Imagini ale paginilor
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

F for the administration of ad of ships and aircraft which arernments, were anxious to find sqmi ir pie of up-to-date regulations with

a right be called to the following Se Delegation to the International

sitution of the WHO was formu

1.nry power of the Organization
-nt of State and the Public Health
redanism in the international field
a of new scientific techniques in the

This was done in pursuance of
Relations Committee that some way

** that committee to consider highly
as the mechanism incorporated in the

most cases, it will only be necessary us within the scope of the executive terquirements of international health tee Gorernment can reserve its position

en therefore, there were included in the

a1 and 22) drafted so as to provide a

Section of international regulations which Pasi Sids. Thus, article 21 of the constitu* be assembly shall have authority to adopt

Sitary and quarantine requirements and *** te international spread of disease. Ac

te assembly may adopt shall enter into 7.1.ercept those as may notify the Director

y s within the period stated in the notice Het of the regulations. te word in its constitution to adopt regulations

de Congress when it was considering United in mith Organization. In the report, submitted

he Committee on Foreign Relations to the Naud., 1st sess.), it is stated that “The health ora *erning sanitary quarantine requirements

winzi in conventions and could be changed only na *** The adoption of such regulations and Narity vote of the health assembly. This il tutile in granted to other international organiza

she International Civil Aviation Organization. petit such regulations and standards and their

teu into effect. The committee recognizes the zip mir in the provisions of the constitution which hissembly.” It might be pointed out that the

The limitation of the WHO's regulatory authorVaR such as sanitary and quarantine requirements,

*** We'r government to reject the regulations which inka mix or to make reservations with respect to such

on Foreign Affairs (No. 979, 80th Cong., 1st sess.) axes which was presented by Congressman Judd, ligne l'nited States of membership in the WHO refers

in to be derived from the Organization's power to Der Wat epidemic centers abroad will give the United

asainst incursion of disease.

“The l’nited States and United States ships at sea will receive a more constant & vf reliable epidemiological information of use in quarantine procedures and

able to commerce. Tbe hazard of importation of disease and disease vectors by air carriers will perduced, or eliminated, through improved controls at foreign origins of

l'nsound and unecessary foreign quarantine impediments to United States ruinerce and interference with free movement of United States air carriers

" be eliminated by the establishment of common international regulations, michorming at all times with technical developments and the progressive removal

bealth hazards." in the spirit of, and in fulfillment of the purposes outlined above, the WHO I furtok to develop a single set of international quarantine or sanitary regula**s to replace the existing international sanitary conventions. The interna

el sanitary regulations were in preparation orer a period of 5 years. During *** time, not only were the regulations considered at periodic and open meetings ? be constituent bodies of the Organization, in which the United States par..pated officially, but each member government was invited to make known its Giás concerning the regulations during different stages of their development. Bruce example, the original draft regulations, as prepared by the WHO Expert

Imittee on Epidemiology and Quarantine, were received by the Department of Sate and the United States Public Health Service in April 1950. They were edird by an interdepartmental committee called together by the Department of Sale, on which nine different Government departments and agencies were repre

A. As a consequence of this study, several changes in the draft regulations ze recommended in the communication which the Department of State on vember 6, 1950, sent to the WHO as the observations of the United States dissernment. Revised draft regulations were similarly circulated and studied

atrance of a meeting of a special committee which was convened in Geneva

April 1951 to prepare a final draft. Private aviation and shipping companies Tere at this stage given an opportunity to study and make recommendations roerning the draft regulations. The United States was officially represented at this meeting, and at the Fourth World Health Assembly, which on May 25, 1951, 2:3 pred the regulations.

After the adoption of the regulations by the Health Assembly by a unanimous Toime of the representatives of the state members of the WHO on May 25, 1951, Fach government had an opportunity during a period of 9 months to review the Triations for the purpose of determining their acceptability to that governI-ot of the United States on June 15, 1951, and were reviewed by all the Govern>ot departments and agencies concerned, as well as by private shipping and avia* a interests with a view to deciding whether any reservations should be made. The WHO was notified by the Secretary of State on behalf of this Govern

it on March 10, 1952, that the United States would make no reservations. On Otober 1, 1952, the regulations came into force for 55 countries which had Lade no reservations and for 5 countries which had made certain reservations. I might he pointed out that these reservations were all aimed at allowing me eventries to apply stricter quarantine measures, in one field or another, *Lar are permitted by the regulations.

