a common distrust of governmental power, and common moral and spiritual values for over a century and a half before our Constituton was adopted.

The proponents of international rule claim that world governent would insure peace. Any serious attempt to create a world vernment would have precisely the opposite effect.

Men the world over, whatever their ideology, love their country and are willing to fight for its independence. The rising tide of nationam in the Far East, and especially in countries subject to colonial re, is ample proof that like-minded people want to control their onomic and political destiny free of any outside dictation.

Some of the blueprints for world or regional federation have been eniously contrived and have a pleasing surface appeal. In any case it is not the system of national sovereignties which contains the →s of war. Look north to the undefended border between the United States and Canada.

Those who advocate world government contend that the United States and other nations would delegate to it only limited powers,

parable to the concessions made by the States at the founding of ir Republic. It is not especially reassuring to know that the United States would retain a limited sovereignty.

The world-government proposal runs counter to the tradition of al self-government.

An international court would have to be established to consider involving crimes against world government. It is significant, think, that article 37 of the U. N. draft statute for an internationaĺ Lal court provides: "Trials shall be without a jury."

A world government would have the power to tax. The Daughters f the American Revolution know that direct taxation by a worldernment organization would drastically reduce the American dard of living.

Tariff walls and immigration barriers would be destroyed by any m. of federal union.

A world government would have to have power to coin and to late the value of money. Our capitalistic free enterprise cannot xt with the socialism and communism under the authority of government. The Daughters of the American Revolution want. retain our system of free enterprise which has made our Nation greatest in the history of the world.

Finally, we are told that the world government will have its own rnational army, its own navy, and air force, and control of all e weapons. Nations will retain only local police forces. War 1.. be impossible, we are told, because nations will not have the as to wage it.

But what if the international general staff becomes tyrannical? will control it? Should despotism be established on a universal s there would be no sanctuary and no place to look for hope of

"

verance.

I order to save the valuable time of our respected Senators, I have trated on section 2, but the Daughters of the American Revoluwholeheartedly endorse Senate Joint Resolution 1, in its entirety, the protection of every American citizen.

There are still some islands of freedom left in this unhappy world. - greatest of these is the United States of America. The Daughters

Dronten Dre that the passage of Senate Joint can freedom and aid in extending its

down for the privilege and honor. I leave our Supdate mer loyal protection.

This we very much, Mrs. Lucas.

Theory nach, gentlemen.

E GRISWOLD, VICE PRESIDENT OF

ALT COUNCIL, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y. your name and address, please!

H. Griswold, and I represent the Empire State Building, New York

Coil favors the principle of Senate eve that it is not only desirable but imen be enacted so that the Government of ts of its citizens be adequately proand conventions of the United Nations. It er of your august body that over 200 such - or are in the process of being formu

a most conservative statement, inasmuch ee International Labor Organization, had pers some 6 months ago and has been dilio regulations since that time.

Cortion of the United States is the written development of our western civilization. Verein must be protected and preserved. Obs document did not contemplate that a time oh a new and revolutionary interpretation rough international socialistic manipulages of American citizens would be seriously we today.

cer into a discussion of the technical and legal es, as we feel that the Senate Judiciary Comor to determine the appropriate and adequate deve that this resolution should make it impossiay or executive agreement, which by some are said ele, to supersede our Federal, State, or local laws: our sovereignty as a nation; or to in any way interese affairs.

gest that provision be made whereby treaties preyour Senate be reexamined and their implication to yeated. I refer in particular to the United Nations Cser article 2, paragraph 7, specifically provides that

2

the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations es which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction ni vile" require the members to submit such matters to settleIN A

Charter

Nevertheless, the interpretation to date appears to be otherwise. The General Assembly of the United Nations was set up as a deliberve body with power solely to recommend. Likewise the internationa commissions and agencies of the United Nations were to be purely sultative groups.. Their actions and policies have shown their obtives to be quite different from their original stipulated purposes. Petitions already submitted to the United Nations, claiming redress rough the United Nations from the people and Government of the Tited States, are a clear warning to us of the uses to which this ernational body will be put, if not checked by a constitutional Lendment such as you are considering. I refer to a petition for iress under the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties which was ented by the National Negro Congress on June 6, 1946-and note at this was at a time when these treaties had not even been drafted, were merely presented-at the United Nations meeting held at Hirter College, New York City. This organization was designated a-a Communist front by the Attorney General.

Again in 1947 the National Association for the Advancement of ored People, under the direction of W. E. B. DuBois, likewise ented to the United Nations an appeal for redress claiming denial f human rights. In 1951 a charge of genocide was made by the vil Rights Congress through the United Nations against the Govment of the United States. Thus it is sought to make our domestic rs the subject of international debate and jurisdiction. These, emen, are only three instances. There are many.

