Hon. WILLIAM LANGER, THE CHURCH PEACE UNION, New York 21, N. Y., February 16, 1953. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The enclosed is a copy of a resolution passed by the executive committee of the Church Peace Union protesting the Bricker resolution. It was voted May 21, 1952. Very truly yours, JOHN R. INMAN, Assistant Secretary. RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 130, COMMONLY CALLED THE BRICKER RESOLUTION The Church Peace Union records its opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 130, joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, commonly called the Bricker resolution, for the following reasons: 1. The existing Constitution of the United States provides adequate safeguards against the encroachment of treaties or executive agreements on the rights of United States citizens. 2. Our Government, in order best to serve the national interest, must frequently participate with other nations in international organizations. Senate Joint Resolution 130 would prohibit many treaties of arbitration and conciliation which must rely on commissions and tribunals of an international nature and would nullify all agreements to refer disputes to the International Court of Justice. Further, it would seriously jeopardize the formation or continued existence of such international organizations as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. We strongly urge that the Congress, the President, and the courts of the United States hold uppermost the rights of the citizens of the United States together with the national interest and employ the existing constitutional machinery in protecting both. Voted at executive committee meeting of the Church Peace Union May 21, 1952. Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what organizations have protested except just the one you mentioned. It might be well to have Mr. Smithey check on the organizations that have protested and those in favor, too. We might have some information there that would be worth while. The CHAIRMAN. The staff will do that. Mr. Holman, maybe you and I can get together sometime in the next day or two to see how we can expedite this matter and get it determined as rapidly as possible. Mr. HOLMAN. I am at your service, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You understand these matters are delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed, and this is a very important matter. I want this Congress to act upon it. Mr. HOLMAN. I am at your service any time, sir. Senator SMITH. May I inquire, are the protests you mentioned, for the most part, on the principle of the proposed amendment or as to the form or language? The CHAIRMAN. They do not say. Mr. HOLMAN. Is there one protest? The CHAIRMAN. There is one protest. Senator SMITH. I can see that there can be many differences of opinion about the precise language to be used. I am not certain at all myself about that, a good many of us are not. The CHAIRMAN. We will give them a chance to be heard. They are mostly by rabbis and ministers. There is the Church Peace Union founded by Andrew Carnegie, and it does not say the year, the address of which is 170 East 64th Street, New York City. Mr. HOLMAN. I think Senator Smith's point is very well taken. I think you ought to check the nature of that organization, Mr. Chair man. Mr. SCHEIN. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, at the conclusion of a long report, says that the Committee on Federal Legislation, and the Committee on International Law opposes the proposed constitutional amendment Senate Joint Resolution 130 out of which this has grown. Mr. HOLMAN. And that is the only bar association in the United States that today has taken any official action against it, sir. Mr. HATCH. By a very small attendance of the membership, I think about 5 percent. The CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock we will hear Mr. Theodore Pearson and Mr. Dana Backus, of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York; also Mrs. Enid Griswold, of the National Economic Council; Mrs. Lucas, of the Daughters of the American Revolution; and Mrs. Merwyn Fenner and Mr. Frank Goldman, of B'nai Brith; and Rev. D. M. Scott, of the American Council of Christian Churches of California. That is at 10 o'clock in the morning. If any of them are here now they will take notice that we will meet promptly at 10 o'clock. Is there anybody here who wants to be heard who has not been heard today? Mr. SCHWEPPE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. All right, we will keep right on going. Mr. SMITHEY. This is Mr. Schweppe. The CHAIRMAN. I understood you did not want to be heard because you wanted to redraft that resolution. Mr. HOLMAN. No; we want to be heard so as to get it before you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right, sit right up here, if you will. You may have all the time you want. Do not hurry at all, we have a lot of time. STATEMENT OF ALFRED J. SCHWEPPE, SEATTLE, WASH., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND LAW THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. SCHWEPPE. My name is Alfred John Schweppe, of Seattle, Wash. Speaking as chairman of the American Bar Association's committee on peace and law through United Nations, I appreciate the invitation extended to the members of this committee to be here today. All seven members of this committee, except United States circuit judge Orie L. Phillips, who is unavoidably detained, are, or will be, present at this hearing today or tomorrow, in order to be of such assistance to the United States Senate as we may be in considering the subject matter of this important Senate Joint Resolution No. 1, introduced by Senator Bricker, of Ohio, with some 60 Senators as cosponsors, on treaties and executive agreements, and other proposals on the same subjects, including those of the American Bar Association. Our position has already been to a considerable extent outlined in last year's 540-page volume of Senate hearings on treaties and executive agreements (S. J. Res. 130, May-June, 1952); and whatever we said then we incorporate here by reference. For the record, the American Bar Association comprises approximately 50,000 lawyers of the United States, and in its makeup represents, so nearly as may be, the entire organized bar of the United States. The house of delegates of the American Bar Association, which is its governing body, comprising several hundred members, is made up (1) of representatives of the members of the American bar from each of the 48 States and the Territories; (2) of representatives of all of the State and the principal city bar associations in the United States; and (3) of representatives of other leading law organizations, such as the American Law Institute and the American Judicature Society. The American Bar Association has, for its objectives, the protection of the Constitution of the United States, the maintenance of peace through law, and the improvement of the administration of justice in all its phases. The resolutions of the house of delegates are adopted only after careful study by committees and such discussion and debate as the subject matter requires. The resolutions of the house of delegates are the official action of the American Bar Association. The association, as such, speaks only by formal action of its house of delegates, just as does the United Sates Senate. Hence, in this hearing today, except insofar as I present official resolutions of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, relating to the subject matter of the hearing, I—and that applies to other members of our committee-do not speak for the American Bar Association, as such, but solely as an individual member of the committee on peace and law, which, by reason of having made extended studies and reports in this field, has some moderately informed views on the subject. The CHAIRMAN. Who does speak for American Bar Association! Mr. SCHWEPPE. The house of delegates, and I will present its resolution. