or construed as to diminish or jeopardize the rights of United States citizens as enumerated and provided for in the Constitution of the United States, or as reserved to the people.

The American Legion is not committed to the exact language of Senate Joint Resolution 1 or that contained in the amendment proposed by the American Bar Association, nor the language of similar proposals before the Committees on the Judiciary of either House. It believes however, that variances in the several proposals are matters of language rather than of principle, and that such variances can readily be reconciled to accomplish the common purpose. It respectfully suggests to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and to the proponents of the several resolutions before that committee that, if it has not already been done, all concerned therein and favorable thereto meet together and arrive at language which will express the common purpose, and on which all or a very substantial number can agree.

While I realize that the members of our special committee may not have made as long and careful study of the principles set forth in Senate Joint Resolution 1 as have the members of your committee, representatives of the American Bar Association, and others who favor a constitutional amendment of this nature, we believe that a fresh look is sometimes very helpful.

With that in mind I am offering suggestions for new language which, in our opinion, would accomplish the intent of the proposals by the American Bar Association; by Senator Bricker and other co-sponsoring Senators, and possibly be more acceptable to the parties concerned. These are appended to my statement. We have no pride of authorship and are concerned only with the protection of this country and its citizens. The essential thing is that differences of language be reconciled, with all possible speed consistent with essential clarity and precision, and the ends to be achieved. Time marches on, and will not tarry for the idler and the dreamer who cannot awake to the reality of the day. We need an amendment now. We should have it with all possible dispatch.

In behalf of the American Legion I wish to state that we have confidence in the members of this honored committee. We feel that you will bring forth a resolution in words and effect that will be wholly acceptable to our great organization, the membership of which has pledged to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

In concluding this statement, necessarily brief because of the limited time we had to prepare it, we quote from a State Department publication released in January 1952, by Mr. John M. Cates, Jr., officer in charge of United Nations Human Rights and Cultural Affairs, Office of United Nations Economic and Social Affairs, as follows:

"Basic to all preparations and all negotiations is the view that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of our land; that our own constitutional liberties must remain inviolate; and that our Constitution as the guaranty of our own civil liberties, need not and shall not be affected adversely by any international covenant dealing with human rights." We would go beyond this statement to say that treaties shall neither be made or construed so as to affect adversely the constitutional rights of United States citizens, nor should executive agreements be made or permitted which would similarly affect adversely the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The American Legion believes that the issues presented by Senate Joint Resolution 1, and similar proposals, are of newly found importance because of the development of international organizations in extent and scope heretofore unparalleled. We trust that in furthering the legitimate aspirations of international cooperation, we shall not lose sight of the prior rights of our own people.

APPENDIX

The provisions of the Constitution hereinafter set forth are incorporated for the purpose of orderly presentation. It is realized that such provisions are fully known to the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Subsection 2 of article II, pertaining to powers of the President, states: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur ** * " Subsection 1 of article VI, states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article IX of amendments to the Constitution provides :

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Article X of the amendments provides:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There are now before you certain proposals for a constitutional amendment relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, among them Senate Joint Resolution 1, by Senator Bricker, joined by 63 other Senators. With the intent of this resolution the American Legion is in accord, though not wedded to the exact language thereof. A part of that intent, as the American Legion understands it, is to make certain that the rights of the people of the United States, as enumerated in the Constitution, or as otherwise provided for therein, or as otherwise protected thereby, shall not be denied or disparaged by any treaty made by the President and concurred in by the Senate, the aforementioned provisions of subsection 1, article VI notwithstanding.

Senate Joint Resolution 1, as we understand it, would not so delimit the treatymaking powers now existent as to be wholly restrictive of the traditional, conventional treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation under which reciprocal rights abroad are granted to citizens of the United States and the other treaty-contracting power or powers. Such treaties are not restrictive of the constitutional rights of our people, but on the contrary additional rights so long as the treaties are effective and are a necessary part of comity between nations and peoples.