It can thus be seen that the WHO, in adopting the new regulations, did exactly mat it was authorized to do by its constitution and what it was expected to do 95 be t'nited States Government. On the basis of thie above record it should

cate clear that at no stage of the development, consideration, or acceptance tiese regulations was there any bypassing of the Government of the United We or of the interested agencies thereof. Also, in view of the numerous re

5 which these regulations received from the interested government and Tercial groups, any inference that these regulations were sprung on an un

***ing government by the WH), with the connivance of the Public Health Vine is completely unwarranted. !* mcht also be pointed out that during this period the United States dele. as to the meetings of the Health Assembly, at which progress in the de

Pnt of the regulations was discussed, included Members of ('ongress (in :: Congressman Fenton; in 1949 Senator Ellender and Congressman Pfeifer; 114. Congressman Judd; and in 1951 (when the regulations were adopted),

urs Lehman and Nixon and Congressman Morgan and Angell). in adopting the regulations under discussion, the state members of the WIIO

ed to give to each country observing the regulations the maximum security the international transmission of epidemic disease with the minimum

[ocr errors]

It says,

This weakness is especially obvious in the discussion of the WHO's alleged invasion of national sovereignty. An effort is made to show that Congress approved such minor invasion as has occurred and that adequate safeguards exist to prerent major invasion in the future.

The fact that Congress was bypassed in the present instance and could be again is never challenged. The State Department memorandum does make the very weak contention (p. 2) that a "suggestion” had been made in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee th “some way” be found to delegate authority over "specialized technical matters” and that the WHO constitution was drafted with this in mind. The purpose, it is asserted, was to "create a mechanism in the international field which would permit rapid general application of new scientitic techniques in the international control of the spread of disease.” This rery statement of purpose serves to confirm the misgivincs of those who see dangers in the WHO program. Is it wise to place such an area of activity in the hands of the administrative branch of the Government, out of the effective supervision of Congress?

A strongi'r contention is that Congress was aware of the delegation of power it made to WHO in 1945 when the WHO constitution was approved. As evidence, a rejnirt by Senatur Vandenberg on behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations ('ommittee is cited (p. 3). However, if the quoted excerpt is an accurate reflextion of its contents the report can well serve to prove the opposite; that congress was not adequately alerted to the decision it was making.

The report as quoted minimizes the wide range of WHO authority and suggests that a mere sirevimlining of treatymaking procedure is involved. dealing with a highly imairtant point:

"Tachwernment will like free to reject such regulations and standards and their consent is not nekiissary to bring them into effect for governments which have not referred or made n'serrations to them.”

It would have presented the actual situation much more clearly had it said, "Each government will le free to reject such regulations and standards, but their assent is not nevyissure to bring them into effect. * * *" The report appears less than candid at some points and actually misleading. At best it was clumsily drafted

To cite another plample the following statement from the report evidently is unsound:

"This power is similar to that which has been granted to other international organisations in tehnical fields, such as the International Civil Aviation Orhanirati.

At lewnt it has been rented by the office of the Assistant Secretary General for Leul Utairs who prporis that no specialized agency of the United Nations perpt the World Health Organization has this power.

The land mera rrt sans: "The committee recognizes the safeguards to national sovereignty in the provisions of the constitution which confer these powers on the health assembly." The State Department memorandum spells out the site guards ( 31, but they are something less than reassuring. The phrase ""sanitary and quarantine Pemuirements" could be--indeed already has beeninterpreted to enter a very brad lield; and “the right of any member government to meet the relations in hich the health assembly may adopt” is not very perNasipit congress is not moritiert when a regulation is adopted.

If the Monitor arricle and editorial have alerted Congress to the need of making certain it in notitiext, they have served a useful purpose.

The State Depuremene memorandum repeatedly points to the close cooperation of the Soute lyurement, the l'ublic Health Service, and WHO, as if this were a reassuring state or airs Actually, of course, this is precisely the state of afl'airs which has caused concern. The danger has been that the Public Health Service would seek to accomplish through WHO what it could not accomplish through Congress

Of course, it is possible for men of good faith to place widely varying interpretations on the same set of faets. It is not surprising that the medical fraternity should look nminine WHO sanitary regulations as innocent and constructive. It is not surprising that men in whose hands power is placed should see no danger that it will be abused

The result in the present instance is that the State Department criticism does not constitute a successivil rebuttal of the article or editorial. Actually, the very interpretations it employs in support of the desirability and legality of the WITO procedures may serve to further stress the fact that Americans should "Stop, Look, and Question."

Senator DIRKSEN. Now that we have those in the record, have you a!, y other comment to make!

Mr. W'art. No. I have been very, very interested in the hearings. I have been able to be here throughout and I have been impressed with the testimony that has been given. We sincerely hope that from ... will come a very splendid amendment to the Constitution. Senator Dirksex. Thank you for your expression of interest.

I. Mr. Will Maslow, of the American Jewish Congress, here? Mr. Mi-low, will you come forward!



Senator Dirksen. Would you like to read your statement, Mr. Maslow, or submit it and comment upon it?

