a common distrust of governmental power, and common moral and spiritual values for over a century and a 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 1, 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 1 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.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Lucas.
Senator Dirksen?

Senator DIRKSEN. No questions.

Mrs. LUCAS. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Griswold?

STATEMENT OF MRS. ENID H. GRISWOLD, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and address, please? Mrs. GRISWOLD. I am Mrs. Enid H. Griswold, and I represent the National Economic Council, 7501 Empire State Building, New York 1, N. Y.

The National Economic Council favors the principle of Senate Joint Resolution 1. We believe that it is not only desirable but imperative that such legislation be enacted so that the Government of the United States and the rights of its citizens be adequately protected against the treaties and conventions of the United Nations. It has been stated by a member of your august body that over 200 such conventions have been written or are in the process of being formulated.

This would appear to be a most conservative statement, inasmuch as one organization alone, the International Labor Organization, had completed over 100 conventions some 6 months ago and has been diligently writing further global regulations since that time.

I believe that the Constitution of the United States is the written expression of the highest development of our western civilization. The rights enumerated therein must be protected and preserved. Obviously the framers of this document did not contemplate that a time would come when, through a new and revolutionary interpretation of international law and through international socialistic manipulation, the basic rights of American citizens would be seriously threatened as they are today.

We do not wish to enter into a discussion of the technical and legal aspects of this resolution, as we feel that the Senate Judiciary Committee is the proper body to determine the appropriate and adequate phraseology. We believe that this resolution should make it impossible for any treaty or executive agreement, which by some are said to be interchangeable, to supersede our Federal, State, or local laws; to infringe upon our sovereignty as a nation; or to in any way interfere in our domestic affairs.

We wish to suggest that provision be made whereby treaties previously ratified by our Senate be reexamined and their implication to date carefully evaluated. I refer in particular to the United Nations Charter. Chapter 1, article 2, paragraph 7, specifically provides that— nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to interfere in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state and shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter *

Nevertheless, the interpretation to date appears to be otherwise. The General Assembly of the United Nations was set up as a deliberative body with power solely to recommend. Likewise the international commissions and agencies of the United Nations were to be purely consultative groups. Their actions and policies have shown their objectives to be quite different from their original stipulated purposes. Petitions already submitted to the United Nations, claiming redress through the United Nations from the people and Government of the United States, are a clear warning to us of the uses to which this international body will be put, if not checked by a constitutional amendment such as you are considering. I refer to a petition for redress under the Human Rights and Genocide Treaties which was presented by the National Negro Congress on June 6, 1946-and note that this was at a time when these treaties had not even been drafted, they were merely presented-at the United Nations meeting held at Hunter College, New York City. This organization was designated as a Communist front by the Attorney General.

Again in 1947 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, under the direction of W. E. B. DuBois, likewise presented to the United Nations an appeal for redress claiming denial of human rights. In 1951 a charge of genocide was made by the Civil Rights Congress through the United Nations against the Government of the United States. Thus it is sought to make our domestic affairs the subject of international debate and jurisdiction. These, gentlemen, are only three instances. There are many.

The so-called Acheson resolution was adopted by the General Assembly in the fall of 1950. This is interpreted by our One Worlders as giving the General Assembly the authority to order our American military and naval units, as part of an international army, to any place in the world where they deem it necessary for the preservation of world peace. Are you going to permit this, knowing from our Korean experiment the predominant part which American lives and resources will be called upon to take, in any such international action? Is it for such a future-to wage perpetual wars for perpetual peace that we, the mothers of America, are raising our sons?

Since hearings were held on Senate Joint Resolution 130 last spring there have been other instances which warn us of the danger of our present situation. I should like to cite the minority decision of the Supreme Court in the Steel Seizure case with which you are all thoroughly familiar.

Mention should also be made of the convention written by the International Labor Organization in Geneva last June which contains fantastic provisions for social security and certain types of socialized medicine on a world-wide scale. Within the past 2 weeks an American labor representative, attending a meeting of the International Labor Organization in Geneva, urged that an international minimum wage law be established by convention or treaty. It did not appear whether this minimum would be based on the standard of living in Asia, or in Africa, or in Latin America, or on the standard of living in the United States.

The implication, however, is all too clear. We who have achieved individual freedom and who, through it, have developed our resources and skills to a high degree, are being urged to share our rights and

privileges our material advantages and resources-with all the rest of the world.

The philosophy which I have heard expressed in recent years in State capitals and in our National Capital has been expanded to apply internationally; namely that all things belong to all the people, regardless of whether they have put forth any effort to earn them or even desire them.

Recently I heard a United Nations reporter on the radio tell of an incident in Africa. A mother of several children, having received medical service for her family from a United Nations group which had established headquarters nearby, asked that in addition to medical services her children be served breakfast by the United Nations staff. How absurd are we going to encourage these international, giveaway programs to become? I would like to add that that was under the United Nations Children's Relief Fund, and in the number of years that has been in existence approximately $116 million have been given by grants, and of that $116 million, as I recall, about $88 million have been given by the United States.

