Judge PARKER. I haven't a copy of it here. Senator BUTLER. That is the controversial section, Judge; that is not in Senate Joint Resolution 43. Judge PARKER (reading): No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. If the control over the criminal laws of this country is not a matter essentially within the jurisdiction of the United States, I do not know anything that could be. Yet, under our treaty with Great Britain, crimes charged against soldiers of the United States are tried by us under an international agreement. We could not make that agreement with Great Britain with respect to British troops quartered here in this country. Senator DIRKSEN. Is there anything to prevent Congress from legislating in that field? Judge PARKER. Yes. The treaty is absolutely outlawed. Senator KEFAUVER. Section 2 is a general outlawing or definition of the subject matter. Judge PARKER. Yes. No treaty shall authorize or permit. All executive or other agreements between the President and any international organization, foreign power, or official thereof shall be made only in the manner and to the extent to be prescribed by law. Senator KEFAUVER. But the last sentence says it, too, in subject matter, shall be limited. Judge PARKER (reading): Such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties, or the making of treaties, by this article. And this article absolutely outlaws the kind of treaty I am talking about. It is worse than that. Our troops abroad are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are essentially within the jurisdiction of the United States, and we could not make a treaty with a foreign power, under this, for the joint making of war by the joint control of our troops. It would have outlawed the placing of our troops under the command of General Foch in the First World War. Senator BUTLER. You are familiar with Senate Joint Resolution 43, the American bar draft? Judge PARKER. That is right. Senator BUTLER. That does not have any such provision in it, and is a much simpler thing. Would you approve of that draft? Judge PARKER. No. I think this draft is worse than the Bricker resolution, by far, and I will tell you why, Senator. Senator BUTLER. Wherein? Because it restricts the jurisdiction? Judge PARKER (reading): A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty. Senator BUTLER. That is right. 30572-53- -47 Judge PARKER. Let me call your attention to this fact, sir: Most of the treaties of trade and commerce relate to rights which are subject not to the Federal Government but to the power of the several States, the right to own property, the devolution of property. Senator BUTLER. That does not go to the Congress. That goes to the State legislature. It says "legislation." It does not say "legislation by the Congress." Judge PARKER. It says: A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty. Senator BUTLER. That is right. In other words, if the State wants to modify it, it can do it. If it wants to adopt it, the State through its legislature can pass an act. The Congress can do it if it wants to do it. There is nothing in there that prevents the making of that sort of a treaty. Judge PARKER. I thank you, Senator, for calling my attention to it. That would mean this: that the ordinary treaties of trade and commerce and international friendship which contain these provisions would have to be ratified, not by the Senate or by the Congress, but have to be ratified by every State of the Union in which it was operative, and nobody would make a treaty with us. Senator BUTLER. I do not think so at all. I do not think that would be the effect at all. Judge PARKER. I think it would. Senator BUTLER. They would have a perfect right to operate in any international field. The only thing this does is to prevent them from operating in the local field except through legislation. Take England, for instance. We are the only great nation in the world that has the type of law that we have. Now, you say it arises in one country and settles in another. In England they do not have these self-executing treaties. There is no treaty they make that becomes executive until the Parliament passes an act implementing it. Why should not we have equal opportunity with other nations? Judge PARKER. I am glad you made that statement, because I want to call your attention to this: England ratifies a treaty by having it approved by both houses of Parliament. We considered that. We decided it would be wiser to have it approved by the Senate. England does not have it approved by the House of Lords and then go through the Parliament. It goes through a one-step process. It would be easier to get treaties through by a mere majority of both Houses of Congress than it would be to get it through two-thirds of the Senate. Senator KEFAUVER. May I call your attention, Justice Parker, to the fact that in the House of Representatives over a period of many years the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Judge Hatton Summers at that time, had a resolution to amend the Constitution to that effect, to have treaties ratified not by two-thirds of the Senate but by majority vote in both Houses, finally by constitutional majority vote on both Houses. Argument was made that that would make treaties more easily ratified than now by the Senate, and it was turned down on that ground. If we had adopted Sumners' resolution we would have had ourselves on an equal footing with the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Is that not true? Judge PARKER. That is correct, and it would have been easier to ratify it. Senator, I do not want to encroach on your good nature. Senator DIRKSEN. We have 2 or 3 very important and somewhat controversial matters on the Senate floor today. We thank you, sir. Senator KEFAUVER. Before the committee recesses, I should like to read a very short letter. Knowing that Mr. Will Clayton, who is now president of the Anderson, Clayton Co., has served as Under Secretary of State and has had a great deal of experience in the negotiation of agreements and treaties, and is a thoroughly thoughtful and wellversed man in this field of activity, because of our great confidence in him, I wrote him a letter and asked if I should make arrangements with the chairman of the committee for his appearance here and if he would appear. He advised that because of pressing engagements he could not appear, but he sent a letter in lieu of his appearance which I should like to read into the record at this time and have made a part of the record: Hon. ESTES KEFAUVER, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. ANDERSON, CLAYTON & CO., Houston, Tex., March 21, 1953. DEAR SENATOR KEFAUVER: In lieu of my personal appearance, I respectfully submit this statement for insertion in the record of hearings on Senate Joint Resolution 1. I am opposed to the adoption of this resolution for the following principal reason: The free world is engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the Communist world. The Communists speak and act as a unit. Unless freedom is to disappear throughout the world, there must be much closer political, economic, and military integration among the nations of the free world than anything yet achieved. NATO cannot function so long as it speaks with as many different voices as it has members. NATO must speak with one voice or it will not be heard. Senate Joint Resolution 1, if adopted, would discourage and impede every necessary step to bring the free world closer together. It is an unenlightened expression of slavish dedication to the fetish of national sovereignty at a time when the free world must pool its sovereignty if it is to avoid annihilation. If this resolution had been written 150 years ago, one could understand it, although our forefathers considered its substance when drafting the Constitution of the United States and overwhelmingly rejected it. I hope this resolution will be disposed of in the same manner. Sincerely yours, Senator DIRKSEN. Have you anything else to offer? WILL CLAYTON. Senator DIRKSEN. The committee will suspend. We have no authority to sit while the sessions of the Senate are held unless it is obtained specially. Mr. Eichelberger, I am distressed about the fact that you have been here now twice. I had hoped that if we could finish in due season this afternoon, we might be able to resume sessions for a while, but that is one of those unpredictable matters. Mr. EICHELBERGER. May I say that I have enjoyed the witnesses. that I have had the privilege of listening to, and I do not regret the time, at all, listening to Judge Parker this morning. I will be in Washington next week, and if you are having a hearing I will be delighted to be here, or I am willing to submit my statement. Senator DIRKSEN. We will see that that is properly entered, and I think we can get it on the calendar all right, because we have hearings calendared for the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th of April. The Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and others, will appear. Mr. EICHELBERGER. I am attending a convention in Washington the 6th, 7th, and 8th. Senator DIRKSEN. So that would be convenient. Mr. Eichelberger will be here during that period and could then appear. (Discussion off the record.) (Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 2: 30 p. m., of the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The committee reconvened at 2: 30 p. m.) Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Dirksen, the acting chairman of the subcommittee, has secured permission for the subcommittee to sit this afternoon while the Senate is in session, and he has done me the honor of asking me to preside this afternoon for the particular purpose of hearing Mr. Clark Eichelberger, who has been here to testify twice, and rather than requiring him to come back on another occasion, Senator Dirksen asked that I preside this afternoon to give Mr. Eichelberger a chance to be heard. Before starting with the witness, Mr. Smithey, you have some statements to put in the record. Mr. SMITHEY. Yes, sir. The subcommittee has received several statements for inclusion in the record. Here is a statement of the Conference of State Manufacturers Associations in support of Senate Joint Resolution 1. I would like to submit that, sir, and ask that it be received. Senator KEFAUVER. It will be received and made a part of the record. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF CONFERENCE OF STATE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIONS FILED WITH THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1, PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT LIMITING THE TREATY POWER The Conference of State Manufacturers Associations, a voluntary federation of statewide manufacturers associations, files this statement in support of the principle to which Senate Joint Resolution 1 is directed, proposing a constitutional amendment limiting the treaty power. The statement is offered in behalf of the following associations, which are members of the Conference of State Manufacturers Associations: Associated Industries of Alabama Associated Industries of Florida Indiana Manufacturers Association New Hampshire Manufacturers Asso- New Jersey Manufacturers Association Texas Manufacturers Association Wisconsin Manufacturers Association The Conference of State Manufacturers Associations, in common with the American Bar Association and many other organizations, is greatly concerned lest the adoption of many of the proposed international covenants and conventions dealing with matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States and the States thereof should destroy the constitutional guaranties for the protection of the citizens of the United States and should work a substantial change in our local laws, both State and Federal, without the action of Congress, various State legislatures or a vote of the people. We are not in favor of any provision which would remove the authority of the President to enter into treaties or other international agreements dealing with strictly essential international relationships between this Nation and other foreign nations. Treaties, however, should deal with the relationship of a national or his government to foreign citizens and their governments and should not alter the internal governmental structure of the United States. Accordingly we believe that the treaty making power should be limited for the following reason among others: 1. Ratified treaties and international conventions, unless a constitutional amendment prohibiting is adopted, will become the domestic law of the land under article 6 of the Constitution of the United States. 2. The power of the Federal Government would be extended over matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the States. 3. Domestic lawmaking by treaty bypasses the House of Representatives and the legislative processes. 4. Many of the proposed treaties and international covenants contain provisions which by normal interpretation would abridge rights enunciated in the Constitution. The United States appears to be the only government in the world where a treaty becomes the "supreme law of the land" without the approval of a national legislative body. Ratified treaties may supersede a prior act of Congress. A treaty supersedes all conflicting provisions of prior State laws or State constitutions. Many of the covenants now proposed by the International Labor Organization could render nugatory some of the most important provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act and to a large extent preempt the entire. field of labor-management relations. The proposed Genocide Convention and the draft covenants on human rights would abridge or eliminate constitutional guaranties of the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution and of the various State constitutions. The danger to our constitutional system makes it necessary for the Congress to protect our people by making certain that no provision of a treaty could abridge or deny any of the rights or powers enumerated in our Constitution or in any way alter our domestic laws. The Conference of State Manufacturers Associations, therefore, supports in principle the objectives sought in the various proposals pending before this committee and urges the Congress to take appropriate steps to limit the treatymaking power so that it will not be used to enact internal or domestic law in the United States, to alter the constitutional guaranties of our Bill of Rights or by indirection to extend the power of the Federal Government. Mr. SMITHEY. The statement by the lawyers' committee of the United World Federalists, Inc. Senator KEFAUVER. It will be received and made a part of the record. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT ON SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1 (THE BRICKER BILL) AND SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 43 (THE WATKINS BILL) BY LAWYERS' COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED WORLD FEDERALISTS, INC. The purpose of our organization is to work for the establishment of a world federation with adequate though limited powers to prevent aggression and maintain world peace. If the United States is to enter such a federation, the Constitution of the United States must be amended. The United States should not be committed to enter such a federation by treaty or by Executive agreement. With this consideration specifically in mind, we oppose the so-called Bricker and Watkins resolutions in their present form. Much of what those resolutions propose is unnecessary and some of their proposals would be mischievous. If the resolutions' provisions should be incorporated in the Constitution (1) the rest of the world would be led to believe that the United States is rebuffing |