therefore beyond the protection of our Federal Constitution, as the Constitution of the United States only among the nations contains the unique provision which makes all treaties ratified by the United States Senate become the supreme law of the land: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Twenty-seventh Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense reminds Congress and our citizens that such schemes should be denounced as treasonable and subtle attempts to persuade our great country to commit national suicide by destroying our national independence as declared in 1776. Resolution No. 24, United States independence in danger: Whereas events have justified the solemn warnings of the American Bar Association in their resolution of September 20, 1950, which stated that the Draft International Covenant on Human Rights was not in such form or of such content as to be suitable for approval and adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations or for ratification by the United States of America; and Whereas the dangers of treaty law were clearly defined by Frank E. Holman, ex-president of the American Bar Association, in his address to Veterans of Foreign Wars at Yakima, Wash., July 10, 1952; and Whereas article I of the North Atlantic Treaty pledges its members "to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations," thus becoming in effect a supplementing arm of the United Nations and a possible repetition of the present situation in Korea; and Whereas the text of the Japanese treaty recently ratified puts the United States within the orbit of the objectives of the International Covenant on Human Rights and also the Potsdam agreements and thus within the jurisdiction of the United Nations regarding those programs; and Whereas in the text of the Japanese treaty the United States agrees to accept the decisions of the International Court of Justice regarding interpretation of this treaty; and Whereas future decisions of the International Court of Justice and future decisions of the United Nations could accuse the United States of breaking this treaty or any other treaty or convention and acting in such a manner as to be a threat to international peace and this could lead to direct action of United Nations armed forces against persons and property of the United States, such military action to be called an international police action to preserve world peace; and Whereas in several States recent manueuvers of the United States Army, acting as agents of the armed forces of the United Nations have forcibly captured and imprisoned local mayors and other public officials and have taken over utilities, schools, and newspapers for the duration of such maneuvers (see Watertown, N. Y., Daily Times, August 21, 1952); and Whereas such practice maneuvers would be an extravagance and an outrageous invasion of the military into the lives and liberties of our citizens unless such military maneuvers were a part of a plan not yet disclosed to the American people: Therefore be it Resolved, That the 27th Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense encourages a great educational campaign to acquaint all citizens with these alarming facts, such information now being imperative, since our continuing participation endangers our lives, our laws, and our liberties as the United States Constitution expressly states foreign treaties become the supreme law of the land. We have our resolution 13: Genocide Convention (reaffirmation). Whereas the Senate of the United States is asked to ratify as a treaty the so-called Genocide Convention designed to surrender to the United Nations, a foreign-controlled international body, the power to define and punish the newly conceived crime of genocide if and when the same shall be committed by the citizens of member nations of the United Nations, including citizens of the United States of America, without regard to the country or jurisdiction wherein such offense shall be committed; and Whereas under the Constitution of the United States treaties have the unique position of "supreme law of the land" that they have in no other country; and Whereas the said Genocide Convention does not relate to any matters which under international law, have been or are ordinarily made the subject of the negotiation and conclusion of treaties or international agreements between nations; and Whereas the matters to which said Genocide Convention pertain are matters exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States of America and the States of the Union under the Constitution and Bill of Rights: and Whereas if ratified and approved and suffered to be enforced against the citizens of the United States at home or abroad, will surrender to foreign control the sovereign, inherent, and inalienable powers of "we the people," constituting the Government of the United States and turn over to an international commission and an international court the investigating, prosecuting, hearing, deciding, and punishing of individual citizens for alleged violations: Therefore be it Resolved, That the 27th Women's Patriotic Conference on National Defense, reaffirms its opposition to ratification of the said Genocide Convention, with or without reservations and that we place our faith in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights for the security, defense, and preservation of this Republic and its sovereign people. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to say, as you have probably gotten on by now, that we are opposed in any way to any further treaty, thus bringing us into this great tangle that seems to have been done under the United Nations Charter, which by the way, I heard mentioned awhile ago by the distinguished Senator, where someone had said that it was possible that the Charter might be a treaty. I would like to quote here from your Director of the Legislative Reference Service Library of the Congress. He has been in since 1940. Dr. Ernest F. Griffith, in his book, Congress, Its Contemporary Role, says here on page 88 that The San Francisco Charter is a treaty; entrance into the United Nations affiliates has usually required affirmative congressional action. This is quite an illuminating book, and it frightens those of us who have done some research and study over a period of years of what is happening to our form of government and to our Constitution under the sneaking attack of trying to change it by treaty. It is a long process by amendment of getting all the States to ratify but they found out that it is very easy to change it by treaty. People who are expecting our Congress to watch over that great Constitution of ours and the welfare of the people are confused when they hear about all of this, and those of us who have had the privilege of going into it to some extent, we are confused and frightened, especially when we read from the Director of the Records Library in his book on page 87, chapter 8, where he says: Moreover, treaties are relatively less important in international policy than formerly. Then he goes on over here on page 86: The Congress seems to be vying for some leadership as against the power of the President and he goes on to say he is not so much interested in getting your power but he would like to insist on a share in crucial decisions. We hope you will take the power you have and go forward with this great amendment that Senator Bricker has brought up. He goes on to say on page 87: The Executive must still reckon with the possibility that Congress will refuse to "go along" by nonratification of a treaty, by failure to appropriate funds, by nonimplementation of an executive agreement, by declining to confirm a Presidential choice. Then he says: Much more dramatic have been efforts of Congress-the Constitution notwith. standing-to guide international policy either by further stimulating or accelerating an already noticeable trend or by altering its course altogether. I would like to call your attention to this book. It is quite illuminating. Then