go back and change those things or we think if we had some different kind of law, we could have changed them.

I do not believe we could have, but I do think the effects of the law and the problems we face now in the postwar situation have given rise to the effort now to make it more difficult to have made agreements or to make international agreements and to carry on the treatymaking process.

Senator DIRKSEN. I am not prepared to pass on the question of whether or not there has been a cyclical interest in treaties, their expansion or restriction in the life of the Republic, but certainly history fails in the face of a completely new condition such as we are up against at the present time and which began 8 years ago. We have never had a condition whereby an organization like the International Labor Organization, which now under a modification of its constitution can submit conventions to the Senate, has pending at the present time over 93 such conventions and they go into the most interesting things, as to whether or not on company time the baby ought to be nursed for 1 hour a day or for two half-hour periods, or whether government should provide layettes for children at public expense.

We have never had a condition where an international organization beset with people who have the world community idea are toying with somewhere between 100 and 200 conventions which, like eager beavers, they want to submit to this country.

Now, what is involved there so far as the rights of the people are concerned? That is the issue. That is what we are concerned with. We want to be sure that for want of vigilance on our part somewhere along the line there is still a provision in the Constitution which requires that those enumerated rights shall not be bartered away. It is that simple. There has never been a time in the 164 years since we became operative as a republic that we have had a condition like this.

Senator KEFAUVER. Dr. Boss, do you not feel though, in reference to Senator Dirksen's statement, that while all these conventions may be pending before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, that until the Senate of the United States shows that it is not capable under the present powers under the Constitution of properly handling these conventions and these proposed treaties and agreements in line with the present Constitution, that until it shows it is not capable. of handling those in the public interest of the people of the United States, we should not be changing the setup until it shows that it cannot properly protect the interest of our people.

Reverend Boss. I think before you came in I did state that I feel the present laws are adequate to protect them.

Senator KEFAUVER. It might be proposed that we enter into any kind of proposal, even to give away the Capitol. Undoubtedly the Congress would have a right to do that. Until it shows that the Congress so abdicates its responsibility that the Nation is in danger, then is there any reason for changing the power of the Congress to give away the Capitol?

Reverend Boss. It seems to me not, and I think generally the people. have a great faith in the Senate. I myself do. I have been down here to enough hearings now in the last 10 or 15 years to feel a great confidence in the democratic process we use and the sense of responsibility.

20572-5326

Senators, you men would not be here this morning listening to a person like myself coming in here from a church board unless you were concerned about finding a responsible way to handle matters.

Now, there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes the best way to have a responsible government which at the same time can act wisely and act when it needs to on this treatymaking process. I do not anticipate that we are going to have poorer and poorer Senates. I rather think the people are more alive today to their responsibilities as citizens, to their attention to the voting, to their sense of the necessity of getting to the polls and thinking through the problems, and more and more people who listen to the discussions, to the round tables, to you Senators when you go on the radio.

Senator KEFAUVER. Of course, I am sure you would not find any members of this committee advocating any change of the senatorial representation in this committee.

Reverend Boss. No.

I think the country is more alive both to its dangers in the world and to its responsibilities because democratic government rests back on the people. If we out on the field do not take these things seriously and come up to them and face it, then we cannot expect just a group of men to do everything for us, blame them when they do wrong, pat them on the back when they do right.

I am not anticipating that our Senate is going to be weaker and weaker as we look ahead, but stronger and more liable and with greater integrity.

Senator BUTLER. May I suggest to you at this moment under the Fujii case one court has ruled that the United Nations Charter is self-implementing and the other court has ruled that it is not. At this point the people of California, who by solemn referendum put certain laws on the statute books which they had a perfect right to do under their right of self-government, do not know whether those laws are good or bad. Do you think the Senate protected the people of California in that instance?

