in terms of our law, could matter one whit in the course of man's relations with his neighbors. Our country's position on the treaty has not mattered in the real world of international relations for the past 28 years. I see nothing today that would indicate that a change of our position on this treaty would make any significant difference in the real world of international politics in the future. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I shall continue as best I know how to represent what I conceive to be the moral and legal foundations of our country as represented in its body of law and shall continue to oppose any policy, document, proclamation, or treaty such as the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which could, in any fashion, undermine the fundamentals undergirding our constitutional system of law. Mr. Chairman, I will appreciate you making this letter a part of the printed record of the hearings on this matter. With kindest personal regards, I am JAMES B. ALLEN. BOARD OF CHURCH AND SOCIETY, To: Members, Foreign Relations Committee. DEAP FRIENDS: I want to express appreciation on behalf of our Board for the action of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in reporting out favorably the Genocide Convention. You will be interested to know that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, meeting in Portland, Oregon, May 3, 1976, endorsed the Genocide Convention. A copy of this action is enclosed for your information. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. HERMAN WILL, Associate General Secretary, Board of Church and Society. ACTIONS OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF GENOCIDE Be it resolved, That the General Conference of The United Methodist Church supports the ratification by the United States Senate of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, and transmitted to the Senate of the eighty-first Congress by President Harry S. Truman. We deplore the delay of 25 years in spite of hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the ninety-first Congress and the support of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon; and urge ratification by this Senate as a witness to United States moral concern for all humanity. (Adopted by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church in Portland, Oreg., May 3, 1976.) Re Genocide Treaty. CHAIRMAN, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, NEW YORK, N.Y., June 1, 1977. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I've been an enrolled voter in the City of New York since 1925 and a practitioner before the courts 48 years. Sixteen years ago I wrote an article in the public interest in which I pointed out the dangers to the soverignty of the U.S.A. by submission to the jurisdiction of the World Court. Enclosed is a copy of that article as published in the Congressional Record for April 20, 1961. I request that this letter and the enclosed copy of that article be made a part of the record of the hearings held in connection with the Genocide Treaty, and that receipt of each be promptly acknowledged. Also, I would appreciate receiving a copy of the record of those hearings. At the outset, I cannot too strongly urge every Senator to re-read the Declaration of Independence so as to better determine the rectitude of voting "For" ratification or "Against" ratification. The sacred Honor which motivated the signatories to this Declaration should also motivate every Senator with respect to the Genocide Treaty. It is my belief that the secret purpose of the Genocide Treaty is to weaken, stultify and ultimately to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S.A. and with it free government under the Constitution. Each Senator is bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution. Thus it is the duty of every Senator to give force and effect to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. They recognized such duty in August 1946 when they adopted the Connally Reservation which provided that the acceptance by the United States of compulsory jurisdiction by the World Court "shall not apply to disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States of America." Anti-American malefactors were unhappy with this extremely important protective reservation and sought its repeal . . . now they seek to circumvent the force and effect of this protective reservation via the Genocide Treaty which, if ratified without similar reservation, etc. will enable the World Court to "adjudicate" any matter with respect to which it decides it has jurisdiction. It is not a Court within the purview of American jurisprudence. Its determinations are final. . . no matter how corrupt, illogical, lawless or unjust they may be. There is no provision for jury trials at the World Court. It is not bound by or guided by a defined system of law or rules of law. Many of its Judges come from nations and countries where free government is denied to the people. The Judges are selected by the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations who represent nations and countries where free government is denied to the people. No Judge at the World Court is subject to Presidential, Senatorial or State Department approval or censure. Our elected guardians of free government under