I should like to tell you, too, about the strangeness of the hour. You see, in this country we have already been cited in the United Nations General Assembly, as on December 9, 1948, with the charge of genocide. So you can see that we are in a very serious position. I want to read to you just one or two quotes here from George Washington's Farewell Address. He says: Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favored are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. We know that the great question of today is whether the United States of America is to be governed in our international affairs and our domestic laws by treaty law or by laws with the constitutional basis passed by the Congress of the United States. And we want to know whether we are to surrender our God-given rights of freedom to a starry-eyed international tribunal who have no qualifications for interpreting the laws of our country. In George Washington's Farewell Address he says: Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. Mr. Chairman, we have brought you these resolutions. We are not in any way going to attempt to give you the language or the mechanics. We are only hoping that you will pass this amendment to the Constitution as rapidly as you have stated that you would like to, and we appreciate very much this opportunity to come here and speak on it, and we can assure you that when it is passed we will do all that we can in our different States. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Howard. I just wonder why the organizations did not appear against the adoption of the United Nations Charter. Mrs. HOWARD. Well, of course, I don't doubt that at all, but, of course, I don't suppose very many people had a chance to appear on that. Don't you know, it has not been popular to appear against a lot of things in the last 20 years. The CHAIRMAN. There were just two of us in the Senate that voted against the United Nations Charter and I was one of them. Mrs. HOWARD. That is so appropriate, what I have just read you: Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorites are liable to become suspected and odious while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. Don't you see? Senator WATKINS. You are quoting George Washington now? The CHAIRMAN. Did you give your address? Mrs. HOWARD. 1521 Monroe Street NW. Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Watkins. Senator WATKINS. I would like to extend my congratulations for that very fine presentation on a difficult subject, and I appreciate the attitude of the organizations. Mrs. HOWARD. Thank you, very much. Keep in mind these resolutions were adoptead by 38 large national patriotic women's organizations. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Ernest Schein. STATEMENT OF ERNEST SCHEIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. SCHEIN. I represent the Bar Association of the District of Columbia as chairman of its committee on international law. Our association comprises thousands of lawyers, many of whom are experts and certainly interested in the subject of international and constitutional law. We work closely in cooperation with the American Bar Association, and we also feel that we should like to have an opportunity separately to present our views. What has transpired here this morning already has indicated that we shall have such an opportunity before a final draft is submitted, which will come out of the conferences of my friend Frank Holman and Senator Bricker on Senate Joint Resolution 1. At such time we should like, after our membership has had a further opportunity to consider pro and con the provisions of such a resolution, to present our views. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say you are going to poll your membership or your executive committee? Mr. SCHEIN. No, sir; our committee will listen and study and then submit a report. The CHAIRMAN. That is the gentlemen who are here now? Mr. SCHEIN. I am representing the few gentlemen who will be involved in submitting a report. The CHAIRMAN. I am interested in how much time you are going to take. Mr. SCHEIN. I understand you are interested in that. It should not take more time than the committee is going to take to consider the further elements that appear to be still reserved for consideration. The CHAIRMAN. How much time is that going to be? Mr. SCHEIN. Probably 30 days. The CHAIRMAN. No; we will not give you 30 days. At the outside, we can give you a week. If you cannot drop in an amendment inside of a week Mr. SCHEIN. Whatever is given to us we will take. If a week is the time in which you will want a report from our association, that is what we will take. The CHAIRMAN. What do you think, Senator Watkins and Senator Smith? Do you think a week is enough? Senator WATKINS. I am not on the subcommittee. I am on the full committee. I hope to see it pushed right along. It has been up for discussion before. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think a week is ample, Senator Smith? Senator SMITH. I am not on the subcommittee either. I was on the subcommittee last year. I don't know, I think the chairman is a little optimistic if he thinks we are going to get down to putting this in final shape in a week. I would have no objection as far as I am concerned if you give the committee a little more time than that. Certainly it is a most important subject we are dealing with, and while I think it ought to be pushed along as the chairman suggests—___ The CHAIRMAN. I think they have had this pending before them for 2 years. Mr. SCHEIN. Senate Joint Resolution 130, in our opinion, is different from Senate Joint Resolution 1. The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have had this problem before you for a long time, and I am setting this for a week from today. We are going to get through with this matter. Mr. SCHEIN. I believe that is an awfully short time. The CHAIRMAN. It is a short time, but we are going to get action on this resolution. We are not going over into July with nothing done about it. Mr. SCHEIN. There are many lawyers in this country who are anxious to be heard on this subject. I do not know how they will be heard. The CHAIRMAN. We have telegrams here, dozens of them, and they are going to have a chance to be heard, but we are going to get rid of it, we are going to get through with it. There are a lot of other matters pending before this committee, important matters, and we are going to go along. There is going to be no delay. Mr. SCHEIN. I do not want to appear too persistent, Mr. Chairman, but 1 week, when Frank Holman has already indicated he is going into conference on Friday to change some of the language of Senate Joint Resolution 1, does not give us a great deal of time to assemble an informed opinion, which I am sure this committee is interested in. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will set it for a week from today for the time being. If you can show good cause for extending the time we are likely to do that. Mr. SCHEIN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. We will file these telegrams here in the record from the various bar associations. They are all in favor of this with the exception of one. Will you see that that one person is entitled to be heard, Mr. Smithey? There is also a protest here against the bill. Will you see that these people are notified so that they can appear in opposition to it, the Church Peace Union? We will also put all these letters in the record, together with the telegrams. (The communications referred to are as follows:) Hon. WILLIAM LANGER, WICHITA, KANS., February 16, 1953. Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: It is my understanding hearings are to begin Wednesday, February 18, on constitutional amendment re treaties and executive agreement. I very much favor a constitutional amendment substantially in the form recommended by the American Bar Association. Your careful and thoughtful deliberation of this amendment will be appreciated. J. E. SCHAEFER. |