Mr. Maslow. With your leave, sir, I would like to have it introduced in the record, and comment briefly on it. Senator Dirksen. That is fine, sir. That will be done at this point. The statement referred to is as follows:)


The American Jewish Congress is a national organization representing about ****) American Jews. It was founded in 1918 by such American Jewish onders as Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, Judge Mack and the late Rabbi

en S. Wise for the purpose of preserving Jewish values and maintaining extending the democratic way of life. The American Jewish Congress is vitally concerned with the proposed con** tutional amendment embodied in Senate Joint Resolution 1, limiting the com***PDF of the United States to enter into treaties and international agree

We share its sponsors' desire to safeguard our precious democratic tanpa pems from encroachment by any body, foreign or domestic, national or arrational. However, it is our view that the Constitution of the United ps provides today, as it has for 160 years, ample protection from such

pachnent. We fear that the proposed constitutional amendment by disIn the United States from participating in various instrumentalities of world **ration may well, under the guise of protecting our cherished rights, be

ng their doom. These rights cannot survive either successful armed aggresagainst our territorial borders or a prolonged state of military emergency in h we find ourselves a lone outpost in a world engulfed by communism. imtire defense based on treaties of international cooperation with the other ** suns of the free world provides, in the last analysis, the only true protection

1r own precious rights.

pover, the American Jewish Congress feels that the proposed amendment, initing the power of our Government to enter into such agreements as the

ant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention designed to insure 22." al standards of human rights throughout the world, will prevent us from mang the obligations we have already assumed under the United Nations

THr. Articles 55 and 56 of that charter pledge all members to “take joint and arate action in cooperation with the [United Nations] for the achievement

universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and funda- freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." is our firm conviction that the United States has thus assumed a moral and

fesponsibility to insure that other peoples enjoy the same rights and * -o: ms that we have so zealously protected in our own country. We believe 22. we must honor this responsibility not only because failure on our part to do Vi forfrit our claim to leadership of the free world but also because only in

***10phere of "universal respect for an observance of human rights and • libental freedoms” can our own rights and freedoms be safeguarded and

Yerin he World Jewish Congress of which the American

rent part has prepared and transmitted a series of erasus puca story bodies set up by the United Nations to

Parec 200. the Declaration of Human Rights, and the it. To I the interest of the United States as well as

*** (Tetss opposes all attempts to disable our counse da en un international efforts to insure that what has

ievacions will become a standard of conduct for all.

t" se present impetus for an amendment limiting the ***. rimasto a large extent out of grave misconceptions

titui nations on that power; an entirely unmerited
2. Sani President of the United States and existing
meruing the exercise of that power; and a misunder-

Ver ef recent international proposals to safeguard
Etiam dising the individual sections of Senate Joint Resolu-

were like to take up these misconceptions as we under

Der puwer is not limited in any way by the Constitution
Twer the President and Senate could cripple or destroy

merite its basic constitutional structure, and abridge espite it or Rights. This is not the case. Although the Su

2 tetep sed a treaty to be unconstitutional, this has not been dan MHPT sabere the Constitution but solely because no treaty

27**Puteti sgreement to which the United States has been a party of lined by the ('onstitution to individuals. The courts

**** p in pri that a treaty may not offend specific prohibitions of *** hele statement being that in the case of Geofroy v. Riggs

). *******P. #spypsised in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited exVis

Whare found in that instrument against the action of sinds deyartments, and these arising from the nature of the Til an that of the States. It would not be contended that it er

*** terise what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the de Biometer in that of one of the States, or a cession of any

****** The latter, icithout its consent (Fort Leavenworth Rail

dicti pal', SH. 141). * * *” [Emphasis supplied.] el ve E vissuuri v. Holland (252 U. S. 416, 433 (1920)) the Supreme di berish runsong that a treaty and legislation pursuant thereto overrides

Wat eeul le point out that treaties could not contravene specific Does the sonstitution. The (Court in that case stated “We do not mean

y there are no qualifications to the treaty-making power I!!. in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be te(dation" (see also l'. S. v. Minnesota, 270 U. S. 181, 208 (1926);

11:43 Stuttle; 2003 l'. S. 332, 341 (1924); The Cherokee Tobacco, i biti I STO) ).

of these Supreme Court pronouncements the fact that article ist institution declares laws made “in pursuance" of the Constitution

White maten under the authority of the United States" to be the supreme Rhodora does not imply that treaties are above the Constiuion. The

Fit'the phekilogr resulted solely from the fact that the framers wanted The Wipptaket Kause to apply not only to treaties made in the future under

Ne te te but also to treaties which had already been made under the Tarieven contexteration. Certainly no implication can be drawn from this

***The subject to constitutional limitations, We had a ment advanced in support of the proposition that treaties can and your hair liberties without constitutional recourse is based on the fact

the amendment, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, refers only to Wide yogress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

11.167, the courts have assumed that the amendment applies to actions by !! Dalhes of the Federal Government impairing freedom of speech, press, DE or the rights of assembly or petition. (See e. g.; Watson v. Jones,

691 Spexitically the amendment has been thought to limit the actions put the vident Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 135– Bir iki 1992 LYNC) (1951); Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F. 2d, 46, 59–60, 71–74, il ritir, 1930)). Treaties being the result of Presidential action in conjunc

[ocr errors]
« ÎnapoiContinuați »