the U.S. Constitution will betray the American people if they place our free government in jeopardy.. no matter how innocently they may do so Can or would any U.S. Senator so betray his constituents, in good conscience? As of now, the news media has not reported assurances by the U.S. Senate that ratification of the Genocide Treaty will not subject the U.S.A. to the jurisdiction of the World Court or that the Genocide Treaty contains adequate protection against the destruction of our free government and the U.S. Constitution by adjudication in the World Court. There are numerous other objections against ratification of the Genocide Treaty by the U.S.A. but if the objection made herein is heeded there will be no need to consider those objections on the merits. It seems appropriate that the Senate obtain a consensus from the voters before voting upon ratification or rejection of the Genocide Treaty. After all, the survival of their free government under the Constitution is THEIR business. I propose that a national referendum be held on the next Election Day, in which the people will let their Senators know how to vote on the Genocide Treaty. This is the only nation on the face of the earth where the people receive the kind of government they deserve. . . why not permit them to make this decision? Who knows better what is best for themselves than those who will suffer or benefit by their decision? There appears to be a notion among the professionals in government that Americans are apathetic in matters of government. I disagree. Americans are a frustrated people. Those who bother to vote cast their ballots, generally speaking, for what they believe to be the lessers of evils simply because they are not permitted to vote "against" any and all candidates. It is my opinion that if they had been permitted to vote “against" at the last election both candidates for President each would have received an overwhelming majority of "against" votes. They resent having to vote "for" evil to exercise their right of franchise. As I said sixteen years ago in the enclosed page from the Congressional Record: "Precisely, what could Americans do, short of war, to restore the sovereignty of the United States if the World Court decreed that the U.N. Charter, to which it owes sole allegiance, supplanted and superceded the Constitution of the United States?" I have written this letter in the public interest and I trust its proposals will be accepted or rejected on the merits and not be IGNORED. With best wishes, I am, Respectfully yours, E. F. W. WILDERMUTH, Attorney and Counsellor at Law. 91-544-77- -8 [From the Congressional Record, Apr. 20, 1961, p. A2707] U.S. CONSTITUTION, CONNALLY AMENDMENT, WORLD COURT EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN R. PILLION OF NEW YORK Mr. PILLION. Mr. Speaker, I have noted with a great deal of pride the continuing efforts by members of the legal profession to uphold the basic tenets of our U.S. Constitution. Mr. E. F. W. Wildermuth, of the Queens County Bar Association, is deserving of commendation for his work in this direction. I am pleased to include in the RECORD at this time the text of an article written by Mr. Wildermuth and published in the April 1961 edition of the Queens Bar Bulletin. The article is entitled "Shall the United States of America Surrender to the World Court?" Mr. Wildermuth has performed a distinct public service by alerting us to the real and imminent dangers of international infringement upon the sovereign powers of the United States. Mr. Wildermuth is to be commended for his clear analysis of the dangers of submission to the World Court. The content of his critique is a powerful antidote for the forces who seek to weaken, stultify, and eventually destroy the noble purposes of the U.S. Constitution. The text of the article follows: SHALL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SURRENDER TO THE WORLD COURT? (By E. F. W. Wildermuth) In September 1796, George Washington, America's No. 1 patriot, implored Americans as follows: "In one word, be a nation, be Americans, and be true to yourselves." One hundred and thirty-one years later, on February 18, 1927, the joint conference of the commanders in chief of the five large veterans organizations, meeting in Washington, D.C., undoubtedly inspired by our first President's dedication to this Nation, expressed Americanism as follows: "Americanism is an unfailing love of country; loyalty to its institutions and ideals; eagerness to defend it against all enemies; undivided allegiance to the flag; and desire to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." About one-third of a century later, at a recent conclave of American ecclesiastics, it was proclaimed, as reported by the Associated Press: "The United States may soon have to subordinate its will to that of the United Nations. Citizens must be prepared to take it." In further pursuit of the subordination of all Americans to the will of the U.N., it was admonished: "We believe citizens should prepare themselves for such eventuality. It would not then be an undue shock to public opinion, since people would have a more mature view, better able to interpret democracy at work on a world wide scale, with the benefit as well as the risk that the extension of democracy always