Henry A. Atkinson Mrs. Dana C. Backus Jacob Blaustein Clark M. Eichelberger Melvin D. Hildreth John I. Knudson Herbert H. Lehman Myrna Loy BOARD OF DIRECTORS Pauline E. Mandigo Phoebe Marr Hugh Moore Mrs. Joseph M. Proskauer Mrs. William Dick Sporborg Telford Taylor Thomas J. Watson Sumner Welles Quincy Wright Mr. EDELMAN. Resuming, if I may, on the Washington conference, we had there representatives of these many national organizations, which included many sectors of American life. There were representatives of labor organizations, industry, church groups, public affairs groups, veterans organizations, and so on. Mr. SMITHEY. You have then what is known as member organizations? Mr. EDELMAN. I want to explain, in presenting the resolutions, with particular reference to Senate Joint Resolution 1, I want to describe as accurately as I can the character of this conference and the conditions under which the resolution was adopted. I want it to be very clear on the record. These many organizations are invited by the American Association for the United Nations to send delegates or observers to attend our conference, which includes addresses by distinguished representatives of government and includes roundtable discussions and includes debate on an adoption of a series of resolutions. One of the resolutions adopted at this conference which was held just 2 weeks ago. (The witness Lashley was heard at this point, following which Mr. Edelman resumed the stand.) The CHAIRMAN. You may continue your statement, Mr. Edelman. Mr. EDELMAN. Thank you, Senator. I would like first to say a word about some reference that was made to me by Senator Dirksen while I unfortunately had left the room, but on my return I gathered that Senator Dirksen made some reference to the American Association for the United Nations and its program of distributing materal about the United Nations. I want as far as I can to assure you, Senator Dirksen, that our work is educational work, educational work about the United Nations and for the support of the United Nations. We do not customarily appear to testify on legislation, but we deem this issue very much as you deem it, to be a matter that is nonpartisan and nonpolitical, and we felt that our concern in United Nations affairs justified our coming here really as individual citizens. I stated at the outset that I appear as an individual citizen, but I sought in some way to qualify myself by indicating my connection with the American Association for the United Nations because in that capacity I have had considerable familiarity with the United Nations affairs, and I have had considerable interest in their development. go to Senator DIRKSEN. May I say that your association has a perfect right to get out any literature and any house organs, things that the members. I have an idea that it certainly delineates the general theme and the objective of your association. I do not think anybody in the American scheme can quarrel with that. I simply cited it, however, to say that it is not unlike organizations that have other objectives in the field of labor, in the field of agriculture. They do their best through the right of petition, the right of assembly, the right of presentation to the legislatures and the Congress to assert that point of view, and it is perfectly all right. I did not mean to disparage it, you understand. I do say, however, that it represents a very definite growth in America today, because an organization with several million members who are dues-paying members can develop a considerable treasury, can carry on a very skilled line of public relations, and it has a very definite effect upon the thinking of the people. Those pressures, if you want to call them pressures, have a very definite impact upon public thinking. The CHAIRMAN. I guess you fellows understand each other. Will you proceed. Mr. EDELMAN. I began by saying that I am primarily here Senator DIRKSEN. You are at the place where it says, "In my capacity Mr. EDELMAN. I am primarily here, gentlemen, to present to this committee a separate resolution that was adopted at the Washington conference of 2 weeks ago that I earlier described to you, expressing opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1. I ask that it be annexed to this statement. I have attached it to the statement that I submitted to the committee The CHAIRMAN. We have it here? Mr. EDELMAN. Yes; it is attached to the end of the statement in mimeographed form. The CHAIRMAN. Two pages? Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, Senator. I want to make clear that we do not claim that this resolution adopted by the conference binds all of the organizations represented, since the delegates were voting as individuals, but with a sense of responsibility to the organizations which appointed them. I might add that we treat the resolutions as non-self-executing, and each organization is free to act upon them and implement them in its own way. I might add also that we do seek in some way to keep in contact with each other in respect to resolutions that may have been adopted. I will only briefly summarize the sense of this resolution that we are submitting. The CHAIRMAN. Your whole statement is going to be filed, you understand. Mr. EDELMAN. Yes, I understand, Senator. I am going just to briefly summarize it, if I may. Senator DIRKSEN. Let the record show that it is filed. Mr. EDELMAN. The resolution emphasizes the crippling effect that section 2 of the proposed amendment would have on United States activities in every field where international cooeration is essential to successful action. It specifies the telling example of our policy with respect to international control of atomic-bomb facilities. We feel that thus far it has been Soviet intransigeance that has made this bold stride toward armament control impossible. It is our feeling that if this proposed amendment should now be written into our Constitution, we could no longer offer these hopeful and historic proposals, and the world would straightaway recognize that the United States has lost its capacity for leadership by losing its capacity for agreement. I will not go into further detail concerning the substance of the resolution because it is submitted for the record. I