Senator, I do not want to encroach on your good nature. Senator DIRKSEN. We have 2 or 3 very important and somewhat controversial matters on the Senate floor today. We thank you, sir. Senator KEFAUVER. Before the committee recesses, I should like to read a very short letter. Knowing that Mr. Will Clayton, who is now president of the Anderson, Clayton Co., has served as Under Secretary of State and has had a great deal of experience in the negotiation of agreements and treaties, and is a thoroughly thoughtful and wellversed man in this field of activity, because of our great confidence in him, I wrote him a letter and asked if I should make arrangements with the chairman of the committee for his appearance here and if he would appear. He advised that because of pressing engagements he could not appear, but he sent a letter in lieu of his appearance which I should like to read into the record at this time and have made a part of the record: Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, ANDERSON, CLAYTON & CO., Houston, Tex., March 21, 1953. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: In lieu of my personal appearance, I respectfully submit this statement for insertion in the record of hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 1. I am opposed to the adoption of this resolution for the following principal reason: The free world is engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the Communist world. The Communists speak and act as a unit. Unless freedom is to disappear throughout the world, there must be much closer political, economic, and military integration among the nations of the free world than anything yet achieved. NATO cannot function so long as it speaks with as many different voices as it has members. NATO must speak with one voice or it will not be heard. Senate Joint Resolution 1, if adopted, would discourage and impede every necessary step to bring the free world closer together. It is an unenlightened expression of slavish dedication to the fetish of national sovereignty at a time when the free world must pool its sovereignty if it is to avoid annihilation. If this resolution had been written 150 years ago, one could understand it, although our forefathers considered its substance when drafting the Constitution of the United States and overwhelmingly rejected it. I hope this resolution will be disposed of in the same manner. Sincerely yours, Senator DIRKSEN. Have you anything else to offer? WILL CLAYTON. Senator DIRKSEN. The committee will suspend. We have no authority to sit while the sessions of the Senate are held unless it is obtained specially. Mr. Eichelberger, I am distressed about the fact that you have been here now twice. I had hoped that if we could finish in due season this afternoon, we might be able to resume sessions for a while, but that is one of those unpredictable matters. Mr. EICHELBERGER. May I say that I have enjoyed the witnesses that I have had the privilege of listening to, and I do not regret the time, at all, listening to Judge Parker this morning. I will be in Washington next week, and if you are having a hearing I will be delighted to be here, or I am willing to submit my statement. Senator DIRKSEN. We will see that that is properly entered, and I think we can get it on the calendar all right, because we have hearings calendared for the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th of April. The Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and others, will appear. Mr. ÉICHELBERGER. I am attending a convention in Washington the 6th, 7th, and 8th. Senator DIRKSEN. So that would be convenient. Mr. Eichelberger will be here during that period and could then appear. (Discussion off the record.) (Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 2:30 p. m., of the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The committee reconvened at 2: 30 p. m.) Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Dirksen, the acting chairman of the subcommittee, has secured permission for the subcommittee to sit this afternoon while the Senate is in session, and he has done me the honor of asking me to preside this afternoon for the particular purpose of hearing Mr. Clark Eichelberger, who has been here to testify twice, and rather than requiring him to come back on another occasion, Senator Dirksen asked that I preside this afternoon to give Mr. Eichelberger a chance to be heard. Before starting with the witness, Mr. Smithey, you have some statements to put in the record. Mr. SMITHEY. Yes, sir. The subcommittee has received several statements for inclusion in the record. Here is a statement of the Conference of State Manufacturers Associations in support of Senate Joint Resolution 1. I would like to submit that, sir, and ask that it be received. Senator KEFAUVER. It will be received and made a part of the record. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF CONFERENCE OF STATE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIONS FILED WITH THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1, PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT LIMITING THE TREATY POWER The Conference of State Manufacturers Associations, a voluntary federation of statewide manufacturers associations, files this statement in support of the principle to which Senate Joint Resolution 1 is directed, proposing a constitutional amendment limiting the treaty power. The statement is offered in behalf of the following associations, which are members of the Conference of State Manufacturers Associations: Associated Industries of Alabama Associated Industries of Florida New Hampshire Manufacturers Asso- New Jersey Manufacturers Association Texas Manufacturers Association Wisconsin Manufacturers Association The Conference of State Manufacturers Associations, in common with the American Bar Association and many other organizations, is greatly concerned lest the adoption of many of the proposed international covenants and conventions dealing with matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States and the States thereof should destroy the constitutional guaranties for the protection of the citizens of the United States and should work a substantial change in our local laws, both State and Federal, without the action of Congress, various State legislatures or a vote of the people. We are not in favor of any provision which would remove the authority of the President to enter into treaties or other international agreements dealing with strictly essential international relationships between this Nation and other foreign nations. Treaties, however, should deal with the relationship of a national or his government to foreign citizens and their governments and should not alter the internal governmental structure of the United States. Accordingly we believe that the treatymaking power should be limited for the following reason among others: 1. Ratified treaties and international conventions, unless a constitutional amendment prohibiting is adopted, will become the domestic law of the land under article 6 of the Constitution of the United States. 