only because they were not ready yet to recommend a text as to ve agreements. It took another 6 months of study to reach and it was not until the San Francisco meeting in September “y came to recommending a text with respect to executive Ad it should be pointed out quite clearly, Mr. Chairman, that all of delegates of the American Bar Association has underto do anything more would have been improper-was merely se a recommendation as to language. And it left the committee ve and law quite free, in my opinion, to improve on that lanefit thought it could. And the reason why you have here before

ay not only the original text on treaties passed by the house of gue in February 1952, and the original text on executive agree- passed in September 1952, and in addition this new text, if yay, which was born out of 4 days of intensive study by this

tee that sat all day and into the night in New Orleans in Jane--that text is still within the purview of the text as adopted by the .can Bar Association; it is a little shorter, some of the prepal phrases have been taken out, as I pointed out this morning

I think the more you study language the more you discover Simpler that you can make it and the more understandable an make it the better it is. It is like dictating a contract. Your raft is likely to be pretty long, and then if you work it over ork it over again you come to something that is shorter and dr better.

I would like to call your attention to how this problem came up. -Committee on the Organization of the Nations for Peace and Law, the committee later with its name changed was badly fooled by United Nations Charter, as I think most people in the United were, except you, Senator.

-CHAIRMAN. Senator Shipstead was with me.

M. HOLMAN. Yes, Senator Shipstead.

- were possessed of this great idea that somehow, at long last, an organization, an international organization, for peace which f action for that purpose. Comment was made this morning this letter of Secretary Stettinius which went to the Congress wch he pointed out that under article VII of the charter nothing contained would justify interference in domestic matters of her states, and the then Secretary of State, in a letter which read into your Congressional Record and was published all over - United States, pointed out that that was the protection without the charter would probably not have been ratified.

J

5 in January 1948, the then Director of the Division of Human As a Canadian, Mr. John P. Humphrey, in an article published Luary 1948 issue of the Annals of the American Academy of al and Social Science, stated that what the Commission was ag constituted an intervention in matters "within the dojurisdiction" of the member states. And he exposed this program which has since been under way in the United Nations, opinion not a program of peace at all, but a program for ng in the affairs of the member states. Mr. Humphrey stated, I quote:

That the United Nations is trying to do is revolutionary in character. rights are largely a matter of relationships between the state and

individuals, and therefore a matter which has been traditionally regarded being within the domestic jurisdiction of states. What is now being propose 1s, in effect, the creation of some kind of supernational supervision of th relationship between the state and its citizens.

I called that to the attention of Judge Ransom and he said, "Wel Frank, I just don't think he is right about that. I don't think the are going to embark on that kind of a program.'

And then I was invited to go up to the bar at Montreal by Joh Hackett, the then president of the Canadian bar, and I met Mr. Hum phrey, and he said, "That is exactly what they are going to try to do. And he said, "I don't think I am going to be continued very long i my present post." And he wasn't.

Now, it seemed to me then that such a program as announced b Mr. Humphrey had serious implications with respect to the America form of government, for in the United States laws affecting th citizens' life, liberty, and property are passed by established agencie of representative government, to wit, by the Senate and House o Representatives or by the State legislatures, whereas the proposa involved in the "international bill of rights" program as stated by Mr. Humphrey was that the fundamental rights and liberties of th citizens of this country and the definition of such rights would in the future be declared and, in effect, legislated for them, without thei having any voice about it, either by their own votes or through th votes of their duly elected representatives. This was such a danger ous, far reaching, and revolutionary change in our processes of con stitutional government that it seemed its importance and significanc ought to be called to the attention not only of lawyers but to the attention of the public generally.

I thereupon concluded that among the most important issues fac ing the bar and the American people were the legal and constitutiona issues involved in the various aspects of the proposed "internationa bill of rights program."

The views herein expressed are in summary form, the result of years of study devoted to this problem of treaty law. These views ar in summary, sir, and I would like to introduce 5 copies, if that many are needed, of a pamphlet I got out last year entitled "State Depart ment Half Truths and False Assurances,

The CHAIRMAN, Let the record show that they are filed and on sent to each member of the committee.