would only add that the conference resolution concerned itself with the concept that the greatest danger presented by this proposed amendment is that it would tie the hands of the President and the Senate in advance, making impossible the free conduct of our international relations even in times of crisis. We say there is nothing now to prevent the Senate from rejecting any treaty that it deems undesirable or inimical to the interests of the United States. (Mr. Edelman's prepared paper is as follows :) STATEMENT OF ALBERT I. EDELMAN, NEW YORK ATTORNEY, AND MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNITED NATIONS, IN OPPOSITION TO SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 Senator Langer and members of the committee, I appreciate the privilege of appearing before you. I am Albert I. Edelman, an attorney with offices at 30 Pine Street, New York, N. Y., and a member of the board of directors and executive committee of the American Association for the United Nations. I appear before this committee in two capacities-as an individual citizen, who is a member of the board of directors of the American Association for the United Nations, and secondly but primarily in my capacity as chairman of the resolutions committee of the recent Washington conference on United States Responsibility for World Leadership held at the Shoreham Hotel just 2 weeks ago, on March 1, 2, and 3. The conference was attended by delegates or observers of 120 broadly representative national organizations. The conference was opened with a message from the President, and it was addressed by the Secretary of State and by distinguished representatives of both political parties. This was the third annual conference of its kind, called by the American Association for the United Nations, dedicated to discussion of United States responsibility in international affairs, and to the common purpose of strengthening American support of the United Nations. With each year the conference grows in numbers and in spirit. The delegates represented every sector of American life-labor, industry, church groups, public affairs groups, veterans organizations, social, professional, and business organizations. In my capacity as chairman of the resolutions committee of the conference I am here to present the separate resolution adopted by the conference, expressing opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1. I ask that it be annexed to this statement in the record. We do not claim that this resolution adopted by the conference binds all of the organizations represented, since the delegates were voting as individuals, but with a sense of responsibility to the organizations which appointed them. We treat the resolutions as non-self-executing, and each organization acts upon them and implements them in its own way. Each year, the conference designates a continuing action committee which acts as a clearinghouse during the year for the channeling of information of common concern in the field of international affairs, and which may circulate a call to action on crucial pending issues. In the preamble to the general body of resolutions adopted by the conference, we said: " "We, the duly authorized delegates of 120 broadly representative organizations, are gathered in conference in Washington, under the auspices of the American Association for the United Nations to discuss United States responsibility for world leadership in 1953. We speaker as free citizens with a sense of responsibility to the organizations which appointed us. "The President of the United States in his inaugural address of January 20 made this important declaration: 'Respecting the United Nations as the living sign of all people's hope for peace, we shall strive to make it not merely an eloquent symbol but an effective force. "We take these words of the President's pledge for our declaration of purpose in this critical year of 1953 and ask God's blessing upon our country and the United Nations. Our common purpose is to rally the American people to support the United Nations and to strengthen participation of the United States in the United Nations. "For our two previous conferences we met in Chicago to speak our message in mid-America. We meet this year in Washington to make our petition directly to our Government, mindful that the steps of the new administration in relation to our United Nations obligations may set our course for years to come. "Our confidence is reassured by the President's expression of faith in the United Nations. We are here to express to the new administration and the Congress the concerted views of our diverse groups, united in the purpose of supporting every action and program which implement the United Nations responsibilities of our country and contribute to making the United Nations an 'effective force.' "Although every public-opinion poll shows overwhelming support for the United Nations, we are aware of increasing opposition by determined forces. We note with concern growing counsels which would in effect abandon the United Nations, withdraw American participation, and nullify effective international agreements. We note and oppose resolutions introduced in Congress to withdraw, and others to cripple by constitutional amendment the historic treatymaking power." The resolution of our conference which opposes Senate Joint Resolution 1 emphasizes the crippling effect that section 2 of the proposed amendment would have upon United States activities in every field where international cooperation is essential to successful action. The telling example of our policy for international control of atomic-bomb facilities is cited. Our Government has championed proposals for control and inspection of atomic-weapon facilities at the source. Thus far, it has been Soviet intransigeance that has made this bold stride toward armament control impossible. If the proposed amendment should now be written into our Constitution, we could no longer offer these hopeful and historic proposals, and the world would straightaway recognize that the United States has lost its capacity for leadership by losing its capacity for agreement. The conference resolution also cites the impact that section 2 would have upon our now beneficial participation