way, but as a serious matter in the field of everyday human affairs, as you will discover before we are through.

It is the International Court of Justice that chiefly concerns us now, in connection with the U. N. and the church. The International Court is the "principal judicial body of the United Nations." All member nations can refer to it "any case they wish." A body of 15 judges, elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council, are empowered to pass judgment upon any case brought before the Court. After judgment has been reached, the Court itself may call upon the Security Council to "give effect to the judgment of the Court."

In simple language this means that the Court has been given readymade machinery to enforce its decisions. But the appalling thing is this, although composed of 15 judges, only the majority of the quorum of 9 judges is necessary to bring conviction. In other words, a minimum of five men are granted the power of decision over the lives and property of literally millions of people, including the 150 million people of the United States of America. Is that what you want? Earlier I stated that UNESCO is educating the masses for eventual world government. Let us consider some of the evidence behind this assertion.

First, there is the new book by A. H. Feller, entitled "United Nations and World Community." "Since 1946, Mr. Feller has been the General Counsel of the United Nations, so that his book bears an authoritative tone. According to this author, there is a very real barrier to a world community. That barrier is national sovereignty. Hence, Mr. Feller writes: "*** international cooperation can exist only if States are willing to yield some portion of their sovereignty for the common good. Every step in fostering cooperation therefore involves an assessment of the extent to which cooperating states are willing to restrict their freedom of action" (p. 12). Here is a question for you: How can sovereignty be divided? If we give up "some portion" of our national sovereignty, and bow to a higher power, we are no longer sovereign-unless words have lost all meaning. I go on to say that the latest political heresy is that sovereignty can be divided. Sovereignty cannot be divided. It can only be relinquished. A short while ago Milton Mayer, an educator, spoke in Pasadena at the First Congregational Church. The meeting was sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee. Mr. Mayer has become quite famous as the man who refuses to salute our flag. I picked up from the literature table a Peace Service Bulletin of the Friends Committee, dated October 1952. The very first paragraph is headed "UNESCO and World Citizenship." The paragraph reads:

On the heels of the banning of the "E" in UNESCO by the Los Angeles and Monrovia school boards, it is good to come upon these remarks by the editors of the Saturday Review of Literature (July 19): "If UNESCO is attacked on the grounds that it is helping to prepare the world's people for world government, then it is an error to burst forth with apologetic statements and denials. Let us face it: The job of UNESCO is to help create and promote the elements of world citizenship. When faced with such a charge, let us by all means affirm it from the housetops. Let us say that we are moving heaven and earth to create a human community on this planet, that world citizenship is the ultimate goal and no one need apologize for it."

During the question period afterward, I asked something like this: Am I to conclude that the American Friends Service Committee is on

record as approving world government as the ultimate goal? The moderator of the meeting, personally connected with the Friends Committee at its Pasadena branch, very frankly stated that, although they realized the task could not be accomplished immediately, and that they would have to go ahead a step at a time, their ultimate goal was world government. When the Quakers themselves admit it, who can deny it?

Let us now consider how the United Nations is a prelude to eventual world government. In the foreword to General Counsel Feller's book, he states: "I believe the United Nations to be one of the great adventures of history." With this we can agree, when we find that the dictionary defines an "adventure" as "the encountering of risks; hazardous enterprise." By our participation in the United Nations we are encountering the risk of losing both our national sovereignty and our freedom of action. World government, you must understand, cannot come until national governments go. That is too big a price to pay for a mere adventure.

Someone will be quick to say, as our own State Department has said, that the United Nations is not a world government. Of course it is not. We have not said that it is. We do say, however, that the United Nations is the prelude to world government; and Mr. Feller's book makes that very plain.

On page 14 he tells us that "most scholars" are convinced "that the goal of a stable world order can only be achieved by the development of world law and world community." You realize, do you not, that these are the scholars who teach the teachers who teach your children?