Reverend Boss. I think the Senate would have the same problem and does have the same problem on a constitutional amendment, as you yourself pointed out earlier, because the Supreme Court, when it deals with a constitutional provision, as you pointed out, may have a majority who you think are wrong, but when it acts as a Supreme Court on the constitutionality of some bill or law, it has acted and that is the provision we have made in our Constitution and in our Government as a method of handling it.

Another Supreme Court may rule exactly opposite. I do not believe that constitutes a reason, though because this case has arisen in California we have differences in courts that we should therefore put a constitutional process into further limit and restrict and hamperSenator BUTLER. That charter could not possibly have had that effect.

Reverend Boss. I am saying no matter what constitutional amendment you come in with, the courts would come to the same difference of opinion. I am saying they will do it and have done it over and over again, depending on the constitution of the Supreme Court and something of the context of the times we are living in, and decisions are reached, one Supreme Court can overrule what another one has done.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senator Butler refers to the United Nations Charter which was ratified I think with only three dissenting votes y the Senate. I know some people feel we should not have entered The United Nations, we should not have ratified the charter. Is it the ontention of the Senator from Maryland that we made a mistake in tering the United Nations Charter and that this resolution would have prevented us from doing so?

Senator BUTLER. My question had nothing whatever to do with whether we made a mistake entering into the United Nations Charter or not. My question was directed solely to the fact that here we have a provision of the United Nations that concerns local self-government which for 164 years has been recognized as being for the people of the several States. One court has ruled that that charter is self-implerenting and sweeps away their laws and rights to govern themselves in eir own State. Another court has ruled that it does not. That is the only observation that the Senator from Maryland made.

Senator KEFAUVER. I am sincere about my question. Does the Senator feel that this resolution either would or should prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Charter?

Senator BUTLER. I do not, certainly, but I think it should prevent the United States from entering into any contract or agreement or reaty of whatever you want to call it that cuts across the basic rights of the people and amends the Constitution of the United States by Direction.

Senator KEFAUVER. Specifically, you have been referring to the ad things that may have come about as a result of the United Nations Charter and our participation in it. Do you feel this would prevent the United States Senate from joining in the United Nations?

Serator BUTLER. No, it would not have anything to do with it. The charter is ratified and gone.

Senator KEFAUVER. Did you think in the United Nations Charter there are such internal matters that this resolution would be a prohition if it had been in effect?

Senator BUTLER. Yes.

Senator KEFAUVER. You think it would have?

Stator BUTLER. Yes.

Nator KEFAUVER. Then the purpose here is to prevent us from tering into such charter as the United Nations Charter?

Srator BUTLER. No. The United Nations may have some of its tions that a lot of people do not agree with.

Senator KEFAUVER. The Senator does not say had this been in effect, Lot have entered the United Nations Charter?

Senator BUTLER. If you want to debate this on the floor, I will derewith you, but ask the questions of the witness.

Serator KEFAUVER. Is that the understanding you got from SenaButler's remarks?

Reverend Boss. Not necessarily, although he did say this Constitubon would prevent us from entering into the United Nations which tares what we conceive to be the local constitutional rights. Senator KEFAUVER. I am just trying to find out, Mr. Chairman. mether this whole effort here is being fostered as a matter of regret fr our entering into the United Nations Charter and if the propotears feel we should not have entered the charter, and if they feel, if

something similar to the United Nations is presented in the future, we want to have some constitutional amendment to prevent us from going into it. I just want to find out the purpose.

Reverend Boss. Earlier I made the point, of course, I think those who voted against it sincerely, and I have never raised any question concerning their motives, evidently had the judgment that it was not the thing to do, it should not be ratified. The question came up in connection with the declaration of human rights and the covenant. My answer to that was that as it is set up and at least up to this point has within itself the statements which do not make it and would not make it effective domestically until there was legislative action on the part of the Federal Government and on the part of the States.

I also pointed out under the present arrangement, treaty arrangement, any reservation which the Senate would want to make or place upon any item or any one of the articles of such a covenant can be done under our present law, and I do not see how the constitutional amendment proposed would assist that any.