entails." If these exhortations by clerics are not sheer euphemistic evasions, then the Ten Commandments already have been offered upon the sacrificial altar of international crucifixion. By the same token and for the same reason, it becomes crystal clear that a large segment of the American clergy is in dire need of guidance and deliverance from the influence which inspired such exhortations, made obviously in defiance of the praxeological knowledge with which all Americans are endowed in varying degrees. However, these gentlemen are not out of step with other advocates of world government, who likewise are without shame in proposing that Americans sacrifice their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution and subordinate themselves to the will of the U.N. Such behavior in incomprehensible. It eloquently evidences an urgent need for schooling in the American system of government contemplated by the Founding Fathers. The civilization of this world (at the moment it seems highly uncivilized) is precisely what the schools have made it. Little of the shocking truth is generally known about our schools and colleges. For instance, it is apparent that a conspiracy of worldwide magnitude has long been at work against thorough courses in our own history, and especially constitutional history *** the history of liberty. The manifest indifferences of Americans to the constitutional doctrines of their country is appalling. The indefensible proposals and practices against the plain est limitations on power contained in the Constitution do not appear to evoke objection from any quarter, not even from the organized bar. Is it not stocking that for more than a quarter of a century, no great debate on a constitutional subject has been heard in either House of Congress? The principles of constitutional government are not outmoded as is proclaimed by the proponents and advocates of world government and by the profusion of anti-American propaganda which fouls the very air we breathe. These principles are as immutable as those of mathematics. The constitutional system of the United States is the first that fallible man was able to formulate for the one purpose of controlling those in power and every American should know it as he knows the alphabet. For more than several generations we have failed and neglected to indoctrinate each new generation with a knowledge of the superiority of the philosophy of the American system. We have also failed and neglected to combat alien dogma and propaganda designed to destroy constitutional government in the United States. The net result is that many Americans have been "taken in" with the false promises made by proponents of world government and a large number of Americans have been misled into believing that public officials and sundry self-certified persons are endowed with superior wisdom and knowledge at Washington and at the U.N. and will solve all the problems of the world, as well as the personal problems of all Americans. The underminers of the Constitution have long been plying their nefarious occupation, and it is pertinent to recall Daniel Webster's warning that the constitutional system of the United States "is the last hope of the world." The problems of Americans would be much simpler if the United States were predominantly populated by citizens motivated by the ideas and ideals which inspired the Founding Fathers and the countless other patriots who, at great personal sacrifice, contributed to the making of this Nation, at one time, the envy of the world. It is probable that the law schools of this Nation are in a large measure at fault for the deafening silence on the part of the organized Bar while alien ideas are introduced in government in violation of the Constitution. Some years ago, the American Bar Association made a survey of the law schools in 25 of the leading universities and found that only 8 of them made a knowledge of the Constitution a requisite to a degree. This dearth of knowledge with respect to constitutional government persists, and there are times when it appears that both Americanism and the American system of government have become unfashionable in the United States and throughout the world. THE CONNALLY RESERVATION On July 25, 1946, Senate Resolution 196 was adopted. It provided for the unconditional acceptance by the United States of compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice, better known as the World Court. Before becoming effective on August 14, 1946, by reason of President Truman's declaration for the United States accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, a reservation was adopted which provided that the acceptance by the United States of jurisdiction by the World Court "shall not apply to disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States of America." Having been offered by the then Senator Connally, of Texas, this reservation became known as the Connally reservation. The proponents and advocates of world government are most unhappy with this extremely important protective reservation. Accordingly, they propose its repeal and so great is their pressure in this regard that they succeeded in obtaining a plank in the 1960 Democratic platform pledging repeal of the Connally reservation. Similar pressure groups are effectively