Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

which are appropriate for action on an international basis. But meanwhile the United States Government delegates to the ILO have been voting in favor of practically all the ILO conventions.

[ocr errors]

Foreign nations say, "If you are in favor of these conventions, why don't you ratify them?" On the basis of maintaining good will among nations and "going along with our friends," there may ome a time when the pressure for ratification of some of those conventions will be very strong; and all it would take to yield to that pressure, as matters stand now, would be the consent of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate present on the day when the matter was brought up for vote. There is a danger in this situation which imperatively demands correction.

I have also heard it said that there is little need to worry about ILO conventions because under the ILO constitution a country with a federal system such as ours may, if the subject is deemed appropriate for state rather than federal decision, simply refer the matter to the several states for such action as they may see fit to take. What this means is simply that the United States Government can dodge the issue by passing the buck to the States.

But it may not be as simple as all that. Remember, the Senate itself may decide as to whether a convention is, or is not, appropriate for Federal action. Suppose a convention arises which deals with matters now handled largely by the individual States. Is there anything to prevent the Senate from arbitrarily taking the stand that the matter has now become one for Federal action? In that case, the Senate could ratify a convention and by so doing override large numbers of the existing State statutes and substitute instead a pattern of conformity to Federal law. This is an issue of States' rights. There here exists a method of undermining local self-government.

The time has come when this issue must be faced squarely; because, for the first time, as I understand it, certain ILO conventions dealing specifically with domestic matters have been referred to the United States Senate. Among these are Convention 63, dealing with the gathering of industrial statistics, and Convention 88, concerning the organizations of a Federal employment service. Is strictly domestic legislation to be enacted by treaty ratification? Or do we amend the Constitution in such a way as to eliminate the loophole which now makes that possible?

Certainly it was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution that internal domestic affairs should be the subject matter of international treaties. Who, among those who attended the Constitutional Convention, could have ever imagined that the time would come when subjects such as socialized medicine, underground work of women in mines, maternity allowances, the use of white lead in painting, and holidays with pay would be the subjects of proposed international treaties?

I think the American public would be aghast if it understood the implications in this situation. I doubt whether today more than one person in a hundred, on the average, even knows of the existence of the ILO; but if people realized the facts I believe they would be very indignant at the idea that a group of foreign Socialists sitting in Geneva could, in fact, formulate domestic laws for the United States of America. I think the people would demand that our domestic laws

be conceived and formulated by the duly elected Senators and Congressmen whom they had sent to Washington for that purpose.

In that connection it is important to bear in mind that our method of convention ratification, which bypasses the House of Representatives, is peculiar to the United States. Again let me quote Judge Allen, who says in her recent book [reading]:

It is the rule in all but a very few other countries, and in important countries generally, that treaties take effect as municipal or domestic law only when implemented by legislation enacted by the full legislature. Since the United States Constitution makes the treaty the supreme law of the land, this safeguard does not exist for the United States.

The adoption of Joint Resolution 130 would not preclude the incorporation into the laws of the United States of the subject matter of an ILO convention dealing with domestic legislation. It would simply nullify the possibility of its adoption by treaty ratification. Legislation of the type indicated in an ILO convention could be introduced in bills brought before the House and the Senate, like any other domestic legislation. All the properly constituted representatives of the people would then have a chance to vote upon it.

Gentlemen, I do not say that everything coming out of the ILO is wrong. Along some lines, it is doing very constructive work. Some of its conventions may well be subject to adoption by the United States. But I say that we should correct the provisions in our Constitution under which the Senate alone is now faced with the responsibility for accepting or rejecting a law dealing with domestic matters but conceived by a foreign body. I should think that the Senate would wish to be relieved from this responsibility; and, furthermore, I should think that the Senators of the United States would wish very jealously to guard their right to be the originators, along with the Members of the House, of the laws of the United States.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Mr. McGrath, this is a fine contribution. You have given the committee considerable food for thought, as have other witnesses, and I appreciate your being here.

