ways been protected by our Constitution. We have not seen specifi cally concerned with section 4 of the resolution relating to executive agreements and I wish to state that we prefer to rely upon the sound judgment of this committee and the Senate of the United States in regard to that portion of the resolution.

The controversy surrounding that portion of the resolution which seeks to limit the treaty-making power is largely an argument between lawyers as to a proper interpretation of the Constitution. We can hardly classify ourselves as authorities on constitutional law so as to take part in this purely legal controversy. However, I should like to point out to the committee that no single opponent of this reso lution has advocated the adoption of internal or domestic law by treaty. The controversy is rather one involving a difference of opinion as to whether or not a proper interpretation of the Constitution would permit such a result. The opinions of many distinguished lawyers on this proposition appear to be in disagreement so that we must all recognize a very real doubt exists. And I think there is really the crux of the situation, Senator. In the face of such doubt and since all interested parties appear to oppose legislation by treaty, it seems that the only intelligent course to pursue is the safe course. We should not gamble with our precious rights and liberties by permitting the continued existence of any system that threatens their destruction.

The witnesses who appeared in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 130 in the Sed Congress appeared to protest the approval of that resolution on the principal ground that it was not necessary. The eminent Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., specifically, and other witnesses impbedly, treated the decision of the California Court of Appeale in the Bujii case very lightly because of its subsequent reversal, and I might say apparently because they also considered it bad law. However, in so doing, Professor Chafee seemed to admit that if a higher court should reestablish the decision of the California Court of Appeals, this constitutional amendment would be desirable. We submit that such a course of action is too much like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen and we suggest to this committee that the door should now be definitely and effectively locked by the approval of Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Brietly, that sums up our position, Senator. While I am a member of the bar of the State of Kansas and also the State of California, and not a student of constitutional law, and not wishing to enter that purely legal controversy, we merely wanted to point out to the committee the posation of our organization and the fact that it does seem, so far as the treaty limitations are concerned, to have gotten down to a question on which laymen are properly qualified to express an opinion, and that is, that there is a doubt. Everybody can see that. Distinguished lawyers have disagreed on it, and since there is doubt, just don't take any chances,

Senator Pistory. That is a very clear and succinct statement, and We thank you.

Mr. DowNER. Thank you, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. The next witness is Mr. George P. Delaney of the American Federation of Labor. Is Mr. Delaney here?

(There was no response.)

Senator DIRKSEN. Is Mr. James Watt of the Christian Science Committee on Publication here? Mr. Watt, will you come forward, please!

STATEMENT OF JAMES WATT, MANAGER, WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION

Mr. WATT. I have a brief statement that I would like to read. Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Watt, will you first give your full name and 1. dress and your occupation to the reporter?

Mr. WATT. My name is James Watt. I am the manager of the Washington, D. C., office of the Christian Science Committee on Pubtion, with offices in the Christian Science Building, 1601 I Street NW. I am authorized by the Christian Science Board of Directors, governing board of the Christian Science Church, to make the wing statement regarding Senate Joint Resolution 1 proposing amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the nking of treaties and executive agreements, introduced in the 83d gress by Senator Bricker of Ohio.

We strongly support the basic purposes of Senator Bricker's resoluWe believe the importance of protecting the Constitution and The Bill of Rights from being undermined by international agreePets, not made in accordance with our constitutional procedures,

ot be too strongly emphasized. While we are not prepared at the present time to endorse the exact wording of the resolution, we Supporting the position that some protective action is required. that a thorough discussion of the question is needed in order that the issues involved may be clearly understood and considered. It may be that refinements in the wording of this resolution should ade. We would not object to this as long as the purpose of protg the freedom and rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the ted States and the Bill of Rights is attained.

