Finally, I think it is work in the field of trusteeship and economic hope to mankind which is an important factor. Therefore, in conclusion, I would plead with you not to support any restrictive amendments to our Constitution which would, to a great part of the world, indicate we were not willing to embark upon this great experience of the development of an international moral and legal order.

I trust, sir, in the Senate and in the President and their constitutional powers to protect us in this great adventure, and I do not believe this other protection is necessary.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Mr. Eichelberger, you have treated in your discussion with the Bricker resolution. There are other measures under consideration by this subcommittee, one being the American Bar Association resolution and the other the McCarran resolution.

I wish you would enlighten the committee as to your thoughts on these other versions of control.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I am not familiar with the McCarran resolution, but I have before me the resolution of the bar association, again reminding you I am not a lawyer.

I find the first phrase in the bar association resolution, "A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect," not to be harmful. I do not think it is necessary.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I am glad to hear you say that. You would not object to spelling that out?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. No. I would object to the second sentence, "A treaty shall become effective, international law, only through legislation by Congress," because I think there are times when it is important that treaties do have an effect upon our domestic legislation. I want that just as little as possible. I think you have adequate protection (1) by putting in the Federal-State laws which is the common practice in international labor organizations' conventions, and (2) by a reservation that the treaty is not self-executing.

I think you can protect yourself adequately in that, but I think there are times when you will find it necessary to get concessions from other countries to do something that does affect our domestic legislation.

I think the second clause goes too far. I do not see any harm in the first at all.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Did you have a question, Mr. Smithey?

Mr. SMITHEY. Sir, do you believe that executive agreements should be made in lieu of treaties?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. At times, yes. I think there are times when the President must act quickly and an executive agreement should be made in lieu of treaties.

Mr. SMITHEY. Do you find any authority for that under the Constitution?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it is an authority certainly that has developed over a very long period of time.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Would you call it an inherent right?
Mr. EICHELBERGER. I do not.

Mr. SMITHEY. Do you believe, sir, an executive agreement should be permitted to alter or abridge the laws of the several States or the constitution of a State?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. If an executive agreement were to secure for the United States some very important rights and that it was important that executive agreement supersede domestic law as a treaty, then I would say that would be necessary in just as few cases as possible; but I would hate to see the door closed so that it could not be done if it were very important.

Senator HENDRICKSON. While we are on the subject of executive agreements, you recognize the fact that our troops in Germany have been there up until now under the rules of land warfare as occupying forces. They are answerable only to our Government.

Would you approve of an executive agreement which gave the government of Western Germany either criminal or civil jurisdiction. over our troops?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I could not answer that. I would say that is probably a question of what is incorporated in the treaty that was agreed to at Bonn yesterday, the contract which I understand will be immediately submitted to the Senate.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Certainly when you trade away the rights of an American citizen because he is abroad, that should be done by treaty, it would seem to me.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I would say in the main, yes. I would say there might be a circumstance where very important concessions were gained and the concession had to be made quickly, but I would say it will come before you in the form of a treaty.

Senator HENDRICKSON. At the time I was in Germany last Novemher they were discussing the possibility of executive agreements of that type. Of course, I took issue with Mr. McCloy rather vigorously on that subject. I do not know how far they have gone. The Under Secretary, this morning, did not seem to know.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. In this case I have great respect for our system of checks and balances. Sometimes I have not liked the way it has worked out, but nevertheless neither have you at times.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Sometimes they do not check and sometimes they do not balance.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I have great respect for the capacity of the Senate, the Congress, and the Executive in the constant clash that comes both domestically and in the conduct of foreign affairs to strike a balance.

I would say in cases such as you have described they should come to the Senate. On the other hand, if you try to write a provision in order to protect that and say the President can make no executive agreement, it would knock out a large part of our history. Therefore, I would only conclude that the constant vigilance of the President and the Senate together in their clash to strike a balance would take care of the situation, and that you cannot put that balance in any constitutional amendment.

Senator HENDRICKSON. You say you have confidence in the Congress and the Senate. Do you not think the two Houses are quite competent to sit down and write out a statute which would define executive agreements and establish a pattern under which executive agreements could be made so that they would be made with the sanction of law?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I would see no harm in trying that, Senator, although it is something that has been talked about since our Constitution was drafted and no one has yet belled the cat.

Senator HENDRICKSON. This may be a good time to start.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I see no reason why one should not attempt to draft a code.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Thank you very much. I enjoyed your testimony. You made a real contribution to our work here.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. Thank you for coming back this afternoon, Senator.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Are there any other witnesses who want to be heard?

Mrs. Colby, we will hear from you. I am glad to have you here. STATEMENT OF RUTH GAGE COLBY, REPRESENTING THE WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM

Mrs. COLBY. My name is Ruth Gage Colby, a citizen of the United States by birth and a resident of St. Paul, Minn., 1340 Madison Avenue.

I think I would like to preface what I am in my formal statement with this much about myself: that ever since the end of the war I have been traveling: I have been out of my country more than I have been in it. I have been around the world four times. I have returned just recently from 10 months in the Middle East. I returned with deepened love of my country and a deepened sense of my responsibilities as a citizen.

Also, I have increased my conviction that we are living in an interdependent world, in fact interdependability is inescapable and that in this evolving structure of interdependability, the United States of America is the keystone. It always rests on us in a degree which is frightening.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I agree with you.

Mrs. COLBY. Mr. Chairman, in the name of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, I wish to assure you of my grateful awareness of the privilege of appearing before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate to oppose amending the Constitution as proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 130.

