restored the duty on certain fur-felt hats, after recommendation to the President by the Tariff Commission that this be done; and (2) our proposal to withdraw our trade agreement with Czechoslovakia.

The State Department, in its letter to you, says:

"On the other hand, the contracting parties to the agreement do have the right to consult with any contracting party concerning the discharge of its undertakings, and to seek compensation or to take offsetting action because of the failure of any contracting party to carry out these undertakings."

Mr. McFall (State Department) had just said, as already quoted: "It must be emphasized that the parties to the agreement cannot overrule acts of Congress or the Executive." Then he says the parties do have the right to consult.

Obviously, the State Department is trying to show just how an agreement is not really an agreement. "Moreover," says Mr. McFall, "any contracting party can withdraw from the agreement on 60 days' notice." All this represents an attempt to show that GATT exercises no power of review, and that it merely exercises the right to consult.

Evidently GATT is a very flimsy thing, without much meaning and certainly without teeth--a piece of paper that can be flouted at will by any one of the contracting parties. Or is it?

This may not exactly be the case; for a little later, in his reference to the furfelt hat case, Mr. McFall states:

"The working party (which had been appointed by GATT at the instance of Czechoslovakia to review the actions of the United States) found that there was no conclusive evidence that other action taken by the United States Government under artice XIX constituted a breach of its obligations under the general agreement."

Is it not strange that the "right to consult" confers upon this international body the right to appoint a working party which makes an elaborate analysis of United States action in the light of article XIX of the general agreement (GAAT) to determine what? Whether we have consulted properly? Whether we have been discourteous? Not exactly.

The McFall letter says:

"The working party found that there was no conclusive evidence that the action taken by the United States Government under article XIX constituted a breach of its obligations under the general agreement."

"A breach of its obligations" sounds somewhat more formidable than the "right to consult." That it is actually regarded much more seriously even by the State Department will become obvious later. At this particular point Mr. McFall, still apparently speaking for domestic consumptions, says:

"If the contracting parties has found otherwise (i. e., that the United States had breached its obligations), the United States would as a matter of policy, have wanted to reexamine its action in the light of such a finding, but whether the other contracting parties agreed with the action or not, the United States would still have had the power to continue its action if it wished to.'" In another place Mr. McFall observes:

"If these provisions (i. e., the right to consult, to take offsetting action, and the right to withdraw from the agreement) constitute 'review' in any objectionable sense of the word, then it follows that most international undertakings among nations, including those of a bilateral character, are objectionable and should be dissolved."

In other words, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is just an innocent international agreement calling for consultation before taking action under it. No harm done; no real commitments involved, and nothing really serious intended. Merely the "right to consult."

That there are hidden teeth somewhere in the agreement which give it more bite than the mere right to consult confers and which give substance to such words as "a breach of its obligations," quoted above, comes to light later in the State Department's letter. This happens in Mr. McFall's observations about the second instance of GATT review of official United States action, cited in my radio address.

Involved in this instance was United States withdrawal from its trade agreement with Czechoslovakia, as required by the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 (Public Law 50, 82d Cong., sec. 5). In my radio address I had said that even though withdrawal from the Czech agreement was required by an act of Congress, signed by the President, we were not free to do so without taking the matter before GATT. I asked why the State Department had found it necessary to go to Geneva when she was already under instruction by Congress to act.

Answering my own question, I said that she went to Geneva not for original authority but for confirmation of the authority that had already been voted by our Congress. That this procedure was recognized by the State Department follows from the fact that before acting they did lay the proposal before GATT. Mr. McFall says:

"In the other instance of 'review' cited by Mr. Strackbein, the United States itself requested the contracting parties to terminate United States obligations to Czechoslovakia. Congress had provided in the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 that the United States terminate 'as soon as practicable' concessions to Soviet-dominated countries."