We are aware that these basic rights are threatened because as the titution now stands, it does not prevent them from being changed a treaty, a change which even Congress itself is prevented from g under the Bill of Rights. We feel deeply that these inherent precious rights and freedoms must not be overlaid with a pattern ternational so-called rights drawn to suit the concepts of more 60 nations with varying and antagonistic concepts. We urge it be made impossible to give up our concept of inherent rights acquiesce to the premise that rights are conferred on the indial by government and hence can be taken away by government. We like others who have already given eloquent and comprehensive ony before this committee in support of a constitutional amendrelative to the making of treaties and executive agreements, vely concerned:

Over the situation revealed by Mr. John Foster Dulles, now tary of State, in an address before the American Bar Association Fear, when he said:

The treatymaking power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse. Treaties international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitreaties become the supreme law of the land. They are, indeed, more e than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can override the Constitution. its, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them - President; they can take powers from the States and give them to the Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the Even the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights.

(2) That the State Department has officially said: "There is n longer any real difference between 'domestic' and 'foreign' affairs."

(3) That the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Unite States in his dissent in the Steel Seizure case advanced the doctrin that the United Nations Charter and other international treaties an commitments give the President of the United States authority t seize private property. Such a doctrine would give the President no only powers not granted to him by the Constitution but powers ever denied him by the Constitution.

These are but a few of the reasons we are impelled to support th purpose of Senator Bricker's resolution and to urge Congress to tak suitable action promptly.

Let me discuss briefly another threat to individual and religiou freedom which has not been explored so far in these hearings. By joint resolution of Congress, we have become members of WHO-th United Nations World Health Organization. Under the constitutio of WHO, by which we are bound, regulations having the force of bot international and domestic law can be adopted without approval, no to mention legislation by our Congress. In fact, a set of internationa sanitary regulations drawn up by WHO went into effect in the Unite States on October 1, 1952, without ratification by the Senate or legis lative action by Congress. United Nations officials refer to the cod as a "new kind of world law." The United States Public Healt Service is even now busily engaged in revising the administrativ regulations (which have the force of domestic law) to conform with these new international regulations. In doing this, we are told b the present Chief of Foreign Quarantine Division of the United State Public Health Service that a regulation which my office worked ou several years ago with the former Chief to give recognition to religiou rights, is to be eliminated.

Here is a concrete example of how religious rights, protected by ou own domestic regulations, are being threatened by the ability of Government agency to change domestic law to make it conform with international agreement. For the detailed story of this situation, would like to introduce into the record a reprint of an article title "Pattern for Cumpulsory Medication," which ran in the Septembe 26, 1952, issue of the Christian Science Monitor, and an editorial from the same issue, titled "Stop, Look, and Question." The editoria concludes:

This newspaper does not wish to be alarmist. As we understand it, WHO alone among United Nations agencies in its power to legislate for member n tions. We believe that the rights of individuals and States under the America Constitution can be protected from infringement by an international organiz tion or through treaties. But the situation now precipitated by WHO indicate that a properly framed constitutional amendment may be required.

The State Department has attempted to rebut this article, but i our view, their statement, which I also submit for the record, sul stantially strengthens the position we take and confirms the danger we point out. This view is set forth in a memorandum which I woul like to have included in the record as part of my statement, and shall not read it, but I do want to point out just 2 or 3 paragraph that point up what we mean. On page 3 of this memorandum, in th fourth paragraph, we say:

A major weakness is the use of the word "government"

at is the major weakness in the State Department's so-called attal

though it is synonymous with the executive branch of the Government. The "rebuttal" is based upon the assumption that it is sufficient for the tive branch to pass upon WHO regulations, and if satisfied with them, et them to become law. This, of course, is exactly the development the tor article and editorial deplores.

don page 5, the first paragraph:

The State Department memorandum repeatedly points to the close cooperaof the State Department, the Public Health Service, and WHO, as if this - a reassuring state of affairs. Actually, of course, this is precisely the of affairs which has caused concern. The danger has been that the Public th Service would seek to accomplish through WHO what it could not acwish through Congress.

se points I would like to emphasize of our memorandum. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity of appearing in supt of the intent and purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 1. We hope -Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate will draw report favorably, and urge enactment to the Congress, a carefully ded joint resolution that will protect inviolate the basic constitucal rights of the citizens of the United States, which can become an portant and valued amendment to the Constitution of our beloved

try.