active in the other major political party. Briefly, the repeal of the Connally reservation will subject the United States irrevocably to the jurisdiction of the World Court in every matter with respect to which the World Court decides that it has jurisdiction. The World Court, unlike courts in the American system of jurisprudence, is a court of first and final jurisdiction. There can be no appeal to a higher court from its determination that it has acquired jurisdiction and there can be no appeal to a higher court from its adjudication on the merits, no matter how corrupt, illogical, unlawful, or unjust may be such adjudication. It is not generally known that the World Court is in no way bound or guided by any definite rules or system of law, such as the common law or the American system of constitutional law. The World Court is free to improvise and to make up its own rules and render any judgment its members agree on, as influenced by each judge's own peculiar legal concepts *** and, as influenced by his national pride or interest. There are no juries in the World Court. We have witnessed our own lifetime-appointed Supreme Court exercise absolute and unrestrained power; nullify acts of Congress; usurp legislative powers and apply its legislation to past transactions, not to mention its having decreed itself to be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding * **all with absolute impunity. It will be recalled that in 1952, Chief Justice Vinson and Associate Justices Minton and Reed, in a dissenting opinion, held that the U.N. Charter superseded the U.S. Constitution when they voted to uphold President Truman's seizure of the Nation's steel industry, on the ground that the U.N. Charter obligated the United States to resist aggression in Korea and therefore authorized him to take any steps he deemed necessary in the prosecution of the war. In view of this strange behavior by the dissenters, what guarantee do Americans have that a majority of the Supreme Court may not one day succeed in subordinating our Constitution to the U.N. Charter or to any other treaty? Also, if the dissenting opinion in the Steel Seizure case had been the majority opinion, is it likely that anyone would be free to publish this article or that you would be free to read it? If we are powerless and helpless, as apparently we are, to prevent our Supreme Court from decreeing itself to be the supreme law of the land in defiance of the Constitution and attempting to subordinate the Constitution to the U.N. Charter, how can we assume or believe that the World Court will not decree. even in the face of the prohibition contained in the Connally reservation that our Constitution is subordinate to the U.N. Charter? Precisely, what could Americans do, short of war, to restore the sovereignty of the United States if the World Court decreed that the U.N. Charter, to which it owes is sole allegiance, supplanted and superseded the Constitution of the United States? What guarantee do Americans have that the World Court judges from nations in which the people are denied free government, are not biased and prejudiced against American constitutional government? The present World Court is composed of 15 members, selected and elected for terms of 9 years each by the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. Only 3 jurists are from common law countries: 4 are Latin Americans; 2 are from Moslem countries; 2 are Communists; one Chinese; and one each from Greece, France, and Norway. None of the nominees is subject to our Presidential, Senatorial or State Department approval. It is not required that they be lawvers or have judicial experience. Recently, Dr. Philip C. Jessup, an American, was elected to the World Court by the U.N., to succeed Hon. Green Haywood Hackworth, who urged that he not be considered for reappointment. Hon. John R. Pillion of Buffalo, a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives, sent telegrams to the President and the President-elect in an effort to bar Dr. Jessup's election, charging that his career "has consistently been one of appeasement, retreat and surrender to pro-Communist causes." The New York Times expressed itself editorially on November 16, 1960, with respect to Dr. Jessup's selection for the World Court, as follows: "It is hard to conceive of a better selection than that of Philip C. Jessup for the International Court of Justice at the Hague, made by vote of the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday." It will be recalled that Dr. Jessup testified as a character witness for Alger Hiss and that after Hiss was found guilty of perjury by a jury, in accordance with American jurisprudence, Dr. Jessup had "no reasons whatever to change his opinion about Hiss' veracity, loyalty, and integrity." Although other member nations of the U.N. have reservations similar to our Connally reservation, the promoters of world government have concentrated their attack on the United States and Americans. Quite obviously, those member nations are self-respecting sovereignties which refuse to permit meddling in their internal affairs by the World Court, and the advocates of world government consider it the better part of wisdom to refrain from attempting to stampede those nations into repealing their protective reservations. |