2. The power of the Federal Government would be extended over matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the States. 3. Domestic lawmaking by treaty bypasses the House of Representatives and the legislative processes. 4. Many of the proposed treaties and international covenants contain provisions which by normal interpretation would abridge rights enunciated in the Constitution. The United States appears to be the only government in the world where a treaty becomes the "supreme law of the land" without the approval of a national legislative body. Ratified treaties may supersede a prior act of Congress. A treaty supersedes all conflicting provisions of prior State laws or State constitutions. Many of the covenants now proposed by the International Labor Organization could render nugatory some of the most important provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act and to a large extent preempt the entire. field of labor-management relations. The proposed Genocide Convention and the draft covenants on human rights would abridge or eliminate constitutional guaranties of the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution and of the various State constitutions. The danger to our constitutional system makes it necessary for the Congress to protect our people by making certain that no provision of a treaty could abridge or deny any of the rights or powers enumerated in our Constitution or in any way alter our domestic laws. The Conference of State Manufacturers Associations, therefore, supports in principle the objectives sought in the various proposals pending before this committee and urges the Congress to take appropriate steps to limit the treatymaking power so that it will not be used to enact internal or domestic law in the United States, to alter the constitutional guaranties of our Bill of Rights or by indirection to extend the power of the Federal Government. Mr. SMITHEY. The statement by the lawyers' committee of the United World Federalists, Inc. Senator KEFAUVER. It will be received and made a part of the record. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 (THE BRICKER BILL) AND SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 43 (THE WATKINS BILL) BY LAWYERS' COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED WORLD FEDERALISTS, INC. The purpose of our organization is to work for the establishment of a world federation with adequate though limited powers to prevent aggression and maintain world peace. If the United States is to enter such a federation, the Constitution of the United States must be amended. The United States should not be committed to enter such a federation by treaty or by Executive agreement. With this consideration specifically in mind, we oppose the so-called Bricker and Watkins resolutions in their present form. Much of what those resolutions propose is unnecessary and some of their proposals would be mischievous. If the resolutions' provisions should be incorporated in the Constitution (1) the rest of the world would be led to believe that the United States is rebuffing all attempts to establish just, enforceable world law and to effect foolproof disarmament; (2) grave obstacles probably would be raised to settlement of our international disputes by arbitration or judicial proceedings; (3) if international negotiations were not completely frustrated, the Executive would be seriously handicapped in negotiating agreements for the adequate defense of America and the West; and (4) such a change in our Constitution might preclude any possibility that the United Nations could be strengthened and improved in a U. N. Charter Revision Conference if held in 1955-56. Had those proposals then been incorporated in the Constitution of the United States, it is very doubtful whether this country could have sponsored the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or proposed the American plan for the international control of atomic energy. Dated: March 23, 1953. PHILIP W. AMRAM, Guggenheimer, Untermyer, Goodrich & Amrum, Washington, D. C. Dean of Law School, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C. Doherty, Rumble, Butler & Michell, St. Paul, Minn. HENRY B. CABOT, Boston, Mass. THOMAS H. MAHONY, Mahony, Bryer, Coffin & Willis, Boston, Mass. A. J. G. PRIEST, Professor of Law, University of Virginia; Reid & Priest, New York, N. Y. ABRAHAM WILSON, General Counsel, United World Federalists, Inc., Mr. SMITHEY. The statement of the Air Transport Association of America. Senator KEFAUVER. It will be received and made a part of the record. (The statement is as follows :) Hon. WILLIAM LANGER, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Air Transport Association represents all of the scheduled international air carriers, who operate into 80 jurisdictions. The Association's interest in Senate Joint Resolution 1 stems from the fact that only by virtue of dozens of treaties and agreements now in effect can many of our members operate today, and only if these are maintained, and others entered into, can they grow tomorrow. Since each state has sovereignty over its air space, American aircraft can fly in air space of a foreign country only as treaties or agreements admit them, The range of international understandings under which American