Have you an extra one for Senator Smith and another one for Sena tor Watkins?

Mr. HOLMAN, Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was fi'ed for the information of the committee.)

Mr. Hor MAN. And I would like to submit a speech that I made for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which is of portance because i includes my correspondence with Secretary Marshall when he was Secretary of State about this very matter, in which he, along the same line of the Stettinius letter, assured me that there was to be nothing in the Declaration of Human Rights or in any of this program whiel did not conform to the American concept of government.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well

(The document referred to was filed for the information of the committee.)

Mr. HOLMAN. First of all, I would like to discuss the need for a tutional amendment. That has been covered very fully here. I say, I would like to make a complete record here with respect e matter so far as my views are concerned.

La order to understand the dangers of "treaty law" in the United tes and its threat to American rights and to the American form of Ternment and to appreciate the necessity for a constitutional amendit is appropriate to review briefly the nature of the American. of government as a constitutional Republic and as a governt of delegated powers only.

til the adoption of the United States Constitution, never before e course of history had any government been organized on the iple that the people as individuals are endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights as to life, liberty, and property, includthe right to local self-government, and on the principle that these "As are inherent in the individual citizen and are not a grant from

ment. Theretofore in history we had frequently heard of the tre right of kings, but never of the divine rights of the people. :ernments had accorded freedom to the individual citizens and local f-government to the people only when forced to do so or if the sov- for the time being felt so inclined. The previous concept of Scope and power of a national government was that it had inherpowers of its own and might grant or withhold rights to the indral citizen as it saw fit. But by our Constitution and by our E of Rights only certain specific and limited functions were conired upon the officials of our National Government. It was to be a ement of delegated powers only and the people by the Constie, and Bill of Rights forbade and intended to forbid the Federal >ver: ment from doing anything not authorized by the Constitution Tot permitted under the prohibitions of the Bill of Rights. Al

Gladstone said "it (the Constitution) was the greatest inent struck off by the mind of man at one time" and Lord Bryce, bly the greatest student of government of his generation, deithe American Constitutional Convention was "the greatest body men that ever sat in a single chamber," the Constitution was not all respects a perfect instrument. Provision was made for its dment from time to time as the country's needs and new condimight require. As of now, 22 amendments have been added to Constitution.

We know that even the framers of the Constitution were in disement on certain points both of substance and of language and * compromise was resorted to in order to get an instrument of tutional government completed and adopted. This was particry true in connection with the provisions regarding treaty makIt was recognized that the supremacy doctrine of article VI t require amendment. That is set forth in the American Bar lation Journal, September 1951. Article VI, as you know, con-the broad provision that

All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the - States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every -hall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any to the Contrary notwithstanding."

the early years of the Republic and practically until the organiof the United Nations, this treaty supremacy doctrine posed no

great threat to American rights and the American form of governme because treaties were confined to their traditional purposes and we used for such matters as the settlement of some specific dispute betwe nations or to make alliances or to terminate wars or to deal with co mercial and trade relations. Furthermore, they were negotiated a also drafted by experts who understood the law and language of trea making and who were appointed for the negotiation of a particul treaty between nations, actually involved in some particular dispute in a particular matter or matters under settlement.

Now, under the broad grant of power to the Economic and Soci Council under the Charter of the United Nations, the Economic an Social Council, whose members have highly diverse concepts of la and government as well as of economics, can propose practically an kind of a treaty-worldwide as to scope and as to parties and al comprehensive as to subject matters. The Council or its commission may sit continuously and think up new proposals in the form declarations, treaties, and pacts as to anything in the world and to all nations everywhere touching the internal affairs of all nation as to any economic, social, humanitarian, educational, cultural, o as Mr. Rix says, even political matters, or health matter. The powe of the Economic and Social Council rests on the grandiose theory tha world peace may be achieved if somehow economic, social, human tarian, educational, cultural, and health conditions are by treaties p on an expressed equality throughout the world, even though to do s may bring the more advanced nations down to the level of the back ward nations-in rights-in legal concepts, and in form of govern ment as well as in economics and in other internal affairs. Under th grandiose grant of power to this particular agency of the Unite Nations, "the humanitarians" in the Economic and Social Counc immediately went to work, as Mr. Humphrey pointed out, to refor and to remake the world by trying to tell each and every nation ho to conduct its internal affairs.