Thank you very much.

Senator DIRKSEN. Thank you, Mr. Watt. In connection with the ments you submit to fortify your statement, let me see if we can hose in proper order. There is one here mimeographed, entitled Nature and Purpose of the WHO International Sanitary Regu

ins."

Mr. WATT. That is the State Department memorandum.

Senator DIRKSEN. I presume in the nature of things that that probrought to be submitted first right after your statement.

Mr. WATT. Well, I supported our statement with a Monitor article. Senator DIRKSEN. I was going to let those follow in then, includof course, the critique.

Mr. WATT. Except that this one is supposed to be a rebuttal of the

.er.

ator DIRKSEN. You mean this is the rebuttal?

Mr. WATT. Yes, so the Monitor article should come first.

Senator DIRKSEN. Very well, then, there is submitted for the record, the Friday, September 26, 1952, edition of the Christian Science itor, an article entitled "Pattern for Compulsory Medication" by iam R. Frye, United Nations correspondent of the Christian ice Monitor.

Mr. WATT. And an editorial.

nator DIRKSEN. There is also submitted from the same edition of - Christian Science Monitor an editorial entitled "Stop, Look, and There is also submitted in connection with Mr. Watt's ement-is this a résumé or is this the complete

fr. WATT. It is supposed to be a rebuttal. It is the actual docufrom the State Department.

ator DIRKSEN. I see. It is a statement by the State Department -r the caption "The Nature and Purpose of the WHO Internaal Sanitary Regulations." And there is also submitted then a

30(2) That longer any (3) The

States in

that the T commitm

seize priv only pow denied h These

purpos suitable

Let freed joint Unit of W inte

to

S

m. Who authored

e principal offices of the

arch, which includes the

September 26, 1952]

ash, with the active support of the Sec, now is seeking universal adopassion law for travelers as part of new

igate medical regulations. This law accination of persons crossing interht well lead to the elimination of such sireaty exist. Among such exemptions are igious grounds.

gging article the Christian Science Monitor dis

100s of this problem, which, this newspaper

Supes & threat to individual and religious freedom.

gevus, it is felt, is the very wide latitude and
on which the proposed WHO regulations leave to indi-
ders and offices. These regulations in many
all supersede the laws of individual nations without
of legislature or of electorate.

Unted Nations correspondent of the Christian Science
Monitor)

New York-The United Nations World Health Organization,
stance of the United States, has launched what one official

- for worldwide smallpox vaccination of travelers.
regulations authorizing vaccination and other restrictions on
sve! is due to go into effect in some 65 countries-virtually all
Curtain-on October 1.

"s are described by their sponsors as an effort to establish unide medical precautions against the spread of quarantinable diseases try to another. The ramifications of this effort are very far

s refer to the code as a new kind of world law.

erations automatically have the effect of domestic law in each country a member of WHO unless specifically rejected or modified by the country They need not be enacted by the congress or parliament of any

WIDE POWERS VESTED

Some of the 115 articles of the code are permissive-that is, outline actions * country may, but need not, take. Others are mandatory. In each case, enforcement is placed directly in the hands of health administrations.

Once the regulations have been accepted and have gone into effect, no individual country which is a member of WHO may repeal or alter them in any way, in whole or in part, on its own responsibility. The portions that are mandatory must be complied with indefinitely, or until the majority of WHO votes otherwise. Sixty-nine countries-including nearly every non-Communist country in the world-are active members.

Critics of WHO point out that as a result, this U. N. specialized agency has assumed the right not only to legislate on behalf of sovereign governments in its field but to deny those governments any control over the legislation once it is on the books.