Senator KEFAUVER. Dr. Boss, it seems to me that in the discussion of pro and con of the covenant of human rights, that is in the question that addresses itself to this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boss, we will have to excuse you for a little while. Mr. Perlman is here, former Solicitor General. He has an appointment at 1 o'clock, as I understand it.

Is Mr. Perlman here?

Mr. PERLMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You have an appointment at 1 o'clock, Mr. Perlman?

Mr. PERLMAN. I have to catch a train at 1.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind continuing your question after he has finished?

Senator KEFAUVER. I felt that the testimony on the human rights covenant is not a matter of jurisdiction for this committee. That should be referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. It has not been acted upon and discussion whether that is pro or con is academic before this committee.

Reverend Boss. Mr. Chairman, I think you have heard me pretty fully.

Mr. SMITHEY. There is one question I want to ask. I think I can complete it, Senator, in ample time.

Mr. Boss, as I understand your testimony before the committee, you place great stress upon the power of the Senate to insert such reservations as it may choose to any treaty which might be submitted to the Senate. Now, in that regard, I would like to call your attention to the testimony by Mr. Rix, Mr. Carl Rix, who is a past president of the American Bar Association, before this committee on the first day of the hearing, and ask you if you had this in mind, if you were aware of this at the time you made those observations in your statement. Mr. Rix says:

It is popularly supposed that we can do by reservation nearly anything we want, to preserve the rights of this country, but it is agreed by all of us and by Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Davis and others that no reservation or no action of Congress or no action of parties to the treaties can deprive the Congress of the United States of the power which exists under the Constitution.

If I understand Mr. Rix correctly, he means there the power of Conress to enact legislation necessary and proper to carry out the treaty. Now, have you considered that with respect to reservations placed in treaties by the Senate? Reverend Boss. Yes. The Senate can restrict it or it can enact legislation to make it effective within the domestic order. It can do either one.

Mr. SMITHEY. In other words, if we had a treaty which cut across the rights of citizens of the United States, although the Senate made a reservation to that treaty, the Congress could thereafter pass legisation in furtherance of that treaty despite the reservation?

Reverend Boss. It would depend on the nature of the reservation. If the reservation were that it was not effective until domestic legislaon were enacted, then it would have to go and enact legislation. I to have that in mind.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Boss.

Reverend Boss. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous in Four questioning. I appreciate it very much. I seem now to have earned much more about law than I knew when I came in.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to come back when your regular organitation testifies, you will learn some more. We will be glad to have you here at that time.

Reverend Boss. Thank you very much. I have to go back to the board of governors now, or I would remain.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Perlman.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP B. PERLMAN, OF MARYLAND, FORMERLY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator DIRKSEN. May I ask at the outset, you are not appearing ficially? You are appearing as an individual?

Mr. PERLMAN. That is right. I was Solicitor General of the United States from August 1947 until August 1952.

The CHAIRMAN. You hold no official position now at all?

Mr. PERLMAN. None at all. I think it is explained here in the statement.

During the last session of the 82d Congress, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary had before it for consideration Senate Joint Resolution 130, introduced by Senator Bricker, proposg a new article to the Constitution of the United States relating to the making of treaties and executive agreements. The proposed article remained in committee at the end of the session, and so did not. me to a vote.

Senate Joint Resolution 1, introduced at this session, is a modified version of the proposal considered by the 82d Congress. The amendTents now being considered eliminate some of the objections made to Late Joint Resolution 130, but it still appears to be both unnecesand a source of future difficulty and trouble for the Nation. During the period when Senate Joint Resolution 130 was being sidered, I filed, as Solicitor General, on behalf of the Department Justice, a statement as to the views at that time of the Department. That statement contained a discussion of the origin of the provisions ating to treatymaking, and showed with what care they were de