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to have anybody here representing them? Mr. SCHWEPPE. Yes; we represent them. The CHAIRMAN. I thought you said you were giving your individual views. Mr. SCHWEPPE. I said we represent the American Bar Association house of delegates as its official spokesmen, and we will present its resolution. The comments which we make will be individual comments. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Senator WATKINS. The resolution itself is the only thing official from the organization. Mr. SCHWEPPE. That is right. Mr. HOLMAN. That is all they will ever do, is pass a resolution. Mr. SCHWEPPE. Yes. Senator BUTLER. And it still is as restricted as it was originally! Mr. SCHWEPPE. It is written as it was passed. Mr. SMITHEY. There have been some minor changes in the resolution which you now support? Mr. SCHWEPPE. Our committee has shortened the text somewhat, but it is still basically the same resolution that the house of delegates adopted. We have improved the language slightly by shortening. The American Bar Association committee on peace and law consists of seven persons. Besides the chairman, the members are Mr. Carl B. Rix, of Milwaukee, vice chairman of the committee and a former president of the American Bar Association; Chief Judge Orie Phillips of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, who, incidentally, was recipient in 1950 of the American Bar Association medal for distinguished service in the cause of American jurisprudence, the highest award within the gift of the American Bar Association; Mr. Frank B. Ober, a distinguished lawyer from Baltimore, Md.; Mr. Vermont Hatch, of the well-known firm of White & Case, New York City; Mr. Eberhart P. Deutsch, one of the leading members of the New Orleans bar; and Dr. George A. Finch of Washington, D. C., who is a distinguished practitioner and professor in the field of international law in this city, who is also editor in chief of the American Journal of International Law, and who was a member of the State Department during the secretaryship of that great American lawyer, Mr. Elihu Root. The American Bar Association committee on peace and law has for its field the study and appraisal of the work of the United Nations, and of the position of the United States in that work, and of the impact of United Nations programs on Federal and State law in the United States. The committee has studied and reported, and in some instances held regional conferences throughout the United States, on such subjects as the statute of the World Court, the codification of international law, the genocide convention, the proposed covenant on human rights, the proposed covenant on freedom of information, the proposed news-gathering convention, and so forth. Because of the large number of new treaties being proposed by the United Nations in the political, social, and economic fields (some 200 treaties are reported to be in the works in the United Nations and its affiliated organizations), and because of article VI of the Federal Constitution making all treaties the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of the several States to the contrary notwithstanding, and because of the real possibility that such treaties, if ratified, may adversely affect in a large way existing Federal laws and State constitutions and laws, the committee on peace and law several years ago considered the advisability of studying possible amendments to the treatymaking power of the Constitution to prevent adverse effects of treaties on the domestic law of the Nation. The house of delegates of the American Bar Association in September 1950, in a formal resolution, approved this study, looking toward definite recommendations in this field. This study was in no way intended as an attack on the United Nations, but as a means of preserving the United Nations for its primary function of collective security, because surely we believe the United Nations will surely fail, so far as the American people are concerned, if it continues to persist in programs designed to make domestic law for the people of the United States, setting aside State laws and constitutions, as well as Federal laws. As the result of intensive study, the committee on peace and law submitted to the house of delegates of the American Bar Association at the February 1952 midwinter meeting of the National Bar Association a draft of a proposed constitutional amendment relating to the treatymaking power. After extended debate, and with some opposition, the house of delegates overwhelmingly adopted the following resolution, which I here read into the record. This is the resolution adopted by the house of delegates on February 26, 1952 [reading]: Resolved, That the American Bar Association recommend 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 pass under its delegated powers in the absence of such treaty." This resolution, as indicated above, represents the opinion of the organized bar of the United States in the 48 States and the Territories, as embodied in the American Bar Association, after full study and debate, although it should be recognized that there may be 1 or 2 individual groups who think an amendment is unnecessary. The pertinent portions of the report of the committee on peace and law, on which the foregoing resolution was based (report of February 1, 1952) are reprinted on pages 480-504 of the volume entitled "Treaties and Executive Agreements," being hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, May 21-June 9, 1952, and will not be here reoffered. There are also two articles on the treaty power and the American Bar Association proposals in the June and September 1952 issues of the American Bar Association Journal, written respectively by George A. Finch and Eberhard Deutsch, both members of our committee. Reference is hereby made to them. In order to give you the benefit of the further studies of our committee, not yet incorporated in the record, I offer from the September 1, 1952, report of the committee on peace and law to the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, pages 7-18, dealing with the treatymaking power and with executive agreements. (The information referred to is as follows:) 1. THE TREATYMAKING POWER At the midwinter meeting of the American Bar Association held at Chicago on February 25-26, 1952, the house of delegates recommended to the Congress of the United States for consideration an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in respect to the treatymaking 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." (See proceedings of house of delegates, 38 Am. Bar Jour. 435, May 1952.) In due course, this action of the house of delegates was brought to the attention of Congress. On February 7, 1952, before the text of the American Bar Association's proposal was adopted on February 26, Senator John W. Bricker of Ohio, joined by 56 other Senators (to which others have since been added), introduced Senate Joint Resolution 130, which proposes a constitutional amendment with respect to both treaties and executive agreements. Congressman Smith of Wisconsin introduced the same amendment in the House of Representatives on February 11, 1952, as House Joint Resolution 376. |