Senate Joint Resolution 1 would bar United States participation in world or regional government. If the amendment it proposes were adopted, no such participation would be permitted. If, in God's good time, the dim prospect of permanent world peace becomes reality, our people might then wish to consider the formation of a "Parliament of the World." If so, another constitutional amendment could be adopted, permitting participation. In such case the delay necessarily incident to the adoption of the new amendment would afford little enough time to our people to debate and ponder the momentous issues involved. At this day it would seem that proposals for world government, or of regional government, which would detract from the rights of our people and abridge the sovereignty of our Nation, are idle, if not evil, in the face of the awful and awesome realities of our times.

The American Bar Association proposes an amendment which likewise the American Legion favors as to intent, though not wedded to its exact language. This proposal, as we understand it, is consistent and in accord with sections 1, 3, and 4 of Senate Joint Resolution 1, but may not be consistent or in accord with section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. It does not spell out a prohibition against United States participation in world or regional government as does section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. If the American Bar proposal is intended to prohibit such participation, it may be that additional and different language is necessary.

We understand a number of other proposed amendments are before the subcommittee, but as yet we have not studied them and therefore, cannot comment thereon.

We submit our suggestions for amendments to accomplish the purposes, which we believe are comprised within Senate Joint Resolution 1, as follows:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. No provision of a treaty which denies or disparages any right enumerated in or provided or protected by this Constitution shall be of any force or effect, any other provisions of this Constitution notwithstanding.

"SEC. 2. No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, have jurisdiction of or adjudicate any rights of citizens of the United States within the United States as such rights are enumerated in or provided or protected by this Constitution, nor shall any treaty have any force or effect as to any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdictions of the United States.

"SEC. 3. No treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States except through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress.

"SEC. 4. Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and the limitations imposed on treaties by this article."

In this language, quite tentative, we try to incorporate principles of both Senate Joint Resolution 1 and the American Bar Association proposal.

"The Constitution," we are told, "is remarkable for the brevity and exactness of its language. This is attributable in part to the thorough examination and discussion given to every article and sentence, and in part to the mastery of diction possessed by those who reduced the Constitution to its finally accepted form." It may be thought that the suggested amendment is more wordy than necessary, and if so, we suggest consideration of the following, which is an adaptation of the American Bar Association proposal:

"ARTICLE

"SECTION 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2 of article VI of this Constitution, a provision of a treaty which conflicts with any other provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2 of article VI of this Constitution, a treaty shall not become effective as internal law in the United States except through legislation enacted by the Congress.

"SEC. 2. Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to limitations imposed on treaties by this article."

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Downer of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

STATEMENT OF ADIN M. DOWNER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator DIRKSEN. You are Mr. Downer?
Mr. DOWNER. Yes, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Downer, did you want to submit a statement or have you a statement to present?

Mr. DOWNER. I have a brief statement here, Senator, which I would like to offer for the record, and at your pleasure I shall either read it or comment upon it.

Senator DIRKSEN. If it is not too long you can do either. I suppose it is a couple of pages long?

Mr. DOWNER. Yes, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. Why not read it, but, first, give your name and address and your identification for purposes of the record.

Mr. DOWNER. My name is Adin M. Downer, assistant legislative representative, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

On February 6, 1952, the National Council of Administration of the Veterans of Foreign Wars endorsed Senate Joint Resolution 130 of the 82d Congress, which action was made known to this committee in hearings on that resolution in May of 1952. Subsequently, our 53d National Encampment, which is the supreme governing body of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, unanimously adopted Resolution No. 227, endorsing Senate Joint Resolution 130.

This action by our organization was an endorsement of the general principles embodied in the resolution rather than a recommendation for strict adherence to the exact language contained therein. Our attention to the question involved was first attracted by the testimony of the distinguished representatives of the American Bar Association before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the U. N. Genocide Convention was under consideration. The purpose of our organization was to lend its voice in protest to the threatened establishment of a body of domestic or internal law by treaty and the consequent invasion of certain human rights and liberties which have al

ways been protected by our Constitution. We have not seen specifically concerned with section 4 of the resolution relating to executive agreements and I wish to state that we prefer to rely upon the sound judgment of this committee and the Senate of the United States in regard to that portion of the resolution.

