STATEMENT OF HON. LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator SALTONSTALL. I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Ferguson, that I join with Senator Bricker in this resolve as a basis for giving this problem our very thoughtful consideration and discussion. I first heard this problem discussed, I think, by Senator Donnell when he gave quite an able oration on the floor of the Senate in connection with the California decision. Then Senator Bricker made a very able discussion of this whole subject and in a second speech he went into it further and filed this resolution. Now, it appeared to me from listening to those discussions and from thinking a little about the situation that might arise if that California decision turned out the other way, that this subject should be gone into extremely carefully and thoroughly. I believe that something probably should be done, either by legislation or by constitutional amendment to clarify this doubtful field of where our Constitution comes into contact, we will say, with the United Nations Charter, and perhaps the NATO charter, and other international agreements. One thing seems to me to be clear-that our constitutional forefathers, when they drafted the Constitution, could never have foreseen that the world would grow as small as it has, and by the world becoming so small these international agreements can involve personal rights that were retained by the people, personal liberties, and so on, that were protected under the Constitution that now may become involved in the international agreement. That is the background upon which I, for one, join with Senator Bricker in this resolve. I do not say the language of this resolve is correct, but I think it can be worked out. As to the point that Senator Ferguson was bringing out a few moments ago about executive agreements, that maybe should not be a part of this resolve at all. Now, whether the Congress should deal with this problem by legislation, as is suggested by Senator McCarran, or whether it should deal with it through a constitutional amendment, I think, is a problem that should be studied with a great deal of care. My primary reason for being here and joining in this is that this is a question that is going to arise for us to debate in the Congress in many different ways in the days to come, and it seems to me that if we have the thoughtful consideration by distinguished gentlemen like yourselves on the Judiciary Committee, it will be helpful. We may not all agree. Professor Chafee, who was one of my professors at Harvard, and I have corresponded on this subject quite fully. I am not capable of debating with Professor Chafee, but we did discuss this question in correspondence, and I know that his views do not entirely coincide with mine. The thought that I would like to leave with you gentlemen is that the subject matter of this resolution is a mighty important one, and it is a question that is going to come up constantly in connection with our leadership among the free nations of the world and in connection with the agreements that we form with other free peoples of the world. Now, I have been in sympathy with, and I have voted for all, I think, of those agreements, and I hope they may be successful. Certainly I, for one, hope we will not depart from them until we give them a greater opportunity to work out and to be worked out. It is with that feeling that I am here today, and I do appreciate this opportunity to meet with you. Senator O'CONOR. Very well, Senator, we are very much indebted to you. Senator FERGUSON. Thank you, Senator. I feel somewhat the same as you do as to the exact wording. Senator SALTON STALL. I do not want to pin myself down to the exact words and I do not believe Senator Brickner or anybody else does. Senator O'CONOR. I was just about to observe that Senator Bricker himself today very frankly, while forthright in his presentation of the argument in support of the general measure, nevertheless made it very clear that in regard to phraseology he was of the opinion that it might be improved in certain respects. Senator SALTONSTALL. If I may take 30 seconds, there are two fundamental questions, it seems to me: One, whether there should be any change, or whether we should go on interpreting treaties and the Constitution as the questions arise, or, two, whether it should be done by constitutional amendment or by legislation, or by both methods. Senator O'CONOR. Very good. Thank you, very much, indeed. Senator O'CONOR. We are very pleased to have as our next witness Mrs. James B. Patton, of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Will you come around, please? Just for the record, Mrs. Patton, you are Mrs. James B. Patton, president-general of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution? STATEMENT OF MRS. JAMES B. PATTON, COLUMBUS, OHIO, PRESIDENT-GENERAL, NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Mrs. PATTON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Senator O'CONOR. We are very pleased to have you. I understand that you have a prepared statement? Mrs. PATTON. I do. Senator O'CONOR. You may proceed to read it. Mrs. PATTON. You have a copy of it. I represent 2,699 chapters, with 170,760 members. The objectives of the national society are patriotic, historic, and educational. The Sixty-First Continental Congress of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, held here in Washington last month, passed a resolution endorsing the Bricker amendment. Whereas, article 6, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the United States provides that a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land; and Whereas there now exists many conventions or treaties already passed by the United Nations General Assembly, which if granted treaty rights will nullify the Constitution of the United States: Resolved, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, urge Congress to adopt Senate Joint Resolution 130 to prevent treaties becoming the supreme law of the land; Resolved, That every Daughter attending this Congress considers herself pledged to go home and make known to her two Senators the urgent need of the adoption of this resolution. Also adopted was a resolution opposing world government: Whereas the Charter of the United Nations was adopted upon the thesis that the Big Five, and the other nations which should sign the Charter, should retain their individual sovereignty as free and independent nations, combining their efforts and, under certain conditions, their armaments in a joint effort to promote and maintain peace: Resolved, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution uphold that interpretation of the United Nations Charter and reiterate their opposition to any attempt to bring about through the United Nations or by any other medium a world government or a partial world-government organization. I urge your subcommittee to approve Senate Joint Resolution 130 as soon as possible. The Daughters of the American Revolution have a special interest in section 2 of the proposed amendment. My testimony will be limited to that section, to amplify the stand of the American Bar Association. If section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 130 is adopted and ratified by the required number of State legislatures, three-fourths of the 48, then it would require an amendment to the Constitution before the United States could surrender its sovereignty to any world