Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. SCHWEPPE. Yes; that is in there somewhere.

He has practiced and taught and written in the field of international law all his life. He started in the State Department under that great lawyer and statesman, Elihu Root; and in the last few decades, since leaving the Department, Mr. Finch, living here in the District, has kept under continuous survey the actions of the United States Government in the field of international relations.

If I were on the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, or in the State Department, I would have Mr. Finch retained as an official consultant at all times.

I believe much knowledge would be acquired and many errors avoided.

Mr. Finch, except when he listens to heresies promulgated by Government representatives in the field to which he has devoted his entire professional life, is a very quiet and very modest person indeed, difficult to persuade to put himself anywhere in the public eye.

I wanted that in the record so that you gentlemen get the opinion of men who worked with this very great scholar and have worked with him for quite a number of years.

Senator SMITH. You heard me yesterday, and I insisted, Mr. Chairman, in your absence, that Mr. Finch not be modest but put in the record just some of his activities, which he did.

Mr. SCHWEPPE. Before proceeding with my remarks, which are strictly in reply to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, I would like to put into the record several newspaper items which have been called to my attention.

One is from the Chicago Tribune of yesterday morning, page 16, entitled "NATO Pacts Cut Into U. S. Rights, Backers Admit.'

This is a summary of a matter that was heard before the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, I believe, with another group of treaties negotiated by the previous government, pending in the United States Senate, and being pressed by the present State Department for enactment.

Very interestingly, it will be seen through the treaty process to barter away a great many American rights in Europe where both our civil and military representatives are and by that peculiar rationale, which I have never been able to understand, have said at the same time:

When your people in a comfortable status are in the United States, you are not going to be subject to our rules.

It is a part of that great giveaway program that I have previously described on numerous occasions which is not only giving away the monetary substance of the United States but giving away rights of the American people.

I also have here two editorials that have appeared in the TimesPicayune and the New Orleans States of the city of New Orleans.

Mr. Deutsch has brought them with him from New Orleans, and I think the contained material has had a significant bearing on the problem we are discussing here.

I should like to offer those for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. All those will be inserted into the record.

(The material referred to follows:)

NATO PACTS CUT INTO UNITED STATES RIGHTS, BACKERS ADMIT

SOVEREIGNTY SACRIFICED TO OTHER NATIONS

By William Moore

[Chicago Tribune Press Service]

WASHINGTON, April 8.-State Department officials acknowledged today that they are bargaining away American sovereignty and the rights of individual States, in peacetime, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Asked by Senator Hickenlooper [Republican, Iowa] what legal authority they had to transfer American sovereignty to other nations, they cited the President's powers as Commander in Chief, but conceded that these are "not very clearly defined."

The admission that American sovereignty is being bargained away was made before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Meanwhile the Eisenhower administration was continuing its opposition, before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, to proposed constitutional amendments to limit treatymaking powers so that the United Nations and other global governments would have to keep hands off American domestic affairs.

AGREED TO BY ACHESON

The witnesses before the Foreign Relations Committee, headed by Senator Wiley [Republican, Wisconsin] were State Under Secretary Smith and Herman Phleger, legal adviser to the State Department.

They were present to urge ratification of new treaties with NATO countries that would subject American service and civilian personnel in Europe to the jurisdiction of the courts in the countries in which they are stationed under the NATO arrangement. At the same time, the treaties would exempt NATO personnel in this country from some Federal and State laws.

These treaties were agreed upon by the State Department under former Secretary Acheson 2 years ago, and were submitted to the Senate for ratification by former President Truman last June.

FURTHER STUDY SOUGHT

The Eisenhower administration, however, has accepted them and urged their ratification, but numerous members of the Foreign Relations Committee are asking that action be delayed until they can be more fully studied.

Phleger spoke repeatedly today of the necessity for surrendering as much sovereignty as the other nations are giving up.

Smith said NATO has been described as a "gentlemen's club" and defended giving up sovereignty to NATO nations on the ground they "had to be housebroken" and well-intentioned "to get in."

For this reason, the officials said, they are willing to give up American sovereignty over Americans in Europe, and grant concessions to NATO personnel in this country.

COULD CHANGE STATE LAWS

The treaties, in addition, exempt NATO Europeans in this country from American taxes and regulations against carrying arms, and protects them in some cases against criminal prosecution in American courts.

"Are you giving foreign governments something to say about changing the laws of the States under these treaties?" asked Senator Ferguson, Republican, Michigan.

"Yes," replied Phleger.

"I am bring this out for the purpose of letting everybody see that by treaty we can repeal the law of a State," Ferguson explained.

The facts regarding the new treaties were brought out in sharp questioning by Senator Knowland, Republican, California; Mansfield, Democrat, Montana; Hickenlooper, and Ferguson.

NO PLEDGE OF JURY TRIAL

1. Americans in Europe may be prosecuted under the treaties by the courts of the country in which they are stationed for offenses not committed while on duty.

2. Jury trial is not guaranteed.

3. In some countries having jury trials, conviction can be obtained despite "reasonable doubt" of guilt, and a majority vote, rather than the unanimous vote required here, can convict.

4. In case of a dispute over jurisdiction between the military and a foreign nation, arbitrators decide it.

5. While a soldier convicted in an American court martial has the right of review by American courts and a chance for Presidential pardon, no such privileges exist in foreign courts.

6. The treaties contain no band on cruel and unsual punishments, against which the Constitution protects.

MIGHT REQUIRE EXTENSION

Knowland warned that the NATO treaties will set a precedent for NATO, and said that it might be necessary to make the same concessions to other countries that might join NATO.