The controversy surrounding that portion of the resolution which seeks to limit the treaty-making power is largely an argument between lawyers as to a proper interpretation of the Constitution. We can hardly classify ourselves as authorities on constitutional law so as to take part in this purely legal controversy. However, I should like to point out to the committee that no single opponent of this resolution has advocated the adoption of internal or domestic law by treaty. The controversy is rather one involving a difference of opinion as to whether or not a proper interpretation of the Constitution would permit such a result. The opinions of many distinguished lawyers on this proposition appear to be in disagreement so that we must all recognize a very real doubt exists. And I think there is really the crux of the situation, Senator. In the face of such doubt and since all interested parties appear to oppose legislation by treaty, it seems that the only intelligent course to pursue is the safe course. We should not gamble with our precious rights and liberties by permitting the continued existence of any system that threatens their destruction. The witnesses who appeared in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 130 in the 82d Congress appeared to protest the approval of that resolution on the principal ground that it was not necessary. The eminent Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., specifically, and other witnesses impliedly, treated the decision of the California Court of Appeals in the Fujii case very lightly because of its subsequent reversal, and I might say apparently because they also considered it bad law. However, in so doing, Professor Chafee seemed to admit that if a higher court should reestablish the decision of the California Court of Appeals, this constitutional amendment would be desirable. We submit that such a course of action is too much like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen and we suggest to this committee that the door should now be definitely and effectively locked by the approval of Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Briefly, that sums up our position, Senator. While I am a member of the bar of the State of Kansas and also the State of California, and not a student of constitutional law, and not wishing to enter that purely legal controversy, we merely wanted to point out to the committee the position of our organization and the fact that it does seem, so far as the treaty limitations are concerned, to have gotten down to a question on which laymen are properly qualified to express an opinion, and that is, that there is a doubt. Everybody can see that. Distinguished lawyers have disagreed on it, and since there is doubt, just don't take any chances.

Senator DIRKSEN. That is a very clear and succinct statement, and we thank you.

Mr. DOWNER. Thank you, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. The next witness is Mr. George P. Delaney of the American Federation of Labor. Is Mr. Delaney here?

(There was no response.)

Senator DIRKSEN. Is Mr. James Watt of the Christian Science Committee on Publication here? Mr. Watt, will you come forward, please?

STATEMENT OF JAMES WATT, MANAGER, WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION

Mr. WATT. I have a brief statement that I would like to read. Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Watt, will you first give your full name and address and your occupation to the reporter?

Mr. WATT. My name is James Watt. I am the manager of the Washington, D. C., office of the Christian Science Committee on Publication, with offices in the Christian Science Building, 1601 I Street NW. I am authorized by the Christian Science Board of Directors, the governing board of the Christian Science Church, to make the following statement regarding Senate Joint Resolution 1 proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, introduced in the 83d Congress by Senator Bricker of Ohio.

We strongly support the basic purposes of Senator Bricker's resolution. We believe the importance of protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from being undermined by international agreements, not made in accordance with our constitutional procedures, cannot be too strongly emphasized. While we are not prepared at the present time to endorse the exact wording of the resolution, we are supporting the position that some protective action is required and that a thorough discussion of the question is needed in order that all the issues involved may be clearly understood and considered.

It may be that refinements in the wording of this resolution should be made. We would not object to this as long as the purpose of protecting the freedom and rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights is attained.

We are aware that these basic rights are threatened because as the Constitution now stands, it does not prevent them from being changed by a treaty, a change which even Congress itself is prevented from making under the Bill of Rights. We feel deeply that these inherent and precious rights and freedoms must not be overlaid with a pattern of international so-called rights drawn to suit the concepts of more than 60 nations with varying and antagonistic concepts. We urge that it be made impossible to give up our concept of inherent rights and acquiesce to the premise that rights are conferred on the individual by government and hence can be taken away by government.

We, like others who have already given eloquent and comprehensive testimony before this committee in support of a constitutional amendment relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, are gravely concerned:

(1) Over the situation revealed by Mr. John Foster Dulles, now Secretary of State, in an address before the American Bar Association last year, when he said:

The treatymaking power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are, indeed, more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights.