Senator DIRKSEN. Then it is said, as Secretary Dulles suggested sterday, "Well, if you make a mistake in a treaty, and it has a disrous impact, you can always cure it by legislation." Of course the er answer is this: Let us lay out the guidelines in the Constitution d the mistake will not be made so that you will not have to come ong with subsequent legislation in order to remedy and cure defects d inequities that may come about.

Then it is said, "Don't do it because this is too complicated." Well, course everything is complicated.

Attorney General BROWNELL. I do not think that is a valid arguent. It is complicated, but that does not mean you should not nsider it just because it is complicated.

Senator DIRKSEN. It requires the most careful study and the best nsideration that the committee can give to it.

No. 7, with respect to executive agreements it is said there are so any fine lines. Well, I think the answer is the same as the answer the field of reciprocal trade. We set down the format in the law d said, "Here is the pattern, so you just take all these agreements at you execute with countries all over the world affecting nearly ery kind of American industry, and you just stay within that frameork."

Now I do not believe we would have any difficulty in laying out some nd of general framework that would be a pattern and you just laid own any kind of agreement and said, "Does it square away?" In her words, that Congress would not only be forbearing but would nd over backward to make sure that it did not unduly hamper the ecutive in that field.

You see, Mr. Attorney General, what I am trying to get at is at is the nub of the question now and what are the arguments gainst it. Then of course we can ventilate the arguments for it so at we can see in good context just what the purposes are. Attorney General BROWNELL. I see your point.

Senator DIRKSEN. So I want to ask my good friend from Ohio ether that is not about where we are at the present time? Senator BRICKER. Exactly.

Senator DIRKSEN. So we want to proceed on that theory in the ope that this does constitute a constructive piece of work to bind ose rights and make sure that they do not get away because I think ere is really alarm in the air today, and we have to take action. think that was a very scholarly statement you made this morning the subject.

Attorney General BROWNELL. Thank you, Senator.

Senator DIRKSEN. I thought the statement made by the Secretary State yesterday was exceedingly good.

Attorney General BROWNELL. That is my only purpose for being re this morning. I think even though subject matters of past probms are different, it may help in considering the matter.

Senator DIRKSEN. Senator Watkins?

Senator WATKINS. I gather from your statement you do not think y treaty ought to be contrary to the Constitution of the United ates?

Attorney General BROWNELL. That is right.

Senator WATKINS. In view of that, what is your objection to the following language of the American Bar proposal which is contained in Resolution 43?

A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

You may have covered it in a roundabout way, and I would like to get a specific answer to that one question.

Attorney General BROWNELL. Well, I think my main objection to it is, Senator, that I think it would raise a very definite question if not made clear that the treaty-making power was subordinate to the 10th amendment.

Senator WATKINS. You think that would be your objection?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I think that is the objective of the proponents to do away with the effect of Missouri versus Holland. If I am misinterpreting their objective, which perhaps I should not even comment on, then I give it as my opinion that that would be the effect, the grave danger of it.

- Senator WATKINS Does it go counter to what you have just said, that no treaty should be contrary to the Constitution? That is all it says, does it not?

Attorney General BROWNELL. The effect of the proposal as a whole, which of course we must consider rather than any one particular sentence which may be taken out of context, would in my opinion take away from the Executive the right to negotiate treaties on subject matter which is not expressly granted to Congress under its legislative powers.

I think that would be a very drastic change in our setup.

Senator WATKINS. Suppose we amended 43 and struck, out everything but that in that provision.

Attorney General BROWNELL. I would have to read it and study it. Every time you take something out you change the effect of it. The committee on peace and law, I think it is, of the American Bar Association has been studying this matter for 4 years, and every year they come up with a different draft of language, and now they tell me that they are still going to have another draft of the language, and I can only say that each new set of words has to be studied apart and separate from the preceding language so that you will not get into any of these dangerous fields as I have tried to point out in my statement. Senator WATKINS. Well, I still cannot see that you have answered. If I strike out everything in Senate Joint Resolution 43 with respect to any substantive change, "the provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force and effect.” Attorney General BROWNELL. Are you offering me a treaty or v international agreement?

Senator WATKINS. I am offering you an amendment to the Const.tution because some people have the idea, and two Presidents proceeded on that basis, that they could go ahead of the Constitution.

Attorney General BROWNELL. I do not mean to be facetions, but I do think if you are going to ask for a studied opinion on language offer than this hearing was called for that I would be reckless if I tried to comment without studying it. I will be glad to study it and give you my opinion in writing.

Senator WATKINS. Will not your fears that the court might pie some changed meaning on it be completely obviated by an appropr.ate

diciary Committee record which the courts regularly consult for terpreting the amendment? Suppose the language would get it in re and it covers all views and all the rest and we put in the report hat the intent is so there would not be any doubt?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I think the statements that have ready been made in the hearings by the members of this committee well as by witnesses would also have to be considered in the case of biguity and therefore it would be rather difficult for me to agree at the committee report would be the only part of the proceedings fore this committee that would be considered by a court in construg it.

Senator WATKINS. Your particular objection to the American Bar xt, as I understand it, is the "which" clause?

Attorney General BROWNELL. That is right.

Senator WATKINS. Which would set aside Missouri versus Holland; at is your contention. What is your position with reference to the ar Association text as to treaties without the "which" clause? Attorney General BROWNELL. There again I am going to have to k for the right to study the effect of the balance of it without that in. do not want to express offhand any opinion on different proposals an were the subject matter of our original hearing because it is too mplicated, and it would not be fair, speaking as an officer of the

overnment.

Senator WATKINS. This resolution of mine, incidentally, for your formation is a part of the hearing. We are considering both resoluons at this time.

Attorney General BROWNELL. I have given my opinion of the resotion as a whole. Now if you start dropping out some of it, then I uld want to reconsider.

Senator WATKINS. We are meeting here for the purpose of conlering what part of it we should drop out. You have done a fine of presenting your views, but you do not object to us going further d asking you as to what kind of language we can put in? Attorney General BROWNELL. I do not; but as far as giving you an inion as an officer of the Government, I think you would be better ved if I had a chance to study it. I do not have any objection to ting informally on this matter and making any suggestions I can. Senator WATKINS. Since you quoted Chief Justice Hughes, I ask u if you are familiar with this statement made before the American ciety of International Law in 1929, the same speech that you quoted >m, as follows:

If we take the Constitution to mean what it says, it gives in terms to the ited States the power to make treaties.

I note that it says "United States."

t is a power that has no explicit limitation attached to it. * I should care to voice any opinion as to an implied limitation on the treatymaking ver. The Supreme Court has expressed a doubt whether there could be any h. That is, the doubt has been expressed in one of its opinions. Attorney General BROWNELL. That is the Holmes quotation he ers to, but he came to the conclusion which I quoted in my speech er having made that statement.

Senator WATKINS. In view of that statement by an eminent jurist d the other conflicts that have come up and the doubts that have

been expressed, do you not think it is very desirable to have some sort of clarification of that in the nature of an amendment to the Constitution since we have all these great international bodies and others making for this situation?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I think it is worth a try, and if it can be done without damaging the balance of power between the three branches of Government, all right. So far I do not think we have the right language.

Senator WATKINS. Let me state that as far as I personally am concerned that the only thing we are trying to do is to preserve the Constitution of the United States which has stood us so well for so many years. Whether language can be found to do that is our problem. Attorney General BROWNELL. That is correct.

Senator WATKINS. But we cannot stop simply because we cannot arrive at perfection.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Brownell, is there a section or a number of people in the Department of Justice who over a long period of time have given almost exclusive attention to the question of treaties and treaty texts, or is that whole matter over in the State Department?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I think normally it belongs in the State Department. We do not have a separate section in that regard, although I have been very ably assisted and glad to acknowledge the assistance given me by Assistant Attorney General Rankin here, who is the head of our Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and who has been studying this matter with great care.

Senator DIRKSEN. If at any time the subcommittee felt that they would like to avail themselves of his help, I presume that could be arranged?

Attorney General BROWNELL. By all means.

Senator BRICKER. One question.

Senator DIRKSEN. Certainly.

Senator BRICKER. The difficulty of proceeding under the present situation, the Constitution unamended, is pretty apparent in this whole procedure. We began some 2 years ago by the introduction in the Senate of a resolution to the effect that it was the sense of the Senate that we would not concur in the Covenant of Human Rights; that it did abrogate the right of freedom of speech and worship. We could get no hearing on that. The administration was opposed to it; the State Department had approved, as you know, the draft of the Covenant of Human Rights, and it was to be submitted to the Senate. They wanted to take no anticipatory action, possibly, and there was no hearing on it.

Then when the other treaties began to evolve, especially the ILO and WHO treaties and now agriculture is in it and health and labor and all the departments of government, negotiating treaties, as well as the State Department, it seemed that the only way that this could be brought to the attention of the people of our country and to the Congress was by constitutional amendment.

Last year extensive hearings were held on the amendment submitted, I think it was resolution 130. We have tried to meet the legitimate objections as presented by even the State Department as of that time and other witnesses who had as we felt maybe legitimate concern about the effect of it.

The report was not made by the committee for obvious reasons, they re engaged in the security matters at the end such as the McCarranalter bill. We did take it up this year, and there was great interin it throughout the country as testified by former Dean Manion Notre Dame, and then of course credit must go to the American r. Credit for this primarily goes to Frank Holman in the beging. I read his speech, and nobody will ever be able to appraise - service he has rendered to the committee, along with the other mbers of the committee, Mr. Schweppe, Mr. Rix, Judge Phillips, . Finch, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Deutsch, and Mr. Ober.

Attorney General BROWNELL. I do not want you to get ahead of me to the high-minded purpose of that group in the American Bar sociation.

Senator BRICKER. They have worked incessantly at it and patriotily. It has been submitted twice to the American Bar Association se of delegates, which is really the speaking forum for all of lawyer members of that association, very able lawyers. Twice y have overwhelmingly supported the position of this committee, pages of organizations from all over the country, many of them ionwide, and many of the States have already ratified this in the guage in which it was submitted, two last week, I think California I Oregon, and there is a compelling demand on the part of the erican people that the Congress give consideration to this thing. All we want is the help of the administration. We do not want nterfere with the legitimate operations of this Government. We not want in any way to interfere with the legitimate foreign relas or the power of the President to conduct war or any of the other vers given in the Constitution. This has no effect on them at all. it does have the effect of securing against this new thing, as SenaDirksen so ably presented a while ago, that has come to many in country, the thinking of the Jessups and the Chaffees and others en the power of government might invade their rights as promised er the Constitution. That is one of the serious things, in my judght, and shows the difficulty of getting action on a treaty or an immete problem that is before the Senate.

This is to secure the inalienable rights of the American people, as ys in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the same argut was made as is made at the present time even against this amendt. If that counsel had prevailed at that time, we do not know ether we would have had a republic or not, because there was a e during the Constitutional Convention when the individual rights a person might have been imperiled. Those are the rights that are attempting to preserve here, and I just cannot express my apciation enough to this committee of the American Bar that has e down here, and the House of Delegates that has considered this ong because they are devoted to the preservation of the interests of country and are against invasion of those rights.

ttorney General BROWNELL. No doubt about that. I am glad to in the high-mindedness of their purpose.

enator DIRKSEN. Mr. Smithey?

Ir. SMITHEY. Mr. Attorney General, I would like to preface this stion with a few quotations, a few references, and ultimately I will lve it to a question. Mr. Justice Chase in the case of Ware v.