On page 44, Counsel Feller reveals that "the members of the United Nations have undertaken an obligation to require nonmembers to abide by certain principles to which these nonmembers have not specifically subscribed. In the light of the orthodox rules of international law, this was an unprecedented and bold advance toward providing a general law for the whole world through the act of only a part of the states." Then he adds, "** there is every warrant for holding that they had the right to enact law for the entire community."

This is somewhat like the three Boy Scouts who reported to their Scoutmaster that they had done a good deed that day. "We helped a little old lady across the street," they said. "That is a good deed," the Scoutmaster replied. "But why did it take three of you?" And one of them answered, "Because she didn't want to go.'

The United Nations Charter has been ratified as a treaty, and has now become a part of the "supreme law of the land." Nothing in our Federal Constitution, our State constitutions, our county, city, or town ordinances may read contrary to the United Nations Charter. This is nothing less than revolution by treaty.

Until the advent of the United Nations, there was no problem in regard to treaties, for the simple reason that previous treaties have been confined to such matters as international reparations following war, international boundary disputes, or international commercial and trade agreements. The United Nations Charter, however, begins with the words, "We the peoples of the United Nations." It is "We the peoples"-not "We the nations." This automatically brings the United Nations down into the realm of human affairs, affairs which affect our daily lives as individuals.

The solution to our present difficulty is an amendment to the Constitution to limit treaty-making power to the recognized framework of our national laws. In support of this, I give you the sworn testimony of United States Senator Patrick McCarran, on May 22, 1952. Senator McCarran says: "We Senators want a Constitution amendment to protect us as well as the American people, and I am compelled to admit here publicly, that I have voted for a number of treaties that I have never read. And if I had known how these provisions of the United Nations Charter were going to be used to make domestic laws, I never would have voted for the UN Charter. I am sure I will regret to my dying day that I ever voted for the United Nations Charter." America needs more of this kind of humility if its future is to be safeguarded. There is an ancient proverb that says, "If a man deceives you once, that's his fault. If he deceives you twice, that's your fault."

By now you must be wondering what all of this has to do with the church, the gospel, and religious freedom. Well, two of these treaties of the United Nations definitely intrude into such matters. I refer to the Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention.

The Covenant on Human Rights is properly named. It does deal with human rights, not political rights. But so-called human rights are already possessed by men, not granted by governments. One writer has put it this way, in reference to human rights: "No government can grant them, and no government can legitimately abolish them. The sole purpose of government should be to defend them." This is exactly what our national Bill of Rights does; it protects the rights we already have as human beings. In fact, our Government was devised by men who had rejected the Old World idea that individual rights are a grant from government. Thus, the Declaration of Independence declares that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In other words, we possess these rights upon birth, before we become a conscious part of the Government. This concept the United Nations treaties deny, either directly or indirectly.

Article 13 of the covenant states:

* Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief shall be subject only to such limitations as are pursuant to law and are reasonable and necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Here we find the clear statement that our religious beliefs and manifestations (whatever that may mean) are to be subject to the limitations of laws yet to be enacted. Of course, they are to be "reasonable and necessary" laws, but who determines that? The majority power. Not only so, but the very first amendment to our Constitution has been contravened by the treaty provisions of an international organization in which the United States is reduced to a voting minority.

In 1785, James Madison had this to say about religious liberty:

The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. *** We maintain therefore that in matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.

What is wrong with that, you ask. When the government owns everything, and the people possess nothing, the people are at the mercy of the government. When the people are deprived of natural rights, they are dependent upon the government to grant them their rightswhich can be granted or withheld at pleasure. In America, however, our political philosophy is that the people already possess their rights naturally-all the people, not just the workers-and government is forbidden to abridge those rights.

Let us turn now to the Genocide Convention. This is where the situation really begins to get nasty. If you want the whole story in readable form, I refer you to Collier's magazine of March 3, 1951, or to the Congressional Digest of December 1950, which also includes the complete text of the Genocide Convention.

