Imagini ale paginilor

While the proposed covenant on human rights has not yet been completed the United Nations, representatives of the United States are zealously at work bring about its early completion and adoption. All drafts of that covenant far presented contain so-called guaranties of freedom of speech and press a of peaceable assembly and association subject to such restrictions as are “p scribed by law" or necessary to protect “public safety, order, health, and moral and subject to a declaration of emergency officially proclaimed by the authoriti in which case a State may take measures derogating from its obligations wi respect to those freedoms. Some of these same objectors to limitation of t treatymaking power, so far as internal law is concerned, who insist that treaties endangering the constitutional rights of Americans have ever be mine ratified, are themselves striving to effect ratification of the foregoing treat mai containing generous provisions. It is these recent activities which brought ir being the American Bar Association's proposed constitutional amendment,


The text of the proposed amendment was drawn to bring into sharp focus t whole problem of continuing the balance between State and Federal power, in t light of the existing treaty power as now construed. The proposal as drawn giv the States protections they do not now have. It brings about certainty as to i ternal effectiveness of treaties within the States that does not now exist.

Let those American proponents of new treaties in the social, economic, cultur: ks and political and civil fields, who feel that the United States must take leadersh in these crusades, first assist in obtaining a constitutional amendment at home assure American citizens that there will never be an impairment of their fund abit mental rights in the process. “For the saddest epitaph which can be carved wedan memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed

22 stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.” DO

Mr. DEUTSCH. On January 27, less than a month ago, the Time Picayune of New Orleans published a cartoon on this subject whic has met with wide acclaim, speaking of an important law review wit the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and treaties mare) ing along in review by the public, by justice, by Congress, by tł United States as a whole, and by the judiciary, and under, shall say, the resolution adopted by the committee whose members hav appeared before you today and who were then meeting in the cit of New Orleans.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show it is filed with the committer

Mr. DEUTSCH. I ask that that be filed in connection with the state ment I have made and also an editorial appearing in the January 1

21 issile of the Times-Pica yune.

(The editorial referred to follows:)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[From the Times-Picayune, January 12, 1953)

Senator Bricker has reintroduced into the new Congress his constitutione
amendment resolution to invalidate any treaty that would contradict the Bill
Rights or subject an American citizen to trial or suit in an international cour

The resolution bears the signatures of 60 Senators, or only 6 less than necessari. Tas to approve the amendment proposition in the Senate and send it on to the Houses: 1

The Truman administration, through the State Department, opposed th Bricker amendment in the last Congress, asserting that the danger of the abroga tion of any American right was remote and that adoption might handicap Unite Nations peace efforts.

But there has been no denial that as long as treaties have equal status wit the Constitution as supreme law, the constitutional rights of the people can b abridged in the process of making and applying treaties. It has been prett

[ocr errors]

13. Nr.

60 Mr. Justice Sutherland, dissenting in A880ciated Press v. N. L. R. B. (301 U. S. 10: 141 (1937)).

sptablished that Congress can pass laws pursuant to a treaty that would

tand under the ('onstitution. The rights reserved by the Constitution to >Sies or the people can be invaded and destroyed by international arrange

in the form of a treaty and ratified by the Senate. The thinking of

be internationalists has been that Congress would be obligated to pass ** impuie ment some of the codes, conventions, and arrangements devised

er l'. X. affiliates, regardless of any constitutional considerations. * Bri: ker's resolution seems to be more involved and more diplomatically han the resolution proposed by the American Bar Association a couple

isik The ABA would simply declare that any treaty whose provisions 1 monthiet with the Constitution was invalid and that Congress could not La 35 law pursuant to a treaty that it could not have passed independent or treaty. pay, of course, will wish to get the views of the Eisenhower administra.

inte it goes ahead with the amendment proposal in either form. Neveras it should move on to a decision. Mr. Acheson's department might be 3° Sving that the danger of having any right overturned is “remote." But : le mouthpieces of some of the international groups are so fond of the L that Congress can use treaties instead of the Constitution for its authority

laws many American citizens will not feel safe until that concept is bed by something no less formidable than constitutional amendment. Tie CHAIRMAN, Mr. Smithey? Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Deutsch, you may remember that there was contable discussion by the Acting Secretary of State at the hearings

Beted on Senate Joint Resolution 130 as to whether it would have - possible for the United States to give effect to a treaty like the

e Convention if the bar proposal had been adopted. What y position of the peace and law committee on that? Nr. DEUTH'H. I can speak only for myself, of course, in the absence ont study by the committee, but there is not any question in my that that Convention could well be adopted. It falls within the nerve power. Under our proposed amendment, you would have care implementing legislation, in any event, by Congress. And op is not the slightest question in my mind that such questions, stics, white-slave traflic, and so on, are within the Federal domain,

na no real question would arise on that subject. Mr. SMITHEY. How about the growing of poppies without a license? "ld a State function? 4- Dirth. I think that will fall within the narcotics question, Sind you, there is nothing that the members even of this great