The so-called Acheson resolution was adopted by the General Ambly in the fall of 1950. This is interpreted by our One riders as giving the General Assembly the authority to order our Aran military and naval units, as part of an international army, ay place in the world where they deem it necessary for the preseron of world peace. Are you going to permit this, knowing from Korean experiment the predominant part which American lives resources will be called upon to take, in any such international n! Is it for such a future-to wage perpetual wars for perpetual that we, the mothers of America, are raising our sons?

e hearings were held on Senate Joint Resolution 130 last spring have been other instances which warn us of the danger of our et situation. I should like to cite the minority decision of the e Court in the Steel Seizure case with which you are all thorMy familiar. Mention should also be made of the convention written by the ational Labor Organization in Geneva last June which contains astic provisions for social security and certain types of socialized the on a world-wide scale. Within the past 2 weeks an American representative, attending a meeting of the International Labor ization in Geneva, urged that an international minimum wage established by convention or treaty. It did not appear whether nimum would be based on the standard of living in Asia, or in a or in Latin America, or on the standard of living in the ⚫d States.

implication, however, is all too clear. We who have achieved al freedom and who, through it, have developed our resources lls to a high degree, are being urged to share our rights and

18 MERWYN FENNER, AFTON, N. Y.

Vs Merwyn Fenner, from Afton, N. Y., a

York. I am a housewife, taxpaying citi
en between the ages of kindergarten and

school.
won have copies of your statement here, Mrs

The CHAIRMAN. The statement will be made a part of the record. The statement referred to is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF MRS. MERWYN FENNER, AFTON, N. Y., IN SUPPORT OF THE OBJECTIVES SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1, RELATIVE TO THE MAKING OF TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

The dangers of treaty law were ably pointed out in a pamphlet of that name Frank Holman. The testimony on Senate Joint Resolution 130 (82d Cong.,

8 May 21-June 9, 1952) featured prominent members of the American Bar Association and others who offered impressive opinion and documented eviece of the threat to the domestic jurisdiction of the United States in the tionship of our citizens to each other and the rest of the world. Senator Bricker's resolution to modify the supremacy of treaties, jointly sored by a substantial majority of the United States Senate, expresses the ment of an important and growing segment of public opinion, justifiably ed at the acceleration of the trend away from the traditional self-detertion upon which the very existence of this country was founded. The statement of Senator Bricker on the predecessor of this resolution, May 12, hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 130 at page 23, repudiates the on that foreign and domestic affairs are indistinguishable. The thrust of resolution, and a significant measure of its support, is toward the imperaLeed of drawing the line between domestic and foreign affairs, unequivocally, . explicitly for all to see.

There can be no question that the line between foreign and domestic affairs s to be clearly defined.

Domestic and foreign problems have involved more and more the same or er related issues." (Report of the Hoover Commission, Public Affairs

tin No. 74, p. 18, September 1949.) There is no longer any real distinction between domestic and foreign affairs." State Department Bulletin 3972, p. 1, September 1950.)

"A matters essentially within domestic jurisdiction are subjects of interonal concern or they would not be brought before the (U. N.) Organization **nsideration." (Domestic Jurisdiction-From the Covenant to the Charter, 28 Law Review, vol. 46, No. 2, at p. 263, May-June 1951.)

nuing this procession, the Office of Public Affairs, Department of State, sed September 1952, a pamphlet entitled, "Questions and Answers on the N. Charter, Genocide Convention, and Proposed Covenants on Human Rights," which a bundle of strawmen are neatly demolished by a series of negative

to the "numerous queries" being received on the subjects. The abated replies to the schematic questions hardly allay the apprehensions of a red layman, let alone an informed constitutional lawyer, that all decomis not confined to the state of Denmark. After dispatching these nuas searching questions of vital and fundamental importance, in five short reassuring us that these treaties are not legally binding, the release with an excerpt from the classic Sei Fujii case.

e charter represents a moral commitment of foremost importance, and we Dot permit the spirit of our pledge to be compromised or disparaged in either estic or foreign affairs." (Sei Fujii v. State of California (38 Advance nia Reports 817).)

must not permit," says the justice, speaking for the court, and in language fre courts to read and take notice. Not only are "domestic and foreign bundled in this interdict, but authority relied upon is the "moral comt of a document which the quoting release itself holds is not legally

Are the citizens of this country to replace legislation with "moral commitWhose morals are committed, and to whose morals do we submit as of our conduct? When the temporal morality of men replaces the legality of laws, then we have government of men, and not of laws. for this that the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, Ar sacred honors?

moral commitments of treaties are to be given domestic effect, by interand usage, then do we not have, in effect, legislation without repreIs it held that the Executive, with concurrence of a two-thirds * of the Senate, can substitute for our diversified legislative structure ocal village board to the Congress of the United States?