Since the founding of our organization by Jane Addams in 1915, when we sought an early end of World War I through continuous mediation, we have stood for the ultimate replacement of war by law. However unavailing our efforts and those of millions of other men and women who seek the same goal, we are faced with no recourse but to continue to encourage the building up of law. World war, twice known and again feared in our time, can only be averted and prevented through determined development of international law. Thus for Congress to limit now by constitutional amendment the treaty-making powers vested in the President and the Senate of the United States would appear as badly timed as it is undoubtedly wellintentioned.

The Bricker resolution raises questions both of law and principle. The American Bar Association-and my father was a member of it for 50 years—a most eminently qualified nongovernmental voice to

speak on the legal phase, reports that as a result of the studies on treaty making, authorized by its house of delegates:

It is plain that no agreement exists on the question of amending the Constitution of the United States to limit the treaty-making power.

Concerning the position taken by its most authoritative committee, the American Bar frankly states:

The section of international and comparative law does not consider a constitutional amendment either necessary or desirable (report of the standing committee on peace and law through the United Nations, American Bar Association, May 1, 1952).

Senator HENDRICKSON. You are aware there is a contrary report? Mrs. COLBY. Yes, the report is made under this committee, but it also includes the associated committee, which is the committee on international law. The two were authorized by the house of delegates, but it was their own publication which made these quotations available

to me.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Is it Miss or Mrs.?

Mrs. COLBY. It is Mrs. My husband is a professor of child medicine at the University of Minnesota, and I have a son in the Navy. Senator HENDRICKSON. I congratulate you.

Mrs. COLBY. An official statement recently expressed leaves no doubt as to the opposition to this resolution within the Government:

In the opinion of the Department of State, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States such as proposed in Senate Joint Resolution 130 would not serve the best interests of the citizens or the Government of the United States (letter to Senator Moody from Mr. McFall, Assistant Secretary, Department of State).

In my humble opinion, as a plain citizen, without legal training, such drastic limitations of our country's treaty-making powers, as this resolution proposes, could in itself effect a greater abridgement of freedom and loss of prestige than any treaty into which we might conceivably enter.

Judging from previous testimony at this hearing, there exists, on one hand, the fear of Federal power becoming overaugmented and the rights of the 48 States subsequently jeopardized, and, on the other hand, a general apprehension of the abridgement of national sovereignty by a rapidly developing system of international treaties. It was encouraging to note in the early stages of the hearing the concern of certain Senators as to whether our choice between the status quo and change would reflect the degree of wisdom shown by the authors of the Constitution. In that day, they had to choose between sovereignty of the Thirteen States and the sovereignty of the new United States, and there were those, among them so great a patriot as Patrick Henry, who loathed the choice forced upon them by Benjamin Franklin, whose sagacity was summed up in the famous admonition-"Gentlemen, we must hang together or hang separately."

As a powerful Virginia decided to cooperate with her sister States, so must an indefinitely more powerful United States cooperate with nations large and small to extend the guiding principles which have led us to prosper as a nation and a people. Embodied as if by inspired genius in our Constitution, these principles might well be the answer to the peoples of the world who are crying out for justice— social-economic justice, and political freedom, which they now know to be possible, largely through the example that has been set in the

United States. Regardless of the fact that people are illiterate, that they cannot read, that they do not have radios, they all know somehow by the grapevine that we have done it here, and we have made life good. That is what they are asking for everywhere in the world. You really begin to feel you have come from a different planet when you think about this.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I wondered about that, because last year when I was in attendance at the Strasbourg conference participating actively in the debates and discussion there, I did not get that idea. Mrs. COLBY. I am speaking of the common people. You were dealing with officialdom largely.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I was dealing with elected officials, representatives of the people.

Mrs. COLEY. But still it was officialdom, elected or no. I am talking now about the little people. I am specially thinking about the really little people, the 700 million little people under the age of 15 years of age in our world.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I certainly hope you are right, but I did not gather that feeling in any country I visited last year.

Mrs. COLBY. I am not suggesting for one minute there is no criticism of us today. This admiration which has grown up through the years is being very greatly undermined at the moment by a mounting unpopularity which is so tragic to meet with. They look to us as something different, that we have the answers and we were going to give them the answers. Suddenly they are becoming puzzled, disappointed, and in some cases embittered.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Who is responsible for that? Who is responsible for this frustration?

Mrs. COLBY. I do not think one can pin the responsibility in any one place.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Certainly with all our generosity they cannot blame it on the United States.

Mrs. COLBY. There is no blaming the generosity. I am sure they still feel we are the most generous people in the world. I think we can blame this change of attitude upon propaganda mostly, a propaganda which they in their suffering are willing to accept as the truth. The propaganda may be largely augmented. It may not be the whole truth, but it is based upon things which it is possible to lift out of the American newspapers and magazines. These things are lifted out of American newspapers and magazines with the dates and the place and the name of the paper. They are used throughout the world for propaganda. They include such things as the way we exploit children in gathering our food crops, such as the beet fields in my own State, which is a great offender, so I can speak humbly about it. They cite chapter and verse of mob action and lynchings. They cite the awful story of our treatment of the original Americans, the American Indians. All of these things are true, but they are built up and blown up as if they were the only truth about America now, which is, of course, very sad.

This is what we have to remember, Senator: That it is not abstract truth nor absolute truth, but it is what people believe to be the truth about America with which we have to deal. So in anything we do from now on it seems to me it must reflect tremendous courage and an outgoing spirit.