One of the first documents produced under this program of world wide reform was-reform not peace-was the so-called Declaration o Human Rights, approved by the United Nations Assembly in Par in December 1948. This declaration, among other things, is a con plete blueprint for socializing the world, including the United State Article 23 provides that everyone has the right to "just and favorab conditions of work and to protection against unemployment" an that everyone has the right to "just and favorable remuneration. Parenthetically, why should anyone be entitled to anything more tha "just" remuneration? How much more than "just" may be claime under the vague word "favorable"? Favorable in addition to jus could only work a disfavor or an injustice to the other party to a agreement. The purpose provided was to liquidate our individua enterprise system. Article 24 provides that everyone has the righ to rest and leisure. We ought to have that one, you know, Senato because I know you are hard working and work many hours. B we get this under this new program, rest and leasure, and periodi holidays with pay.

Article 25 provides that everyone has "the right to food, clothing housing, and medical care, and necessary social services, and the righ to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widow hood, old age" without any provision that he shall work for it or hel

-ha fund to pay for it. Put these, or similar pronouncements Treaty form, ratified only by "two-thirds of the members of the e present and voting," and you have by a few pages of treaty age transformed the Government of the United States from a De into a completely socialistic state.

i declaration contains a goodly number of other provisions ad:~y affecting our system and concept of a constitutional governand also our own internal affairs. For example, our Federal tution provides that nobody shall be elected to the office of Pdent or Vice President except a "natural-born" citizen of the ted States. The Declaration on Human Rights, article 21, section rovides "Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in country. This would make Harry Bridges (if he were still a zet) or any other naturalized citizen eligible to the office of Presi$1 or Vice President.

Again, our Constitution vests full power in Congress to control :..gration; but, by article 14, section 1 of the Declaration of Human Eghts, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other couneasylum from persecution." To "enjoy" means he has the right to stay there. With this incorporated in a treaty, the right to asylum d be to all nationals of all nations of the world, and what right ", would a mere Congress have, by immigration laws or otherwise, prevent such persons from entering the United States?

Senator SMITH. In other words, the Communist seamen that there * much disturbance created about and so much said about, the Frch Communist seamen, whether or not they were disclosed, would e a perfect right to come into this country and stay here? Mr. HOLMAN. And stay here.

Senator SMITH. It would eliminate all screening processes of this

Mr. HOLMAN. That is right.

Mr. DEUTCH. Your immigration laws are opened up.

Mr. HOLMAN. This could mean that, in times of revolution in Cuba Mexico or India or elsewhere, thousands of aliens might legally m the right of asylum here.

Now I understand full well that the declaration is advertised as g only a declaration of aspirations and not a legal document. Bt there is a growing school of thought in the United Nations that declaration is an authoritative interpretation of the economic and al provisions of the charter which itself has been ratified as a aty, and in this respect the declaration and the charter have already ad a considerable effect on judicial thinking in court decisions. That held in the Fujii case, in the original opinion, and all our opposion says is we should forget the Fujii case. The Fujii case and the Lpold case in California are very interesting (Fujii v. State, 217 Pac. 481. opinion of Supreme Court of California filed Apr. 17, 1952; 1 Perez v. Lippold, 198 Pac. (2d) 17).

It is true that the Supreme Court of California in its decision of April 17, 1952, in the Fujii case (unlike the decision in the district ir of appeals), does not give the United Nations Charter controlling

effect. However, it is quite obvious that, as in the Lippold case, ..h was the mixed-marriage case decided by the same court several ar ago, the majority opinion in the Fujii case-that is, the final Aion-is largely influenced by what the court calls the "moral com