Genocide is a coined word which means "race killing." It refers to the killing of a person because he is of a certain race. I hope that everyone in this auditorium is strongly against genocide. The Genocide Convention, however, is not limited to race killing; and it is the things that have been added, and the way they are to be handled, that should prompt our opposition to the Genocide Convention.

Article II of the convention itself will quickly reveal what I mean. It reads:

In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part, a nation, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III declares:

The following acts shall be punishable: (a) genocide, (b) conspiracy to commit genocide, (c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide, (d) attempt to commit genocide, (e) complicity in genocide.

Mr. Feller's book tells us that this is the first of such conventions to come forth from the United Nations, and adds that they are to be considered as "binding obligations in the fields of human rights" (United Nations and World Community, p. 101).

Listen carefully. Do you want a convention like this to become a part of the fundamental law of the land? Do you want to become chargeable with causing "mental harm" to a "part" of some race—and we are all members of some race when you go forth to preach the gospel of salvation from sin?

Do you want to be taken before an international tribunal to be tried for "complicity" in genocide if your pastor should engage, for example, in Jewish evangelism? If the Genocide Convention is signed as a treaty, these astounding things will become possible, even though they contradict our Federal and State constitutions. Treaty ratification will mean that any American citizen can be tried as a criminal, should he do or say anything that an international court might interpret as causing "serious mental harm" to anyone on account of his race, nationality, or religion.

And remember that we are about to enter an era in which to be accused is tantamount to being adjudged guilty.

From some standpoints the Bible is a highly controversial book. By that, I mean that it contains the records of many, many controversies

among men. The prophets of the Old Testament did not hesitate to denounce rulers, people, or nations, if they had become guilty of spiritual wickedness. The apostles of the New Testament did not hesitate to warn God's people against specific errors and those who taught them. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not hesitate to excoriate such groups as the Pharisees, the Saducees, and the Herodians. Let us imagine that these same dynamic spiritual leaders are living in the foreseeable future, with such instruments of international law in effect as the Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. From what could happen to them, we can determine what may happen to us, if these things come to pass in our own lifetime. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions, Senators?

Senator SMITH. That was a resolution adopted by a group representing, I believe you said, about a million communicants.

Rev. Mr. SCOTT. That is right, the American Council of Christian Churches is composed of 16 Protestant denominations. It has more than 6,000 congregations, over 1 million adherents.

Senator SMITH. I was trying to bring that out because that is not one of the so-called ultraliberal or Red-tendency groups.

Rev. Mr. SCOTT. No, indeed. The American Council is set up indeed to defend the Good Old Book and to cry out against the infringement of modernism and liberalism in these days.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator BRICKER. May I make one suggestion here to emphasize what the reverend has said about our having one vote. In the consideration of the council of the Covenant of Human Rights, our representative made a suggestion that the right of the ownership of property should be included in the covenant. Immediately Russia objected because she said, "We have no private property ownership in Russia." Then Denmark, as I remember the record, moved that it be stricken out on the ground that it is not a fundamental human right. Of course, our one vote was not enough to save it.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make one general observation for the record; then I would like to ask consent to insert in the record at this point a telegram I received from Dean Clarence Manion, former dean of the Law School at Notre Dame University, in which he subscribes to Senate Joint Resolution No. 1. I would like to have it included. It is entirely possible Senator Bricker may have received the same telegram.

Senator BRICKER. I do not know that I have. But I know that Dean Manion would like to testify if the opportunity comes. He wants to come and present his testimony at a later date.

Mr. SMITHEY. I may say at that point he has been notified of the hearing. He has not responded yet.

Senator BRICKER. He tried to call me yesterday, but he did not get me. But he got the word to me.

(The telegram referred to, from Dean Clarence Manion to Senator Dirksen, is as follows:)

Senator EVERETT DIRKSEN,

SOUTH BEND, IND., February 18, 1953.

Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D. C.:

I hope that your Senate Judiciary Committee will speedily approve and favorably report Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 in a form which will nullify any treaty or executive agreement which conflicts with the Constitution of the United