Mr. McGRATH. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate the opportunity of being here.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I hope you enjoy your trip to Geneva. Mr. McGRATH. I do, too, if and when I get there.

Senator HENDRICKSON. This will be made a part of the record, but not the printed record.

Mr. McGRATH. That is perfectly all right, sir.

Senator HENDRICKSON. The next witness will be Mr. Tillett, of Charlotte, N. C. Mr. Tillett, will you come forward and take a seat. You may proceed in your own style to present your case to the committee. We welcome you here.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. TILLETT, MEMBER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, CHARLOTTE, N. C.

Mr. TILLETT. My name is Charles W. Tillett. My home is Charlotte, N. C., and I am a lawyer. I am a member of long standing in the American Bar Association. While I am testifying in my own right as an individual American citizen, I should like to say that I have a special interest in the matter now before this committee and a

reasonably complete knowledge of it because of the following activities:

I was an observer at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco in 1945 when the charter of the United Nations was formulated. I was for several years a member of the peace and law committee of the American Bar Association. I was for 2 years chairman of the section of international and comparative law of the American Bar Association, and for 2 years I was chairman of that section's United Nations committee.

The proposal that has been presented to you for consideration by the American Bar Association is opposed by a very great many of its members. In an effort to point up this opposition, I am appearing here today. I present myself as a symbol and representative of the hundreds of American lawyers who feel that both the American Bar Association proposal and the one submitted by Senator Bricker are contrary to the best interests of our citizens and our Nation.

It is extremely important for you to realize and constantly bear in mind that this proposal does not come to you from the Bar Association with the recommendation that you adopt it; not at all. The official action of the Bar Association was incorporated in the resolution which was adopted last February by the house of delegates, which is the only body that is authorized to speak officially for the association. The exact text of the resolution that was adopted by house of delegates is as follows [reading]:

Resolved, That the American Bar Association recommends to the Congress of the United States for consideration an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in respect of the treaty-making power, reading as follows:

"A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation by Congress which it could enact under its delegated powers in the absence of such treaty."

This constitutional amendment, submitted thus to you for your consideration, does not have the support or endorsement of the association's section of international and comparative law.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Just a minute, Mr. Tillett. Is that the section to which my good friend Amos Peazley belongs?

Mr. TILLETT. Yes, sir; he is a member of that section.

Senator HENDRICKSON. He is from my own county in New Jersey, and I wondered.

Mr. TILLETT. He is a valuable member of our section. The absence of that support and endorsement is impressive and weakens the proposal when you realize that the members of that section do, whereas the members of the house of delegates generally do not, have a special interest in and knowledge of matters of international concern.

Mr. SMITHEY. Was this proposal debated at the convention of the house of delegates?

Mr. TILLETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITHEY. Were members of the section of international and comparative law given an opportunity to speak?

Mr. TILLETT. They were.

Mr. SMITHEY. And after they were given an opportunity to speak, the bar association then adopted the resolution which you read just a moment ago?

Mr. TILLETT. Yes; presented it to you for consideration.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Was it adopted by a roll-call vote?
Mr. TILLETT. I don't know. I wasn't present personally so I can't

answer.

Senator HENDRICKSON. The record would speak for itself; would it not?

Mr. TILLETT. Yes, sir.

The section of international and comparative law of the American Bar Association is made up not only of lawyers who practice international law professionally but also it is made up of general practitioners who feel that they can help in solving the problems of an effective and free world order by participating in the committee work of the section and its democratically conducted forums where they have an opportunity to present ideas that they have which will aid. in building the structure of enduring peace.

Senator HENDRICKSON. How many members do you have in that section?

Mr. TILLETT. From 800 to 1,000.

Senator HENDRICKSON. That is Nation-wide?

Mr. TILLETT. And I want to impress the fact that it is a democratically conducted section. It is the only phase where the rank-and-file lawyers shall participate. The peace and law committee is not a democratically elected group, but it is appointed by the president. So the difference between the section on international and comparative law and the peace and law is that the one is a representative group of those lawyers who have an interest in that sort of thing, whereas the peace and law committee is appointed by the president, and there is no

veto.