or regional government. I believe that section 2 of Mr. Bricker's proposal is essential in any amendment designed to protect the freedom of the American people against abuse of the treaty-making power. In the first few years after the end of World War II, some 23 State legislatures memorialized Congress to hasten the day of world government. This action was inspired by impractical idealists, unthinking humanitarians, and others whose motives were less honorable. At this point the Daughters of the American Revolution pioneered in and later were joined by patriotic and veterans' organizations in an educational campaign to warn against imminent dangers jeopardizing our national sovereignty through any form of world government. Of the 23 State legislatures which passed world-government resolutions, 18 have rescinded their action. This would indicate that the vast majority of the American people are opposed to world government or the loss of our independence of action. We are concerned, however, by the fact that essential attributes of national sovereignty may now be surrendered by treaty or executive agreement. Some proponents of the Atlantic Union form of world. government recognize the fact that an amendment to the Constitution should be approved for their resolution. Some of the United World Federalists advocate the same procedure. But the Constitution at present contains no express prohibition against a surrender of national sovereignty through treaty adoption. The greatest threat to American sovereignty is presented by those who seek a gradual approach to world government through the United Nations. The American Association for the United Nations is an organization which maintains that world government can and should be achieved by United Nations treaties and by flexible interpretation of the U. N. Charter. The position of the Daughters of the American Revolution is that our national sovereignty is essential to the freedom of the American. people and the preservation of our constitutional Republic. Our organization will continue to fight those who seek to destroy American independence for the sake of world government. We will continue to oppose those who try to indoctrinate our children with the idea that they are now world citizens or citizens of the United Nations rather than American citizens. The Daughters of the American Revolution will continue to expose the fallacies inherent in the world-government idea. The fundamental fallacy, of course, is that the people of the world now have so much in common that they can unite under one government. The establishment of our own union is cited as a precedent. The fact is that the American colonists had a common language, a common concept of law, common political and economic institutions, a common distrust of governmental power, and common moral and spiritual values for over a century and one-half before our Constitution was adopted. The proponents of international rule claim that world government. would insure peace. Any serious attempt to create a world government. 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 nationalism in the Far East, and especially in countries subject to colonial rule, is ample proof that like-minded people want to control their economic and political destiny free of any outside dictation. Some of the blueprints for world or regional federation have been ingeniously contrived and have a pleasing surface appeal. In any case it is not the system of national sovereignties which contains the seeds 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, comparable to the concessions made by the States at the founding of our 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 local self-government. An international court would have to be established to consider cases involving crimes against world government. It is significant, I think, that article 37 of the U. N. draft statute for an international criminal court provides: "Trials shall be without a jury." A world government would have the power to tax. The Daughters of the American Revolution know that direct taxation by a worldgovernment organization would drastically reduce the American standard of living. Tariff walls and immigration barriers would be destroyed by any form of federal union. A world government would have to have power to coin and to regulate the value of money. Our capitalistic free enterprise cannot coexist with the socialism and communism under the authority of one government. The Daughters of the American Revolution want to retain our system of free enterprise which has made our Nation the greatest in the history of the world. Finally, we are told that the world government will have its own international army, its own navy, and air force, and control of all atomic weapons. Nations will retain only local police forces. War will be impossible, we are told, because nations will not have the means to wage it. But what if the international general staff becomes tyrannical? Who will control it? Should despotism be established on a universal basis there would be no sanctuary and no place to look for hope of deliverance. In order to save the valuable time of our respected Senators, I have concentrated on section 2, but the Daughters of the American Revolution wholeheartedly endorse Senate Joint Resolution 130, in its entirety, for the protection of every American citizen. There are still some islands of freedom left in this unhappy world. The greatest of these is the United States of America. The Daughters of the American Revolution believe that the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 130 will preserve American freedom and aid in extending its beneficient influence throughout the world. Thank you, gentlemen, for the privilege and honor. I leave our constitutional Republic under your loyal protection. Senator FERGUSON. Thank you very much. Senator O'CONOR. We are indebted to you, Mrs. Patton, and thank you very much. Mrs. PATTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator O'CONOR. The committee is anxious to serve the convenience of our friends who have come from outside of the city, and I do understand that two representatives from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York would like to be heard as soon as possible. We will be very pleased to have you come forward now. I understand that they will not be able to be here on another date. Mr. BACKUS. Mr. Pearson will present part of it. Senator O'CONOR. If you want to sit together at the table, you may. STATEMENTS OF THEODORE PEARSON AND DANA BACKUS, OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Senator O'CONOR. For the record, your name is Theodore Pearson? Mr. PEARSON. My name is Theodore Pearson. Senator O'CONOR. And Mr. Backus? Mr. BACKUS. Dana Backus. Senator O'CONOR. Will you kindly give your address? Mr. PEARSON. 70 Broadway, New York 4. Mr. BACKUS. 50 Broadway, New York, N. Y. Senator O'CONOR. Gentlemen, will you be kind enough to indicate the authority that is given you to represent the association or whether you are members of the committee? Mr. PEARSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am chairman of the committee on Federal legislation of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Mr. Backus is chairman of the committee on international law of that association. Our two committees prepared a joint report for the association, which I would like to ask your permission to file as a part of the record here today. |