ེ་ ་ ག་

useret u follows:)

NTO UNITED STATES RIGHTS, BACKERS ADMIT

NATELITE SACRIFICED TO OTHER NATIONS

3y William Moore

Chicago Tribune Press Service]

Stare Department officials acknowledged today that 1 Anerican sovereignty and the rights of individual the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Seniooner [Republican, Iowa] what legal authority they : sovereignty to other nations, they cited the President's Chef, but conceded that these are "not very clearly

nerican sovereignty is being bargained away was made Relations Committee. Meanwhile the Eisenhower ang its opposition, before a Senate Judiciary Subpa su onstitutional amendments to limit treatymaking powers Na 'eus and other global governments would have to keep estic affairs.

AGREED TO BY ACHESON

eve the Foreign Relations Committee, headed by Senator Wisconsin) were State Under Secretary Smith and Herman o the State Department.

ourge ratification of new treaties with NATO countries American service and civilian personnel in Europe to the arts Pt the countries in which they are stationed under the At the same time, the treaties would exempt NATO Soghey from some Federal and State laws.

a were agreed upon by the State Department under former years ago, and were submitted to the Senate for ratification Naked Druman last June.

FURTHER STUDY SOUGHT

Nare administration, however, has accepted them and urged their kvisticters members of the Foreign Relations Committee are wyca be delayed until they can be more fully studied.

veke reveatedly today of the necessity for surrendering as much he other nations are giving up.

NATO has been described as a "gentlemen's club" and defended where go to NATO nations on the ground they "had to be houseentioned "to get in."

xvwd, the officials said, they are willing to give up American soverÀ siccicis in Europe, and grant concessions to NATO personnel in

COULD CHANGE STATE LAWS

Codecs or addition, exempt NATO Europeans in this country from x ad regulations against carrying arms, and protects them in

www by car raminal prosecution in American courts.

geving foreign governments something to say about changing the vauder these treaties?" asked Senator Ferguson, Republican,

For the purpose of letting everybody see that by treaty we The new treaties were brought out in sharp questioning Vioward Republican, California; Mansfield, Democrat, Montana;

ww & State," Ferguson explained.

NO PLEDGE OF JURY TRIAL

1. Americans in Europe may be prosecuted under the treaties by the courts of the country in which they are stationed for offenses not committed while on duty.

2. Jury trial is not guaranteed.

3. In some countries having jury trials, conviction can be obtained despite "reasonable doubt" of guilt, and a majority vote, rather than the unanimous vote required here, can convict.

4. In case of a dispute over jurisdiction between the military and a foreign nation, arbitrators decide it.

5. While a soldier convicted in an American court martial has the right of review by American courts and a chance for Presidential pardon, no such privileges exist in foreign courts.

6. The treaties contain no band on cruel and unsual punishments, against which the Constitution protects.

MIGHT REQUIRE EXTENSION

Knowland warned that the NATO treaties will set a precedent for NATO, and said that it might be necessary to make the same concessions to other countries that might join NATO.

He said that in some middle eastern countries, thieves are punished by having their hands cut off, when caught, and questioned the possibility that such punishment might be inflicted on accused Americans if these countries come into NATO. Ferguson told the officials the treaties should have banned secret trials and cruel and inhuman punishment. Phleger replied that punishment in most European countries is lighter than in the United States, and that most of them do not have capital punishment.

Knowland said that trial in foreign courts will destroy the principle of equal military justice. Soldier A, he said, might get a 5-year sentence in one country, while Soldier B, in another country, might get off with 60 days for the same offense.

[The Times-Picayune, Tuesday, April 7, 1953]

STILL NEED PROTECTION

Administration opposition to the Bricker constitutional amendment proposal to outlaw any treaty in conflict with the Constitution may prevent its adoption by Congress and its submission to the State legislatures for ratification.

Stating the administration position, Secretary of State Dulles reassured Congress by saying that treaties should not be used to effect social changes, and that the President would not sign the U. N. Covenant on Human Rights or that on the political rights of women.

The administration, like that of Mr. Truman, fears that the Bricker resolution would tend to tie the hands of the Government in essential treatymaking at this time.