:ffre can write that will not come up for ultimate judicial diswon and determination with difl'erences of opinion and dissenting •**. Even the members of our committee do not agree on every1.14 CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holman, do you want to make a statement for committee Mr. HOLMAN, Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF FRANK E. HOLMAN, SEATTLE, WASH., PAST


Ur. Holman. Mr. Chairman, I first want to express my apprecia

for the opportunity of coming and presenting, perhaps I should my views on this great question. I want to also express my very py appreciation and gratitude to Senator Bricker for the time over - last several years that he has, in his busy routine, accorded me

by way of an opportunity of discussing with him the remedy by we of a constitutional amendment to correct what we think in the Ame ican Bar Association is one of the greatest constitutional crises th: this country has ever faced. And even though the hour is somewh: late and you have been very patient, sir, but because this is now goin to be the record in the matter, which, as I understand, will be sul mitted to the present Secretary of State for scrutiny and commen and will be submitted also, perhaps, to the present Attorney Genera and to others, I am going to make rather a full statement of my view

In the first place, by way of introducing myself, my name is Fran E. Holman, age 67, a lawyer from Seattle, having practiced law little over 40 years. I have a biographical sketch that I will submifor the record.

(The information referred to is as follows :)




Born Sandy City, Utah, January 7, 1886 ; A. B., University of Utah, 1908; Rhode scholar, Oxford, England, 1908 ; B. A. in Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1910; M. A Oxford, 1914; admitted Washington bar, 1911; admitted Utah bar, 1912; instruc tor in law, University of Utah, 1912-13; dean, Utah Law School, 1913-15 chairman, Utah State Board of Bar Examiners; vice president, Utah State bar 1923; practiced at Salt Lake City, 1915–24; practiced at Seattle, 1924 to date : admitted to practice, United States Supreme Court, 1921 ; admitted to practice in various Western States and Federal courts; senior partner, Holman, Mickel wait, Marion, Prince & Black, Seattle; president, Seattle Bar Association, 1941

- E president, Washington State Bar Association, 1945; chairman, committee foi revision of Washington corporation laws; member, American Bar Association member, house of delegates, continuously since 1942; member, special committee for the organization of the nations for peace and law, 1944 and 1945; member. special committee for peace and law through United Nations, 1946 and 1947; member, membership committee, 1943 and 1944; member, committee on jurisprudence and judicial reform, 1943; member, Washington committee associated with the American Bar Association committee on improving the administration of justice; Coconvenor, Seattle Regional Conference on World Court, 1946 ; coconvenor, proposed Seattle regional conference on progressive development of international law, 1947; member, committee on credentials and admissions of the house of delegates, 1946–47; member, board of directors, American Bar Association endowment; member, advisory board of the American Bar Association Journal; member, committee on assistance to lawyers in devastated countries, 1949– 51; member, committee on scope and correlation of work, 1950-53; president of the American Bar Association, 1948–49 ; ex-officio member, American Bar Association board of governors, 1949–50; chairman, alien enemy hearing board for the western district of Washington; member, national panel of alien enemy examiners; member, Seattle Armed Forces Advisory Committee; member and vice president, board of national directors of American Rhodes scholars; life member of the Oxford Union; trustee, School of Public Law (Washington, D. C.); member, American Society of International Law; member, board of directors of the Pacific National Bank of Seattle; member, advisory board of Seattle Children's Orthopedic Hospital; honorary member, the Order of the Coif; honorary member, Phi Delta Phi (Ballinger Inn and Tillman 1. Johnson Inn), international legal fraternity: honorary member, District of Columbia Bar Association; honorary member, Canadian Bar Association; member, Monday Club, Seattle; member, Rainier Club, Seattle (president, 1950–51) ; Veterans of Foreign Wars certificate of merit "for outstanding contributions toward preservation of our American way of life," December 20, 1950; Cross of Chevalier of the Legion of Honor (France), January 1951; Marine Corps League meritorious service award in appreciation and gratitude for distinguished service in the interests of the United States of America, the United States Marine Corps and the Marine Corps League, September 21, 1951; American freedom award, 1952.