He said that in some middle eastern countries, thieves are punished by having their hands cut off, when caught, and questioned the possibility that such punishment might be inflicted on accused Americans if these countries come into NATO. Ferguson told the officials the treaties should have banned secret trials and cruel and inhuman punishment. Phleger replied that punishment in most European countries is lighter than in the United States, and that most of them do not have capital punishment.

Knowland said that trial in foreign courts will destroy the principle of equal military justice. Soldier A, he said, might get a 5-year sentence in one country, while Soldier B, in another country, might get off with 60 days for the same offense.

[The Times-Picayune, Tuesday, April 7, 1953]

STILL NEED PROTECTION

Administration opposition to the Bricker constitutional amendment proposal to outlaw any treaty in conflict with the Constitution may prevent its adoption by Congress and its submission to the State legislatures for ratification.

Stating the administration position, Secretary of State Dulles reassured Congress by saying that treaties should not be used to effect social changes, and that the President would not sign the U. N. Covenant on Human Rights or that on the political rights of women.

The administration, like that of Mr. Truman, fears that the Bricker resolution would tend to tie the hands of the Government in essential treatymaking at this time.

Besides forbidding any treaty in conflict with the Constitution, the Bricker proposal says that the provisions of a treaty shall not become effective as internal law unless passed as law by Congress, and that no treaty shall permit a foreign or international power to supervise, adjudicate, or control domestic rights of United States citizens. Senator Bricker made his resolution more detailed than we think there was any need to do. It raises some unnecessary questions. We much prefer the simple resolution of the American Bar Association which said that no treaty should trespass the Constitution, and that any treaty should become effective as internal law only after being enacted into law by Congress under its delegated powers.

Quite properly the President and the Secretary of State wish to avoid any delaying legal battles over international contracts designed to protect the country or promote the peace.

It is our own strong belief that American rights under the Constitution do need the protection of an amendment prohibiting any abridgment of those rights by treaty. Supreme Court decisions go both ways on the validity of treaties impairing those rights. The Court has never declared a treaty unconstitutional, though in some cases the provisions of the treaties have been applied as internal law.

There was good basis for the public apprehension that some of the proposals of the U. N. organizations making citizens responsible to international courts would be ratified under the Truman administration.

The fact that the Eisenhower administration does not intend to sign such treaties does not remove the threat contained in them at some future time Those people who say that Congress would never let international courts or authorities infringe on the liberties of the States or of the people seem to forget that we rely on the Constitution and not on Congress for the preservation of our basic rights. If Congress yields to the administration out of regard for the current sensitive international situation, it should return to the issue as soon as practicable.

[New Orleans States, April 7, 1952]

DULLES AND TREATIES

Opposition by Secretary of State Dulles to proposals in Congress to limit the treaty making powers comes as a disappointment.

We had assumed that he would be among the leaders in the administration clamoring for the restrictions on treatymaking that are needed to protect the traditional American rights of the individual.

His opposition was expressed at a Senate subcommittee hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by Senator Bricker, Republican, Ohio, and 63 other Senators. It is similar to one that Bricker offered last year.

It declares that any provision of a treaty that abridges at right guaranteed by the Constitution shall be of no effect, even if ratified by the Senate. It also would require passage of legislation by the House and Senate to make any treaty effective as internal law.

Mr. Dulles' position is that the proposed restrictions "could be dangerous to our peace and security" and "would subject the current, day-by-day conduct of foreign affairs to impediments which might be stifling.”

Granted that there may be much merit to Mr. Dulles' argument from a prac tical point of view in the operation of international diplomacy, it does not appear to us that his views are nearly so fundamental as making sure that the provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can never be superseded by the provisions of a treaty.

The concern of the Nation in the matter is not so much over what might be done under Mr. Dulles' own tenure of office, but what might be done by a Presi dent, Secretary of State, and Senate not so keenly aware of the dangers of government by treaty as is the present administration.

Mr. Dulles' opposition to the restricting proposal was accompanied by an announcement from him that the Eisenhower administration will not sign the so-called covenant of human rights, a United Nations instrument that has been viewed by such reputable authorities, as the American Bar Association as fraught with danger to cherished American rights.

Fortunately for the Nation, the present administration has made a wise decision in regard to the covenant. But what the Nation is to do in the future about such questions as the covenant should not be left to the whims of whatever administration is in power.

The restrictions embodied in the Bricker proposal should be written into the Constitution, against the day when there may be no Eisenhowers and Dulleses in office to turn down dangerous treaties such as the so-called covenant of human rights.

Mr. SCHWEPPE. I should like to have this statement put in the record as presented with such amendations that I may make.

I will probably skip around and make some interpolations here

and there.

We have now had the privilege of hearing the views of the Secre tary of State, the Honorable John Foster Dulles, and of the Attorney General of the United States, the Honorable Herbert Brownell, Jr., who have expressed themselves as in opposition, at least, to the texts of the constitutional amendments now proposed in the form of Senate

Joint Resolution 1, introduced by Senator Bricker, of Ohio, and Senate Joint Resolution 43, introduced by Senator Watkins, of Utah. These two resolutions, while having the same objectives of setting constitutional limitations on both treaties and executive agreements, differ in form.

The one proposed by Senator Watkins embodies substantially the text approved by the house of delegates of the American Bar Association.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, gentlemen, we will have to stop. Under the law we can only sit here with the consent of the Senate. Senator Taft has requested that we be allowed to sit and Senator Morse has objected, so we cannot sit here.

We will have to meet whenever the Senate adjourns tonight.

We will come here tonight and we will hear from Mr. Schweppe and Mr. Holman.

(Thereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene subject to call.)

« ÎnapoiContinuă »