Mrs. BERG. I have just consulted with our international associate. She is not a member of the International Relations Committee of the AAUW, but inasmuch as we have two purposes here, to be helpful as well as to oppose, I think that it would be not a service to this committee for me to speculate on what our answers might be. It is the opinion of our international associate that it is not relevant to compare our Government with our governments, that it has nothing to do with this particular provision which is our point at this moment. Mr. SMITHEY. All right, Mrs. Berg. It Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions to ask Mrs. Berg. The CHAIRMAN. Could you not get more on this last answer? does not make sense to me. I would like to have her answer it more completely. Mrs. BERG. Would the committee permit me to ask Miss Bornholdt to speak to this particular point, just to this one point? She is our international associate. The CHAIRMAN. It is not that important. That will be all right. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Berg. We appreciate your appearing here today. (The matter referred to is as follows:) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT BY THE LEGISLITIVE PROGRAM COMMITTEE AND THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, MARCH 12, 1953 Section 3 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 reads as follows: "SECTION 3. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress." We are opposed to this section as a Constitutional Amendment whether or not included as a portion of Senate Joint Resolution 1 on the ground that it is unnecessary. Under existing law, a treaty may be either self-executing or non-selfexecuting. If it seems desirable to make a treaty non-self-executing, a provision to that effect can be incorporated into any treaty. In 165 years of experience there has been no evidence of abuse of this discretionary power. We believe it is important to retain this freedom of choice in the treaty-making process. Mr. SMITHEY. Is the representative of the Students for Democratic Action here? (There was no response.) Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Fred Nielsen? (There was no response.) Mr. SMITHEY. Is a representative of the Queens County Bar Association present? (There was no response.) The CHAIRMAN. Who else is going to testify, and when? Mr. SMITHEY. Senator, we have scheduled tentatively a hearing for Friday with certain governmental witnesses. Their appearance has not been confirmed, so I suggest we not announce them at this time. There is a hearing scheduled for Monday, the 16th, at 2:00 p. m. The organization which is to appear on the 16th indicated that that would probably be the best date for the appearance, and the hearing was so scheduled. The CHAIRMAN. We will have it on the 16th. Now, my understanding is there will be no more witnesses allowed to testify after the 16th! Mr. SMITHEY. After the 17th, I think that is the date you set, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Then the reporter will have copies ready to give to every member of the subcommittee to take that up a week later, the following Monday. Mr. SMITHEY. Very well, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. We want to get action on this the Monday after that. The committee is recessed, subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 10:45 a. m., the committee was recessed, subject to the call of the chairman.) TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, Senator William Langer (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Langer (presiding), Dirksen, and Kefauver. Present also: Senator Symington. Present also: Wayne H. Smithey, subcommittee counsel. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. We will call the first witness. Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Harrison Tweed. STATEMENT OF HARRISON TWEED, ATTORNEY AT LAW, The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Go right ahead. Mr. TWEED. I am a citizen of the United States, a member of the New York bar, and of the firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hope & Hadley, 15 Broad Street. I am also president of the American Law Institute, and sit as its representative in the house of delegates of the American Bar Association. I was a member of last year's New York State Bar Association committee on amendments to the Federal Constitution, of which William D. Mitchell was chairman and John W. Davis a member. It reported against the Bricker amendment. However, despite all this recital, I am here as an individual and not in any representative capacity. In considering Senate Joint Resolution 1, what bothers me is the difficulties which it will create in a broad way in the conduct of foreign relations. I think it is the larger aspects, rather than the technical details, which might be called the minutiae, that have been raised here and there, for and against. For example, the provisions of section 2, as I read them, would prevent the United States from joining in any plans of international inspection. The CHAIRMAN. You are referring to the atom bomb, now, are you? Mr. TWEED. It would prevent the atomic-bomb inspection plan, something like the Baruch plan, and it may very well be that something like the Baruch plan for international inspection is the only thing that is going to save us from another war or worse. Then section 4 seems to require both prior and subsequent congressional approval of every agreement made by the President and presumably by anyone acting under him in the field of foreign affairs. I do not pretend to be an expert in Government affairs. I have never worked for the Government, but I have seen enough of large corporations to know that you have to leave discretion in the executive head of any enterprise. You cannot tie his hands. It is one thing to have checks and balances, but quite another thing to hamstring the head who is to be the leader. To write into the Constitution a provision requiring this double congressional approval of everything the Executive does is certainly to hamstring him. It does not seem to me that there is any use to change the Constitution because of a fear of things that have not happened and that in all probability never will happen. Timidity is no virtue, nor fear a good guide. No amendment is needed, as far as I can see, for it is clearly the law of the land that Congress may amend or repeal a treaty and set aside an executive agreement so far as domestic effect is concerned. So there is complete protection in the Congress to prevent the sort of thing which the Bricker amendment and its successors are intended to accomplish. This resolution and its predecessors do not have the support of all or anything like all the members of the bar. Many individual lawyers and judges are opposed to it. I ran into three Federal court of appeals judges in one day, all of whom were definitely against it. Several bar association committees have studied the general subject and reported against such an amendment. There is substantial opposition even within the ranks of the American Bar Association. The section of international and comparative law submitted a report to the house of delegates in February, a copy of which has been filed with this committee, which concludes that while Senate Joint Resolution 1 is an improvement over Senate Joint Resolution 130 and its predecessors, it does not meet the fundamental objections to the general line of procedure. It seems to me that the whole question is one which requires a careful and considered approach lest in a panic of fear we so restrict the executive as to prevent our effective participation in plans for world peace. How are we going to lead the way with a hobbled leader? The congressional provisions dealing with the treaty-making power have served us well for a long time, and there is no reason why we should be in any hurry to change them. On the contrary, what we need is confidence in our Constitution and in the elected representatives in the White House and the Senate. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions, Mr. Smithey? Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Tweed, you have stated that you were a member of the committee on amendments to the Federal Constitution of the New York State Bar Association, is that correct? Mr. TWEED. Yes, sir. I called it last year's committee because, as far as I know, that committee has not been reconstituted or reappointed under the new president. Mr SMITHEY. In that report-I have what is here purported to be a copy of that report. Would you care to examine it? Mr. TWEED. No. I am sure it is. Mr. SMITHEY. There is a statement relating to the Federal-State clause, with which you are probably familiar. Earlier in the hear |