In addition to Government grants, there has been some $50 million given in individual contributions. The United Nations does not account for the source of that additional $50 million, but I think we can assume that the larger proportion of it has come from America. We are being called upon to serve breakfast to the children in darkest Africa.

I believe that we must choose between giving to other countries such help and cooperation as we can afford, or frittering away our substance in every imaginable manner. There is no aspect of life on this globe which has been overlooked by the Economic and Social Council or by the various international organizations of the United Nations.

The role of world leadership which we are constantly told has been thrust upon us, can best be fulfilled by preserving our American Republic and by limiting our international commitments to what we can do without weakening ourselves. This can be accomplished through such a resolution as you are now considering.

I therefore strongly urge that Senate Joint Resolution 1, after careful consideration by this committee, be presented to the Senate for adoption.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Any questions, Senator Dirksen?

Senator DIRKSEN. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, indeed.

Is Mrs. Fenner here?

Will you give your name and address and whom you represent?

STATEMENT OF MRS. MERWYN FENNER, AFTON, N. Y.

Mrs. FENNER. I am Mrs. Merwyn Fenner, from Afton, N. Y., a small town in upstate New York. I am a housewife, taxpaying citizen, mother of five children between the ages of kindergarten and sophomore in high school.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have copies of your statement here, Mrs. Fenner?

Mrs. FENNER. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement will be made a part of the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF MRS. MERWYN FENNER, AFTON, N. Y., IN SUPPORT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 1, RELATIVE TO THE MAKING OF TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

The dangers of treaty law were ably pointed out in a pamphlet of that name by Frank Holman. The testimony on Senate Joint Resolution 130 (82d Cong., 2d sess., May 21-June 9, 1952) featured prominent members of the American Bar Association and others who offered impressive opinion and documented evidence of the threat to the domestic jurisdiction of the United States in the relationship of our citizens to each other and the rest of the world.

Senator Bricker's resolution to modify the supremacy of treaties, jointly sponsored by a substantial majority of the United States Senate, expresses the sentiment of an important and growing segment of public opinion, justifiably alarmed at the acceleration of the trend away from the traditional self-determination upon which the very existence of this country was founded.

The statement of Senator Bricker on the predecessor of this resolution, May 21, 1952, hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 130 at page 23, repudiates the position that foreign and domestic affairs are indistinguishable. The thrust of the resolution, and a significant measure of its support, is toward the imperative need of drawing the line between domestic and foreign affairs, unequivocally, and explicitly for all to see.

There can be no question that the line between foreign and domestic affairs needs to be clearly defined.

"Domestic and foreign problems have involved more and more the same or closely related issues." (Report of the Hoover Commission, Public Affairs

Bulletin No. 74, p. 18, September 1949.)

"There is no longer any real distinction between domestic and foreign affairs.” (State Department Bulletin 3972, p. 1, September 1950.)

"All matters essentially within domestic jurisdiction are subjects of international concern or they would not be brought before the (U. N.) Organization for consideration." (Domestic Jurisdiction-From the Covenant to the Charter, Illinois Law Review, vol. 46, No. 2, at p. 263, May-June 1951.)

Continuing this procession, the Office of Public Affairs, Department of State, released September 1952, a pamphlet entitled, "Questions and Answers on the U. N. Charter, Genocide Convention, and Proposed Covenants on Human Rights," in which a bundle of strawmen are neatly demolished by a series of negative replies to the "numerous queries" being received on the subjects. The abbreviated replies to the schematic questions hardly allay the apprehensions of a concerned layman, let alone an informed constitutional lawyer, that all decomposition is not confined to the state of Denmark. After dispatching these numerous searching questions of vital and fundamental importance, in five short pages, reassuring us that these treaties are not legally binding, the release closes with an excerpt from the classic Sei Fujii case.

"The charter represents a moral commitment of foremost importance, and we must not permit the spirit of our pledge to be compromised or disparaged in either our domestic or foreign affairs." (Sei Fujii v. State of California (38 Advance California Reports 817).)

"We must not permit," says the justice, speaking for the court, and in language for future courts to read and take notice. Not only are "domestic and foreign affairs" bundled in this interdict, but authority relied upon is the "moral commitment" of a document which the quoting release itself holds is not legally binding.

Are the citizens of this country to replace legislation with "moral commitments"? Whose morals are committed, and to whose morals do we submit as arbiters of our conduct? When the temporal morality of men replaces the codified legality of laws, then we have government of men, and not of laws. Was it for this that the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors?

If the moral commitments of treaties are to be given domestic effect, by interpretation and usage, then do we not have, in effect, legislation without representation? Is it held that the Executive, with concurrence of a two-thirds majority of the Senate, can substitute for our diversified legislative structure from the local village board to the Congress of the United States?