the United Nations but will so tie our country's hands in the conduct of international affairs as to threaten our security.

We urge that the Senate Judiciary Committee consider, among the other points that have been made, whether the enactment of the proposed constitutional amendment would be interpreted by the world as a new form of isolation and a significant retreat from our responsibilities as the greatest world power and as the leader of the world's collective security program against aggression. Such a result would be seriously detrimental to our security interests in what may be a longcontinuing crisis.

For these reasons, as well as for many other reasons which have been presented in the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee and which it is unnecessary to repeat, B'nai B'rith urges that Senate Joint Resolution 1 not be adopted.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions, Senator Watkins?
Senator WATKINS. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smith ?
Senator Smith. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bricker?
Senator BRICKER. No questions.

Senator DIRKSEN. I just want to make one observation, Mr. Bernstein, that I would yield to no one in my desire to protect human rights, and I want to be awfully sure that the human rights of the American people are protected.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. So are we in B'nai B'rith.
Senator BRICKER. May I make one comment?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator BRICKER. Since Mr. Bernstein has talked in general terms on this, I might say that this is the one country in the world that looks upon your rights and mine as something beyond the power of Government, inalienable, God-given, declared in the Declaration, and secured in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

This amendment is directly pointed toward the preservation of those rights against any international agreements. The covenant of human rights to which you refer, which has vague language, does prescribe limitations on those rights. Those limitations are enforceable by the laws of the country. It would transfer our individual rights from the spiritual realm to the power of our Government or some international forum.

People who should be most interested in those rights, the preservation of them inviolate, are the individual citizens who benefit from them, and as Mr. Rix so well said yesterday, that is the last bulwark of protection for minorities any place in the world. All other countries, the rights of people are given by government and can be taken away by government. We do not intend, if I can personally help prevent it, and I think the 63 other Senators that joined in this do not intend, to have those inalienable God-given rights dragged down to the level of the totalitarian communistic and socialistic governments of the world. That is the purpose of this.

I think you have entirely misjudged the purpose and failed to analyze the effects of it.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. May I comment on that? Senator Bricker, I am sure B'nai B'rith and I personally agree with you 100 percent that in the United States the rights of the individual are protected, and the rights of minorities are protected to a degree and in a manner that exists nowhere else in the world. I would like, however, to make two points with respect to your comment, Senator Bricker.

In the first place, with respect to the proposed human rights covenants which are being considered by the United Nations, there is an express provision, and it is as express as language can be, and if it is not sufliciently express, I am sure there would be every intention to make it more express that nothing in the proposed covenant is in. tended to derogate in any way, shape, or form one iota from the constitutional rights which any person now has in this country under the Constitution.

Secondly, and I think this is probably our main point, if the proposed covenant on human rights or any other covenant coming out of the United Nations, and Senator Dirksen expressed his concern this morning about the great number of conventions and treaties that are being considered by the United Nations, but the mere consideration of them makes them in no sense the word of law of the United States; in no sense, moral or legal or otherwise.

The Executive and the Senate have the opportunity of dealing with the proposed treaties, to say "yea" or "nay." If they do not like the

” treaty, they may reject it, or if they like most of the treaty and not some of the treaty to insert reservation. All we ask, all we suggest, is that in the kind of world that we live in today where international problems are even more difficult of solution than they have been in the many years of our history, and we ought to continue to have confidence in the Presidency, in the Senate of the United States, and in the democratic principles that we have been following in this country for well over 160 years to insure that treaties that are ratified are treaties that will protect the rights of Americans in this country and that will protect American security.

Senator BRICKER. If the men who met in Philadelphia had had that philosophy, we would not have had the protection. If the First Congress had felt as you now feel, we would never have had the Bill of Rights. They did not trust Congress; they did not trust anybody to deal with this inviolate, God-given human right, and I do not trust the President of the United States or the United States Senate to enter into a field that is to my mind sacred, the right of the individual citizen, which is beyond the power and 'reach of the Government. These treaties, the human-rights treaties, I especially would put them within the grasp of government, maybe not our own, but maybe

, an international government.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Only permit me to say that B'nai B'rith and I certainly believe in the Bill of Rights.

Senator BRICKER. If you supported the philosophy you have expressed here, there would have been no Bill of Rights; that was the argument in the Consitutional Convention.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Our position is that our view would be quite consistent with our originally having supported the Bill of Rights.

Senator BRICKER. If you do not mind, I believe that is quite contrary to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because they trusted nobody with these sacred rights.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. But none of these conventions affect the Bill of Rights.

Senator BRICKER. Have you read the Covenant on Human Rights? Mr. BERNSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator BRICKER. Do you know that it places a restriction on freedom of speech, worship, and the press? According to the will of government they can be penalized for violating the restrictions placed there by the Government or by the Congress or by the President in time of emergency.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I suggest, Senator, that there is an express section preserving all the constitutional privileges exactly as they exist under our Constitution.

Senator BRICKER. Which mean no more than paragraph 7 of section 2 of the United Nations Treaty, being violated every day by the United Nations subcommittees. It is the subtance you have to look to, not a few pretty words and one clause.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. BERNSTEIN. Thank you, gentlemen.
The CHAIRMAN. Is Reverend Scott present?



Reverend SCOTT. My name is Rev. DeLoss M. Scott, pastor of the National Tabernacle of Washington, D. C., and president of the Potomac Valley Fellowship of the American Council of Christian Churches. I am not present to speak on my own behalf but rather on behalf of Rev. Claude Bunzel, executive secretary of the American Council of Christian Churches of California. Reverend Mr. Bunzel was extended an invitation to appear as a witness on this hearing, but because of the great distance involved is unable to attend in person. Accordingly, having been vested with authority to appear on behalf of Reverend Mr. Bunzel, I express my appreciation of this opportunity.

I hold in my hand a copy of a message delivered by Mr. Bunzel to the ninth annual State convention convened at Pasadena, Calif., on November 6, 1952. It is not my intent to read this rather lengthy message in full, but to draw attention to certain excerpts which have most direct bearing on this assembly and the matter at hand, although, doubtless the message in its entirety would be valuable for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted in the record. (The information referred to is as follows:)

THE U. N. AND THE CHURCH-A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE Message delivered by the Reverend Claude Bunzel, executive secretary of the

American Council of Christian Churches of California, at its ninth annual

State convention, Pasadena, Calif., November 6, 1952 When the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations Organization was convened on April 25, 19-45, the meeting was opened with a minute of silence. That minute of silence, however, was one of the loudest noises ever heard. It was a shout heard 'round the world, announcing that God Almighty had been ruled out of His universe. From that time on, it has been possible to think of the United Nations as a practical fulfillment of the Second Psalm. Listen to these words, and you will perceive what is meant: “Why do the heathen (or nations) rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Annointed, saying, 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us'" (verses 1-3).

Before this message is over, it is hoped you will agree that, in contrast to the high moral standards and true individual liberty presented in the Bible, the nations are raging, and the people are imagining a vain thing, when they expect to solve the complex problems of our time through the medium of an organization like the United Nations.

Our subject is, The U. N. and the Church : A Glimpse Into the Future. Lest any of you think we are out of our realm in dealing with such a subject, we remind you that John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister educated in Scotland, was one of the signers of our Declaration of Independence. Not only did John

« ÎnapoiContinuați »