negotiation and conclusion of treaties or international agreements between nations; and Whereas the matters to which said Genocide Convention pertain are matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States of America and the States of the Union under the Constitution and Bill of Rights: and Whereas if ratified and approved and suffered to be enforced against the citizens of the United States at home or abroad, will surrender to foreign control the sovereign, inherent, and inalienable powers of "we the people," constituting the Government of the United States and turn over to an international commission and an international court the investigating, prosecuting, hearing, deciding, and punishing of individual citizens for alleged violations: Therefore be it Resolved, That the 27th Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense, reaffirms its opposition to ratification of the said Genocide Convention, with or without reservations and that we place our faith in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights for the security, defense, and preservation of this Republic and its sovereign people. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to say, as you have probably gotten on by now, that we are opposed in any way to any further treaty, thus bringing us into this great tangle that seems to have been done under the United Nations Charter, which by the way, I heard mentioned awhile ago by the distinguished Senator, where someone had said that it was possible that the Charter might be a treaty. I would like to quote here from your Director of the Legislative Reference Service Library of the Congress. He has been in since 1940. Dr. Ernest F. Griffith, in his book, Congress, Its Contemporary Role, says here on page 88 that The San Francisco Charter is a treaty; entrance into the United Nations affiliates has usually required affirmative congressional action. This is quite an illuminating book, and it frightens those of us who have done some research and study over a period of years of what is happening to our form of government and to our Constitution under the sneaking attack of trying to change it by treaty. It is a long process by amendment of getting all the States to ratify but they found out that it is very easy to change it by treaty. People who are expecting our Congress to watch over that great Constitution of ours and the welfare of the people are confused when they hear about all of this, and those of us who have had the privilege of going into it to some extent, we are confused and frightened, especially when we read from the Director of the Records Library in his book on page 87, chapter 8, where he says: Moreover, treaties are relatively less important in international policy than formerly.. Then he goes on over here on page 86: The Congress seems to be vying for some leadership as against the power of the President and he goes on to say he is not so much interested in getting your power but he would like to insist on a share in crucial decisions. We hope you will take the power you have and go forward with this great amendment that Senator Bricker has brought up. He goes on to say on page 87: The Executive must still reckon with the possibility that Congress will refuse to "go along" by nonratification of a treaty, by failure to appropriate funds, by nonimplementation of an executive agreement, by declining to confirm a Presidential choice. Then he says: Much more dramatic have been efforts of Congress-the Constitution notwithstanding-to guide international policy either by further stimulating or accelerating an already noticeable trend or by altering its course altogether. I would like to call your attention to this book. It is quite illuminating. Then I should like to tell you, too, about the strangeness of the hour. You see, in this country we have already been cited in the United Nations General Assembly, as on December 9, 1948, with the charge of genocide. So you can see that we are in a very serious position. I want to read to you just one or two quotes here from George Washington's Farewell Address. He says: Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favored are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. We know that the great question of today is whether the United States of America is to be governed in our international affairs and our domestic laws by treaty law or by laws with the constitutional basis passed by the Congress of the United States. And we want to know whether we are to surrender our God-given rights of freedom to a starry-eyed international tribunal who have no qualifications for interpreting the laws of our country. In George Washington's Farewell Address he says: Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. Mr. Chairman, we have brought you these resolutions. We are not in any way going to attempt to give you the language or the mechanics. We are only hoping that you will pass this amendment to the Constitution as rapidly as you have stated that you would like to, and we appreciate very much this opportunity to come here and speak on it, and we can assure you that when it is passed we will do all that we can in our different States. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Howard. I just wonder why the organizations did not appear against the adoption of the United Na tions Charter. Mrs. HOWARD. Well, of course, I don't doubt that at all, but, of course, I don't suppose very many people had a chance to appear on that. Don't you know, it has not been popular to appear against a lot of things in the last 20 years. The CHAIRMAN. There were just two of us in the Senate that voted against the United Nations Charter and I was one of them. Mrs. HOWARD. That is so appropriate, what I have just read you: Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorites are liable to become suspected and odious while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. Don't you see? Senator WATKINS. You are quoting George Washington now? The CHAIRMAN. Did you give your address? Mrs. HOWARD. 1521 Monroe Street NW. Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Watkins. Senator WATKINS. I would like to extend my congratulations for that very fine presentation on a difficult subject, and I appreciate the attitude of the organizations. Mrs. HOWARD. Thank you, very much. Keep in mind these resolutions were adoptead by 38 large national patriotic women's organizations. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Ernest Schein. STATEMENT OF ERNEST SCHEIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. SCHEIN. I represent the Bar Association of the District of Columbia as chairman of its committee on international law. Our association comprises thousands of lawyers, many of whom are experts and certainly interested in the subject of international and constitutional law. We work closely in cooperation with the American Bar Association, and we also feel that we should like to have an opportunity separately to present our views. What has transpired here this morning already has indicated that we shall have such an opportunity before a final draft is submitted, which will come out of the conferences of my friend Frank Holman and Senator Bricker on Senate Joint Resolution 1. At such time we should like, after our membership has had a further opportunity to consider pro and con the provisions of such a resolution, to present our views. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say you are going to poll your membership or your executive committee? Mr. SCHEIN. No, sir; our committee will listen and study and then submit a report. The CHAIRMAN. That is the gentlemen who are here now? Mr. SCHEIN. I am representing the few gentlemen who will be involved in submitting a report. The CHAIRMAN. I am interested in how much time you are going to take. Mr. SCHEIN. I understand you are interested in that. It should not take more time than the committee is going to take to consider the further elements that appear to be still reserved for consideration. The CHAIRMAN. How much time is that going to be? Mr. SCHEIN. Probably 30 days. The CHAIRMAN. No; we will not give you 30 days. At the outside, we can give you a week. If you cannot drop in an amendment inside of a week Mr. SCHEIN. Whatever is given to us we will take. If a week is the time in which you will want a report from our association, that is what we will take. The CHAIRMAN. What do you think, Senator Watkins and Senator Smith? Do you think a week is enough? Senator WATKINS. I am not on the subcommittee. I am on the full committee. I hope to see it pushed right along. It has been. for discussion before. up The CHAIRMAN. Do you think a week is ample, Senator Smith? Senator SMITH. I am not on the subcommittee either. I was on the subcommittee last year. I don't know, I think the chairman is a little optimistic if he thinks we are going to get down to putting this in final shape in a week. I would have no objection as far as I am concerned if you give the committee a little more time than that. Certainly it is a most important subject we are dealing with, and while I think it ought to be pushed along as the chairman suggests The CHAIRMAN. I think they have had this pending before them for 2 years. Mr. SCHEIN. Senate Joint Resolution 130, in our opinion, is different from Senate Joint Resolution 1. The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have had this problem before you for a long time, and I am setting this for a week from today. We are going to get through with this matter. Mr. SCHEIN. I believe that is an awfully short time. The CHAIRMAN. It is a short time, but we are going to get action on this resolution. We are not going over into July with nothing done about it. Mr. SCHEIN. There are many lawyers in this country who are anxious to be heard on this subject. I do not know how they will be heard. The CHAIRMAN. We have telegrams here, dozens of them, and they are going to have a chance to be heard, but we are going to get rid of it, we are going to get through with it. There are a lot of other matters pending before this committee, important matters, and we are going to go along. There is going to be no delay. Mr. SCHEIN. I do not want to appear too persistent, Mr. Chairman, but 1 week, when Frank Holman has already indicated he is going into conference on Friday to change some of the language of Senate Joint Resolution 1, does not give us a great deal of time to assemble an informed opinion, which I am sure this committee is interested in. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will set it for a week from today for the time being. If you can show good cause for extending the time we are likely to do that. Mr. SCHEIN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN: We will file these telegrams here in the record from the various bar associations. They are all in favor of this with the exception of one. Will you see that that one person is entitled to be heard, Mr. Smithey? There is also a protest here against the bill. Will you see that these people are notified so that they can appear in opposition to it, the Church Peace Union? We will also put all these letters in the record, together with the telegrams. (The communications referred to are as follows:) Hon. WILLIAM LANGER, WICHITA, KANS., February 16, 1953. Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: It is my understanding hearings are to begin Wednesday, February 18, on constitutional amendment re treaties and executive agreement. I very much favor a constitutional amendment substantially in the form recommended by the American Bar Association. Your careful and thoughtful deliberation of this amendment will be appreciated. J. E. SCHAEFER. Senator WILLIAM LANGER, Chairman, Judiciary Committee, TULSA, OKLA., February 16, 1953. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Re treaties and executive agreements sincerely urge passage of constitutional amendment in form recommended by American Bar Association. May I urge your best efforts along this line. FLOYD L. RHEAM. LITTLE ROCK, ARK., February 16, 1953. Hon. WILLIAM LANGER, Senate Office Building: Understand that hearings will begin in near future on proposed constitutional amendment with respect to treaties and executive agreements. Every thinking lawyer with whom I am acquainted feels that this subject is tremendously important and that the substance of the American Bar Association proposal is highly satisfactory. Anything that can be done to bring about early favorable action on this matter will be a distinct service to this Nation. WILLIAM LANGER, Chairman, Judiciary Committee: EDWARD L. WRIGHT. SEATTLE, WASH., February 16, 1953. In accordance with resolution Washington State Bar at convention last September we favor constitutional amendment on treaties in form proposed by the American Bar Association. PHILIP D. MACBRIDE, President, Washington State Bar Association. GREAT FALLS, MONT., February 16, 1953. Senator WILLIAM LANGER, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: I favor the constitutional amendment in the form recommended by the American Bar Association of which I am a member of the house of delegates. We do not want treaty law. JULIUS J. WUERTHNER, Hon. WILLIAM LANGER, ALEXANDRIA, LA., February 16, 1953. United States Senator, Washington, D. C.: Am informed that Senate Judiciary Committee will commence hearings on constitutional amendment concerning matter of treaties and executive agreements. This matter strikes at the very heart of our constitutional system. Urge that the committee adopt an amendment substantially in the form recommended by the American Bar Association. LEDOUX R. PROVOSTY, Attorney. Senator WILIAM N. LANGER, WILMINGTON, N. C., February 16, 1953. Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D. C.: Understand Senate Judiciary Committee begins hearings Wednesday on Constitutional amendment affecting treaties and executive agreements. I favor and urge adoption of amendment substantially in the form proposed by the American Bar Association. L. J. POISSON. |