Senator HENDRICKSON. How many members on that committee, the latter committee?

Mr. TILLETT. The latter committee. I don't know; five, seven or nine, I forget which. At this point, Senator, I should like to say that there is another citizen of our country who would be here today testifying against these proposals if he were not, at the moment, absent in South America. I refer to Judge John J. Parker, one of the most distinguished judges and constitutional students in the country and a man who has had rare opportunities to obtain a world viewpoint. He is an active member of the section of international and comparative law. Last winter, when members of the section were conferring by correspondence about the American Bar Association proposal which is before you, he wrote a letter to Mr. Lyman M. Tondel, Jr., the chairman of the section, expressing his opposition to the bar association proposal as well as to the resolution submitted by Senator Bricker, as follows:

Mr. LYMAN M. TONDEL, Jr.,

New York 5, N. Y.

DEAR MR. TONDEL: Answering your letter of recent date, I will say that I am strongly opposed to the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the committee on peace and law. I am likewise opposed to the amendment proposed by Senator Bricker. The only hope of staying the hand of Russian communism is for this Nation to take the leadership of the free nations of the world; and it will be out of the question for us to exercise this leadership if we hamstring the treaty-making power in the way proposed by these amendments. It is absurd at any time to limit the treaty-making power by the provisions of the internal law of a nation. It would be suicidal to do so in this period of danger, when so much depends upon the leadership of this country in international affairs.

There is no danger that the President and the two-thirds of the Senate will impair the safeguards of constitutional liberty embodied in the Constitution. The danger is that we may fail in the responsibility of world leadership. Effective dealing with foreign nations will be out of the question if every treaty is made under the threat that it may be declared void if thought by the courts to conflict with the division of powers established by our Constitution between State and Federal Governments.

This is a time when leadership of the bar is needed by the country. We ought not lead in the wrong direction.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN J. PARKER.

Senator HENDRICKSON. May I ask, Who is Mr. Tondel?

Mr. TILLETT. He is the chairman of the section on international and comparative law.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I assumed that was the case, but I wanted the record to show that.

Mr. TILLETT. Yes, sir.

Senator HENDRICKSON. And you came into possession of that letter through Mr. Tondel?

Mr. TILLETT. As a matter of fact, Judge Parker sent a copy to me, and I obtained his consent to put it into the record.

The American Bar Association has repeatedly, through official action of its house of delegates and otherwise, advocated that world law be substituted for armed forces, and that adjudications according to international law take the place of war in the settlement of international disputes. A few years ago the association was one of the leaders in the successful movement to cause this country to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It is, I consider, a monstrous reversal of the association's hitherto noble and statesmanlike attitude toward world peace now to submit, even if only for consideration, a proposal to amend the Constitution in a manner which will, in effect, seriously handicap this Nation's power by treaties to add to the body of international law. Of what use is it for this country to adhere to the statute of the World Court and then tie its own hands as far as participating in the movement to enlarge the scope of world law is concerned?

Centuries of bloodshed testify to the ineffectiveness of force and armament to bring about enduring peace. The world is looking to its lawyers, lawmakers, and treaty makers to build the structure of enduring peace. This can be done only by carefully thought-out treaties, cautiously and bit by bit bestowing power upon skillfully constructed international institutions or by strengthening the United Nations or by both methods.

The proposal submitted by Senator Bricker will effectively and completely tie the hands of the President and Senate of the United States so that they cannot, by treaties, participate in such an enterprise. And while the wording of the proposal submitted for consideration by the American Bar Association is not as explicit in this regard as the proposal submitted by Senator Bricker, the design, intent, and ultimate effect of that proposal is the same.

A sense of history, such as that which the founding fathers had, would certainly indicate that in the world of the future our country must internationally be capable of adapting itself to any and every opportunity to build the structure of enduring peace that arises. These proposals that you are considering would, if adopted, griev

« ÎnapoiContinuă »