[ocr errors]

its of Court (Washington Law Review, 1926)

Tof British India ( Monday Club, 1932)

• Problem in Ireland (Monday Club, 1933) ****, Rhodes Scholarship (English-Speaking Union, 1934) --4?itution on the Supreme Court (Argus Press, 1936)

Febhmen Visit America-de Tocqueville and Beaumont (Monday Club,

Errms Control (Monday Club, 1942) - 13. Problem of Peace (Argus Press, 1944) lawyer's Challenge (Washington Law Review, 1944) of Government (American Bar Association Journal, April 1946) Gurernment-No Answer to America's Desire for Peace (American Bar

tatio Journal, October 1916) sa pets and Prefaces--Elizabeth to Blackstone (American Bar Association

nai, July 1947)
Blout of a l'niversity Education (University of Utah Press, 1947)

bren Facts of Peace (Argus Press, 1947)

al for an International Bill of Rights (Argus Press, 1948) goon Heritage (Argus Press, 1919) - aional Proposals Affecting Human Rights (Argus Press, August 1949)

Alberica succumb to Statism (American Bar ssociation Journal, October
Aurican Form of Government ("I Am an American Day." Seattle, May

2 America Away (Seattle Rotary Club, October 1949)
***: Lawmaking (American Bar Association Journal, September 1950)
.: Pr America (Seattle Rotary Club, December 1951)

Pred Nations-A Hope or a Menace? (Knights of the Red Cross of Con12tile, Seattle, Wash., March 8, 1952)

Vr. Holman. I have never been active in partisan politics, actually, E though I am not saying this by way of making any point of - oit of it, I have never made a political speech in my.

life. Mis wife says that I will always make a speech on this particular --:whenever I am invited. I would also like to make it clear

in the efforts that I have tried to make during the last 4 years to -* the American people to the dangers of what has been called * law and executive agreements, and the need for constitutional Piment. that I represent no organization, not even the American

I A-viation, officially, and that I have never accepted any compen* by way of fees or otherwise for travel expense or for other *** in connection with this program. I could also state that I was originally a member, one of the

al members of this committee on peace and law when it was set * 1944, which was a year before the organization of the United ots: In 1914, with the termination of World War II expected,

*ith proposals in the air, if I may say so, by reason of the Dum:-* Oaks Conference, and by reason of declarations by the State

ment, with those proposals which eventually resulted in the

ization of the United Nations, the American Bar Association, Els appointment or by its board of governors, which usually to the power to appoint committees, but by spontaneous action

, in house of delegates, a committee was organized, headed by

Ransom, of New York, and the name then was known as the *****]s for the organization of nations for peace and law. I was

matern member on that committee. There was one other western -7. Judge Schloss, of California, a very eminent jurist, and the noembers came from the Midwest and the eastern part of the

[ocr errors]

*** States.

I want to make it crystal clear for the purposes of the record, the American Bar Association has never taken a position against the United Nations as such or proposals for the organization of nations for peace and law with respect to a security organization to discuss and to attempt to secure the peace. This original committee had its name changed a little later when the United Nations was organized. and its present name is the Committee on Peace and Law Through the United Nations. So any criticism that has been leveled against the American Bar Association or against myself and I have often received that criticism—that this movement for constitutional amendment is an attack on the United Nations as such is untrue. Since the organization of the committee in 1944Judge Ransom, by the way, the chairman of the committee, sat at San Francisco as an observer from one of the nonofficial organizations—since its organization this committee has prepared a careful report annually and semiannually and made its findings and recommendations to the house of delegates.

While I myself, beginning with the meeting of the State bar in California at Santa Barbara in September 1948, announced the idea that it would require a constitutional amendment to meet this great crisis, it took the American Bar Association several years to come to that conclusion. I point that out merely to show that the conclusion which the American Bar Association came to, first, in February of last year at the February meeting was not a hasty conclusion. As you probably know, Mr. Chairman, when you start out to convince a jury not of 12 men, but you start out to convince a jury of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, of some 280 lawyers drawn from all over the United States and selected by their local bars and elected, you have quite a jury to talk to. I think you will recognize that, Senator Smith. And you will recognize that the American Bar Association house of delegates cannot be pushed around either by an American bar president or by anyone else.

I went off the committee at that time. Mr. Alfred J. Schweppe, after the death of Judge Ransom, assumed the chairmanship. And I have not been on the committee since because there should not be two men from Seattle, and because I wanted to be a free lancer in this movement.

So this committee, before it made any recommendations at all to the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, studied this question from September 1948, this question of the constitutional amendment, until February 1952, because there was considerable : opinion, which you will have later voiced here, by the section on international law of the American Bar Association, and by others, that our constitutional rights could be sufliciently protected by reser vations in treaties or understandings in treaties and that the constitutional amendment might not be necessary. But by February 1952, by an overwhelming vote of the house of delegates, and against the opposition of the section on international law, the house of delegates actea and adopted the text of a proposed amendment as to treaties.

And when you read, sir, Mr. Smithey, this mornmg from the February report, the impression may have been gained by some that the house of delegates was reserving the matter of executive agreed ment because they did not think it ought to go into the same amendment. That was not true. They were reserving it in that particular

[ocr errors]
« ÎnapoiContinuați »