in agreements and organizations in the fields of communications, health, conservation, agriculture, and other fields where international action is essential to cope with the facts of international life. In the battle to prevent the spread of contagious disease, bacteria do not stop at national borders to await entry permits. We are committed, and happily so, to numerous international dents upon the entirety of our domestic affairs. If, in needless fear and apprehension we now seek a withdrawal behind a hard, impenetrable encasement of national self-sufficiency, we invite isolation, solitude, and disaster. The conference resolution asserts that the greatest danger presented by the proposed amendment is that it would tie the hands of the President and Senate in advance, making impossible the free conduct of our international relations even in times of crisis. For the restrictions of section 2 might, at some critical time for action, necessitate resort to the dangerously slow process of further constitutional mendment. There is nothing now, we say, which prevents the Senate from rejecting any treaty which it finds unacceptable, undesirable, or inimical to American interests, or from accepting it subject to reservations. The proposed amendment indicates a distrust of existing constitutional safeguards which have proved so wise and finely balanced throughout our history, and a distrust of the wisdom and capacity of our elected Senators and of the judgment of our President. With respect to section 1 of the proposed amendment, the conference agreed with views of the representatives of the Bar Association of the City of New York, and of other distiguished constitutional lawyers who have appeared before you, asserting that constitutional doctrine already established makes these provisions unnecessary. Their needless adoption at this time would weaken the confidence of other nations in the future international policies of the United States, and would be particularly damaging at a time when we have been urging federation on Western Europe. The conference resolution closes with these words: "The security of the United States is vitally dependent upon the success of the United Nations. Proposals such as the Bricker amendment, which would make it impossible for the United States to fulfill all of tis responsibilities as a member of the world community, would jeopardize our chances of obtaining lasting peace." THE BRICKER RESOLUTION Resolution Adopted by the Conference on United States Responsibility for World Leadership in 1953, Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D. C., March 1, 2, 3, 1953 We are strongly opposed to the Bricker, Watkins, and other proposed constitutional amendments which would seriously impair the capacity of the United States to play an effective role in world affairs by imposing limitations on existing power to make treaties and executive agreements, and by setting up additional obstacles to putting such treaties and agreements into effect. ** One of the proposed amendments contains an article which states that "no treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate * * ** any matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States." A major objective of treatymaking has always been the protection of American citizens abroad. This implies that we must give reciprocal protection to foreign nationals in the United States, which might be impossible under the foregoing provision. In developing measures for our own security, it may in the future become essential for us to have the constitutional power to grant to other nations or international organizations, regional or otherwise, the same rights in territory under our jurisdiction which have been given to us in connection with military bases which we have established abroad. Our legal authority to enter into such agreements would be doubtful if the quoted article were adopted. Nor could we enter into any agreement regarding international inspection of atomic bomb facilities such as that proposed by our Government. Also, the United States has in the past secured important benefits from participation in international agreements or organizations concerned with communications, conservation, labor, agriculture, health, banking, international crime and other fields where international cooperation is essential to successful action. The provision quoted above would prevent us from continuing to enjoy these benefits. Other provisions would prevent any treaty or executive agreement from becoming effective as internal law unless special legislation were enacted by both houses of Congress. These would impose cumbersome and rigid procedures in a field where flexibility and rapidity of action are essential and would seriously weaken the power of the President to act promptly in emergencies. They would also present a danger that any one of the states might prevent the application in its territory of a treaty to which the United States was a party. The real danger presented by the proposed amendments to the Constitution is that the hands of the President and the Senate would be tied in advance. They indicate a distrust of existing constitutional safeguards, of the wisdom of our elected Senators, and of the judgment of the President. Some of the proposals are mere repetitions of already established constitutional doctrine, since no treaty can impair constitutionally guaranteed rights. Their needless adoption at this time would weaken the confidence of other members of the United Nations in the future international policies of the United States and would be particularly inappropriate at a time when we have been urging federation in Western Europe. There is nothing now which prevents the Senate from rejecting any treaty which it finds unacceptable, undesirable, or inimical to American interests, or from accepting it subject to reservations. We believe that the procedures now in the Constitution are adequate to prevent the United States from becoming committed to ill-advised international agreements. Any restrictions, such as those mentioned above, on the conduct of international relations could not be removed, even in times of crisis, except through the dangerously slow process of further constitutional amendment. |