In other words, by the State Department's own admission, the United States was in a position, because of our adherence to GATT, of having to request the contracting parties to sever our obligations to Czechoslovakia. Our Congress had spoken. It had required the President to suspend or withdraw the pact. The President had signed the act of Congress; but before carrying out this law, the State Department found it necessary to go to Geneva and ask in effect "May we please do what Congress has instructed us to do?"

Was this merely consultation?

GATT voted on the question. It sustained the United States a second time.

If we were willing to abide by these decisions when they favored us, what will it make of us if we refuse when they go against us?

The State Department's letter lets us know what they themselves say. Figuratively, the cat has tired of playing and is now ready to dispose of the mouse. Says Mr. McFall:

"Respect for international undertakings in the case of Czechoslovakia, as in the case of termination of our bilateral commercial agreement with the U. S. S. R., required that certain procedures be observed in accomplishing the termination The teeth are beginning to show, but it is necessary to look closely. "Certain procedures” must "be observed,” Mr. McFall says. These procedures, however, include the right of the other member nations of GATT to vote us down, to deny our petitions, or to sustain those who complain against us. Remember, Mr. SECREST, that while "It must be emphasized that the parties to the agreement cannot overrule acts of Congress or of the Executive," the contracting parties to the agreement "do have the right to consult." This right of consultation includes these certain procedures that contain the quite effective power of review. What would have been our position had we not consulted in the two cases mentioned and had we not followed the decisions of GATT? The State Department has rather definite ideas on this. In his letter, Mr. McFall says:

"To have ignored these undertakings (read 'obligations') would have given the Soviet bloc a strong propaganda theme against the United States."

Again, further on, in assessing the possible effect of a withdrawal by the United States from GATT. he says:

"The blow our allies would not be economic alone. In other countries the inconsistency of our giving with one hand, through the Mutual Defense Assistance Program and through point 4, while taking away with the other would raise fundamental doubts regarding the bases of our leadership in the free world. These developments would affect both the ability and the willingness of our allies to make the sacrifices and readjustments that we are urging upon them.” There you have the sanctions of GATT.

It is precisely because we should honor our agreements that membership in GATT is a very serious matter. It is precisely because we should carry out our ebligations and not flout them that GATT represents something far beyond the right to consult. Either we enter our international agreements in good faith, with full intention to meet our commitments, or we play fast and loose in our international relations. Which position does the State Department occupy? When they say that we are not bound by GATT, that we can withdraw, what sort of picture do they mean to draw of Uncle Sam in his conduct of international affairs? Do they wish us to stand by GATT when GATT supports us but to wark out if GATT goes against us?

If not, then GATT exercises a power of review as tight as any Yes; we can walk out. Certainly we can behave execrably; we can be international hew is, Is that the signifinance of the State Department's argument?

If not, then we are, indeed. bound by GATT. This was what I assumed in the radio address because I assumed that Uncle Sam honors his agreements. I still assume it. I assume that when we give our word in an international agre ment we mean to carry it out in good faith and to abide by the rules and proce dures and by the decisions arrived at in accordance with those procedures,

whether they go in our favor or against us. That is why we should be careful of the kind of agreement we enter into; and the best way to be careful in these foreign agreements is to follow the constitutional processes.

Under these circumstances it is clear that through our entry into GATT we have by an international agreement de facto bestowed the right of review by an international body over official acts of our Congress and our Executive.

At no point have I said, Mr. Secrest, that we should never do this. We have done it in other spheres within certain limitations. What I have said is that the State Department in taking us into GATT has done so outside the treatymaking powers of the Executive and the Senate, and without specific legislative authority. I pointed out in my address that before we entered the United Nations, Congress passed the United National Participation Act, approved December 20, 1945. Also, before joining the so-called World Court, the Senate ratified our action by passing a resolution of adherence setting forth the conditions of our acceptance of its jurisdiction. Other instances could have been cited-among them membership in the International Labor Organization, the way to which was paved by a resolution of the Seventy-third Congress.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade lacks such legislative ratification in those of its parts that go beyond section 350, previously mentioned, which is the only legislative source of authority that underlies the trade-agreements program. Mr. McFall bases authority for the broader provisions of GATT on the Presidential power to conduct foreign relations.