Besides forbidding any treaty in conflict with the Constitution, the Bricker proposal says that the provisions of a treaty shall not become effective as internal law unless passed as law by Congress, and that no treaty shall permit a foreign or international power to supervise, adjudicate, or control domestic rights of United States citizens. Senator Bricker made his resolution more detailed than we think there was any need to do. It raises some unnecessary questions. We much prefer the simple resolution of the American Bar Association which said that no treaty should trespass the Constitution, and that any treaty should become effective as internal law only after being enacted into law by Congress under its delegated powers.

Quite properly the President and the Secretary of State wish to avoid any delaying legal battles over international contracts designed to protect the country or promote the peace.

It is our own strong belief that American rights under the Constitution do need the protection of an amendment prohibiting any abridgment of those rights by treaty. Supreme Court decisions go both ways on the validity of treaties impairing those rights. The Court has never declared a treaty unconstitutional, though in some cases the provisions of the treaties have been applied as internal law.

the public apprehension that some of the proposals of Taking citizens responsible to international courts would Lr administration.

senhower administration does not intend to sign such

The threat contained in them at some future time. That Congress would never let international courts or the liberties of the States or of the people seem to forget wa and not on Congress for the preservation of our reds to the administration out of regard for the erato dal situation, it should return to the issue as soon as

Orleans States, April 7, 1952]

DULLES AND TREATIES

Sureate of State Dulles to proposals in Congress to limit the scores as a disappointment.

Pae would be among the leaders in the administration CLONS on treatymaking that are needed to protect the Rosa “gs of the individual.

ass expressed at a Senate subcommittee hearing on a proposed superkinent sponsored by Senator Bricker, Republican, Ohio, and As similar to one that Bricker offered last year.

Pa gay revision of a treaty that abridges at right guaranteed by cz sai de of no effect, even if ratified by the Senate. It also ef legislation by the House and Senate to make any treaty

on is that the proposed restrictions "could be dangerous to . scurgy" and "would subject the current, day-by-day conduct 8 isto mpediments which might be stifling."

༄ང་པོ་

nere may be much merit to Mr. Dulles' argument from a pracin the operation of international diplomacy, it does not hat his views are nearly so fundamental as making sure that he Constitution and the Bill of Rights can never be superAC KOSTONS of a treaty. encecar en de Nation in the matter is not so much over what might be cece Pulles' own tenure of office, but what might be done by a PresiSPONGE A Of State, and Senate not so keenly aware of the dangers of evocused by treaty as is the present administration.

hata opposition to the restricting proposal was accompanied by an comicde from him that the Eisenhower administration will not sign the evedant of human rights, a United Nations instrument that has been y such reputable authorities, as the American Bar Association as Go with danger to cherished American rights.

་

い

cely for the Nation, the present administration has made a wise de#end to the covenant. But what the Nation is to do in the future và questions as the covenant should not be left to the whims of whaton is in power.

exccccc ons embodied in the Bricker proposal should be written into the od dust the day when there may be no Eisenhowers and Dulleses one a down dangerous treaties such as the so-called covenant of

A. Nowsers. I should like to have this statement put in the recweared with such amendations that I may make.

bably skip around and make some interpolations here

Move now had the privilege of hearing the views of the SecreNew Honorable John Foster Dulles, and of the Attorney Set'nited States, the Honorable Herbert Brownell, Jr., 550d themselves as in opposition, at least, to the texts al amendments now proposed in the form of Senate

Joint Resolution 1, introduced by Senator Bricker, of Ohio, and Senate Joint Resolution 43, introduced by Senator Watkins, of Utah. These two resolutions, while having the same objectives of setting constitutional limitations on both treaties and executive agreements, differ in form.

The one proposed by Senator Watkins embodies substantially the text approved by the house of delegates of the American Bar Association.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, gentlemen, we will have to stop. Under the law we can only sit here with the consent of the Senate. Senator Taft has requested that we be allowed to sit and Senator Morse has objected, so we cannot sit here.

We will have to meet whenever the Senate adjourns tonight.

We will come here tonight and we will hear from Mr. Schweppe and Mr. Holman.

(Thereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene subject to call.)