carriers operate are as wide and varied as this new and changing enterprise requires. Basic treaties are needed to define the broad rights in the air. Treaties of commerce and friendship are essential to give rights to American personnel in foreign states. Bilateral air agreements are needed to permit scheduled commercial operations between two states. Binding technical agreements are essential to govern aircraft movements in traffic patterns, channels of communication between pilots and traffic controllers and airport traffic directors, and other agreements are needed to establish common alphabets, units of measure, barometric pressure settings, radio frequencies, maps, and literally hundreds of other operating procedures to be used by pilots and traffic controllers speaking a dozen different languages. Some of these understandings are subject to change on notice of a few hours. We know of no way that air transport could be conducted internationally without first, a countless number of agreements, and second, and equally important, a constant readiness to change some of them on short notice as conditions require. Our opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1 is based on a belief that this legislation would make far more difficult, if not impossible, the negotiation, adoption, and amendment of these essential agreements. To support our conclusion, we will discuss illustrative agreements and show how they would be harmed by this resolution. One pillar of international air transportation is the International Civil Aviation Convention, adopted at Chicago in 1944 and ratified by the United States in 1946, by which more than 50 states agreed to the rights each has in the air space of the other and on the high seas. These states agreed to the basic conditions governing flight over each other's territory, to requirements as to registration of aircraft and nationality of aircraft, to recognize the licenses of crew competency and certificates of airworthiness of aircraft issued by contracting states, and the measures to be taken to facilitate air navigation. This convention established the International Civil Aviation Organization as a continuing international agency which could establish standards of operations and proce dures to which the states must conform or state specific deviations. Under that convention, so many standards and procedures have been agreed to that it requires more than 1,000 pages to print them, and to keep them current has required hundreds of amendments since their adoption. When this treaty was completed, it was hailed as advancing international freedom of the air to a point reached in the maritime law only over a period of 200 years, and a half-dozen major wars. The treaty was prepared by a conference called by our Government. Our Government played a leading role in the deliberations, and our Senate ratified it unanimously. Fifty-eight countries have ratified or have adhered to it, and today, when international air commerce has advanced beyond what was then anticipated, there is no major demand for its abrogation. But if Senate Joint Resolution 1 is adopted, it will be impossible for the United States to enter such a treaty. The provision which would prevent the United States from entering such a treaty is section 2 of the resolution, which prohibits the United States from entering treaties which authorize "any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States." The Chicago convention not only authorizes arbitration of disputes between states by ICAO in article 84, but it also provides, in article 87, for the enforcement of such decisions by providing that each contracting state "undertake not to allow the operation of an airline of a contracting state through the air space above its territory if the council has decided that the airline concerned is not conforming to a final decision of ICAO. Such a yielding of sovereignty is a serious matter-one not taken lightly and one with possible crushing impact on United States airlines in the future, but one which weeks of negotiation proved to be essential "give" if we were to get the desirable "take". * * Another treaty which was initiated by the United States Government is the Convention on International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft, commonly referred to as the Mortgage Convention. This convention was devised to secure international recognition of the complicated legal status of aircraft when operated by one person but owned by another person in a second country and levied on for debt in the second or a third country. This status develops when title of aircraft is pledged as security to finance expensive modern aircraft which operate internationally. The lender is justifiably concerned that when the aircraft is outside the country where his mortgage is recorded, a foreign creditor of the borrower might seize the aircraft and leave the lender without security. To protect the American lender and thereby make it easier for the operator to finance new purchases of equipment, it was necessary to get agreements as binding as possible that foreign courts would recognize liens or mortgages on airplanes which are recorded in the United States. This amounts virtually to getting foreign states to adopt many of the features of our law and to recognize legal rights which are valid here, although strange to them. That treaty, which was eagerly sought by and for the benefit of American interests, was no small victory for our negotiators. It too was unanimously ratified by our Senate. But the proposed Senate Joint Resolution 1 would prohibit the United States from entering such a treaty. To effect the aims of that treaty, it provides that if a creditor in the United States tries to seize a foreign airplane to enforce payment of a debt, the rights of the United States creditor are subjected in some instances to the law or the courts of the country where the aircraft is registered. No longer will the creditor's rights against the airplane-which are rights in the United States-be decided solely by the law of the United States; because under the convention they may be decided by the laws or courts of foreign states. This is prohibited |