However, the Constitution grants to Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" (art. 1, sec. 8).

The upshot is that according to the State Department the Executive may go beyond the delegated power provided in the section 350 amendment of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Trade Agreements Act) to enter into trade agreements for the 50-percent adjustment of the tariff and a few related steps. For this enlarged power the President, according to the State Department, needs no additional authorization from the Congress or from the Senate alone.

This places the State Department, as the right arm of the Executive in conducting foreign relations, in the position making broad international executive agreements which in the usages, practices, and realities of international relations fritter away our national sovereignty just as surely and effectively as would a treaty concurred in by the Senate. Since a treaty may at least be denounced and abrogated, there is recourse; while in the exercise of the alleged powers of the executive in international relations there is none.

The entire effort of the State Department has trended toward the complete elimination of any legislative voice in the regulation of our trade. Neither GATT nor its ill-fated forerunner, the International Trade Organization, contemplated responsiveness to the producers and workmen of this country and their interests by these governing international bodies. The elimination of this responsiveness, so specifically and elaborately guarded in the Constitution, was arranged through the one-vote mechanism (whereby the United States had the same vote as other countries in the international bodies), and through the complete domination of the field by the Executive.

It was on these grounds that I concluded that we should withdraw from GATT and thus bring the regulation of our foreign commerce back to this country, where it belongs, if the people of this country are to continue to exercise control over the acts of their Government.

Thank you for this opportunity to make a reply to the State Department's letter of comment on my attack on GATT.

Sincerely yours,

O. R. STRACKBEIN.

Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER,

United States Senate,

THE NATIONAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF AMERICA,
Washington, D. C., March 3, 1953.

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: I am enclosing our statement in connection with your proposed constitutional amendment and will appreciate it very much if you will have it incorporated in the record of the committee hearings.

Without a doubt, if the people had an opportunity to express themselves on this proposition it would be approved by an overwhelming majority.

Respectfully,

JOHN M. DEWITT KYLE II, President.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. DEWITT KYLE II, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DEFENSE LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is John M. DeWitt Kyle II. I am president of the National Defense League of America, and I reside at 1811 19th Street NW., Washington 9, D. C.

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we support Senator Bricker's bill without the slightest reservation, and we unhesitatingly recommend it to the favorable consideration of your committee.

Mr. Chairman, a careful review of the proceedings and debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the subsequent debates on the ratification of the Constitution, has convinced the National Defense League of America that it was the clear and specific intent of our Founding Fathers that the United States of America should abide by their treaty obligations; however, it is as equally clear to us that it never occurred to any of the wise Founding Fathers that the Senate of the United States of America might, some day, inadvertently ratify a binding treaty in conflict with the Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant thereto. Otherwise, we believe, more restrictive language would have been written into the Constitution before final ratification.

Mr. Chairman, what are the present dangers? The United Nations is the case in point. We submit, however, that in ratifying the United Nations Charterwhich certainly is not a treaty-that it was not the intent of the Senate of the United States of America that the national sovereignty of this Nation should be surrendered to the United Nations; and, furthermore, that it was the specific intent of each Senator that no instrumentality of the said United Nations should ever be projected into the internal affairs of the United States of America. However, as the committee knows, certain courts have held the United Nations Charter to be a treaty and, therefore, superior to the laws of the land. Indeed, it has been vigorously argued that the said Charter stands above the Constitution of the United States of America itself. Even now the Supreme Court of the United States of America is being urged to hold our State segregated publicschool systems to be contrary to the United Nations Charter and therefore illegal.

Our league believes—and has always believed, from the date of its organization in 1913-that except in cases of invasion or attack, the Armed Forces of the United States of America cannot be engaged in any armed hostility without the specific authorization of the Congress-by which I mean a formal declaration of war, the United Nations or any treaty notwithstanding. But, Mr. Chairman, a dangerous precedent has been established-our illegal entry into the war in Korea. And although the Congress has sub silento acquiesced in this illegal war, and in view of this precedent, who can say that another President will not again order our Armed Forces into armed hostilities-under the pretext of a binding treaty-without the authority of the Congress, and in spite of the nullification of the totalitarian doctrine of "inherent Presidential powers."

Mr. Chairman, at this very moment the sovereignty of our country is in grave danger. The pressures are extremely great. Tremendous sums of money and boundless energies are being spent to lead us into a world government. Totalltarianism is on the march- and one doesn't have to go to Russia to find totalitarians. No, Mr. Chairman, we have plenty-too many-of them right here in our midst. Conscious of public opinion, however, proponents of world government seek to involve this Nation in such a scheme through the media of international pressure and domestic chaos,

The Constitution of the United States of America has always been the one insumountable roadblock of the totalitarian; and since he cannot amend it to conform to his ambitions, he must-and, indeed, often does-rely upon subtle means of circumvention. He therefore avails himself of every crisis, both foreign and domestic, to impose his will upon us. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, he lauds such instrumentalities as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Economic Recovery Administration, and the Truman Dtrine as being major steps toward his inevitable goal - world government.

For the aforementioned reasons, and divers others, Mr. Chairman, the people of these United States of America are clamoring for the Bricker amendmer t. We hope, therefore, that the committee will not hesitate to report it favor dev We are very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present our View®

NASHVILLE, TENN., February 18, 1953.

Hon. WILLIAM LANGER,
Chairman, Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.:

The Constitution provides that the Congress shall make no law abridging the inalienable freedoms set forth therein and that the powers not delegated to the Central Government are reserved to the States or the people; but article VI of the Constitution places treaties on a parity with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and our freedoms are endangered by the existence of this provision and the application of an entirely new concept of international law based on this so-called loophole.

The U. N.-sponsored Genocide Convention, the proposed Covenant on Human Rights and the effort of UNESCO to secure control of our educational system as a means of establishing a one-world government, would, if ratified by the Senate, nullify and destroy the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and destroy all State and Federal laws in conflict with same.

Acting under authority of the board of directors of the Southern States Industrial Council it is respectfully urged (1) the Senate should reject in toto these U. N. proposals; and (2) the Congress should propose an amendment to the Constitution providing that all treaties shall be subordinate to the Constitution and the laws of the United States and of the respective States.

It is requested that this telegram be made a part of the hearings record of the subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Respectfully,

PAUL A. REDMOND, President.

Mr. SMITHEY. Then one further item, Senator. Mr. Watts, of the Christian Science committee on publications has asked that this editorial appearing in the Christian Science Monitor of Monday, March 2, 1953, be appended to his statement or that a notation be made to the place in the record where that appears.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be done.

Thank you very much, Mr. Oliver. Mr. Eichelberger, we will call you on another date, and you will be notified. The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 6 p. m., subject to call of the chairman.)

[Christian Science Monitor, Boston, Monday, March 2, 1953]

EDITORIALS

TREATIES AND THE CONSTITUTION

This newspaper is convinced that careful amendment of the United States Constitution is needed to guard against potential dangers from treaty-made law. Proposed amendments, such as those offered by the American Bar Association and by Senator Bricker are usefully focusing attention on the situation. There are also dangers in ill-considered changes. We trust that the current congressional hearings and wider public discussion will produce an amendment which will preserve American freedoms without upsetting the balance of powers in the Constitution or putting a straitjacket on developing concepts of individual rights and international cooperation.

The problem arises under article VI, section 2, of the Constitution:

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 of every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This is clear, specific language, not to be lightly altered. New conditions have not lessened the values of the treatymaking power. Nor has the Nation shown any desire to recede from its world obligations. But in the last few years the closer association of the United States with other nations and the increased use of Presidential powers have pointed out to the possibility of individual and State rights being abridged by treaties or executive agreements.