While the proposed covenant on human rights has not yet been completed the United Nations, representatives of the United States are zealously at work bring about its early completion and adoption. All drafts of that covenant far presented contain so-called guaranties of freedom of speech and press a of peaceable assembly and association subject to such restrictions as are "p scribed by law" or necessary to protect "public safety, order, health, and moral and subject to a declaration of emergency officially proclaimed by the authoriti in which case a State may take measures derogating from its obligations w respect to those freedoms. Some of these same objectors to limitation of t treatymaking power, so far as internal law is concerned, who insist that treaties endangering the constitutional rights of Americans have ever be ratified, are themselves striving to effect ratification of the foregoing treat containing generous provisions. It is these recent activities which brought in being the American Bar Association's proposed constitutional amendment. AMENDMENT GIVES STATES NEEDED PROTECTION The text of the proposed amendment was drawn to bring into sharp focus t whole problem of continuing the balance between State and Federal power, in t light of the existing treaty power as now construed. The proposal as drawn giv the States protections they do not now have. It brings about certainty as to i ternal effectiveness of treaties within the States that does not now exist. Let those American proponents of new treaties in the social, economic, cultur: and political and civil fields, who feel that the United States must take leadersh in these crusades, first assist in obtaining a constitutional amendment at home assure American citizens that there will never be an impairment of their fund mental rights in the process. "For the saddest epitaph which can be carved memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time." 50 Mr. DEUTSCH. On January 27, less than a month ago, the Time Picayune of New Orleans published a cartoon on this subject whic has met with wide acclaim, speaking of an important law review wit the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and treaties marcl ing along in review by the public, by justice, by Congress, by tl United States as a whole, and by the judiciary, and under, shall say, the resolution adopted by the committee whose members hav appeared before you today and who were then meeting in the cit of New Orleans. The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show it is filed with the committe Mr. DEUTSCH. I ask that that be filed in connection with the stat ment I have made and also an editorial appearing in the January 1 issue of the Times-Picayune. (The editorial referred to follows:) [From the Times-Picayune, January 12, 1953] BILL OF RIGHTS INSURANCE Senator Bricker has reintroduced into the new Congress his constitutiona amendment resolution to invalidate any treaty that would contradict the Bill Rights or subject an American citizen to trial or suit in an international cour The resolution bears the signatures of 60 Senators, or only 6 less than necessar to approve the amendment proposition in the Senate and send it on to the Hous The Truman administration, through the State Department, opposed th Bricker amendment in the last Congress, asserting that the danger of the abroga tion of any American right was remote and that adoption might handicap Unite Nations peace efforts. But there has been no denial that as long as treaties have equal status wit the Constitution as supreme law, the constitutional rights of the people can b abridged in the process of making and applying treaties. It has been prett 50 Mr. Justice Sutherland, dissenting in Associated Press v. N. L. R. B. (301 U. S. 10 141 (1937))). y established that Congress can pass laws pursuant to a treaty that would * valid under the Constitution. The rights reserved by the Constitution to » Sales or the people can be invaded and destroyed by international arrange t in the form of a treaty and ratified by the Senate. The thinking of f the internationalists has been that Congress would be obligated to pass To implement some of the codes, conventions, and arrangements devised ager C. N. affiliates, regardless of any constitutional considerations. tator Bricker's resolution seems to be more involved and more diplomatically han the resolution proposed by the American Bar Association a couple tars back. The ABA would simply declare that any treaty whose provisions conflict with the Constitution was invalid and that Congress could not any law pursuant to a treaty that it could not have passed independent 'reaty. cress, of course, will wish to get the views of the Eisenhower administra efore it goes ahead with the amendment proposal in either form. Neverit should move on to a decision. Mr. Acheson's department might be in saying that the danger of having any right overturned is "remote." But Le mouthpieces of some of the international groups are so fond of the that Congress can use treaties instead of the Constitution for its authority * laws, many American citizens will not feel safe until that concept is bed by something no less formidable than constitutional amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smithey? Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Deutsch, you may remember that there was con-rable discussion by the Acting Secretary of State at the hearings acted on Senate Joint Resolution 130 as to whether it would have possible for the United States to give effect to a treaty like the ties Convention if the bar proposal had been adopted. What position of the peace and law committee on that? Mr. DEUTSCH. I can speak only for myself, of course, in the absence nt study by the committee, but there is not any question in my that that Convention could well be adopted. It falls within the merce power. Under our proposed amendment, you would have ave implementing legislation, in any event, by Congress. And is not the slightest question in my mind that such questions, ties, white-slave traffic, and so on, are within the Federal domain, That no real question would arise on that subject. Mr. SMITHEY. How about the growing of poppies without a license? at a State function? I. DEUTSCH. I think that will fall within the narcotics question, ind you, there is nothing that the members even of this great tee can write that will not come up for ultimate judicial dison and determination with differences of opinion and dissenting *. Even the members of our committee do not agree on every 'g. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holman, do you want to make a statement for Committee? Mr. HOLMAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF FRANK E. HOLMAN, SEATTLE, WASH., PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to express my appreciafor the opportunity of coming and presenting, perhaps I should my views on this great question. I want to also express my very appreciation and gratitude to Senator Bricker for the time over last several years that he has, in his busy routine, accorded me by way of an opportunity of discussing with him the remedy by we of a constitutional amendment to correct what we think in the Ame ican Bar Association is one of the greatest constitutional crises th this country has ever faced. And even though the hour is somewh: late and you have been very patient, sir, but because this is now goin to be the record in the matter, which, as I understand, will be sul mitted to the present Secretary of State for scrutiny and commen and will be submitted also, perhaps, to the present Attorney Genera and to others, I am going to make rather a full statement of my view In the first place, by way of introducing myself, my name is Fran E. Holman, age 67, a lawyer from Seattle, having practiced law little over 40 years. I have a biographical sketch that I will submi for the record. (The information referred to is as follows:) BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF FRANK E. HOLMAN PERSONAL DATA Born Sandy City, Utah, January 7, 1886; A. B., University of Utah, 1908; Rhode scholar, Oxford, England, 1908; B. A. in Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1910; M. A Oxford, 1914; admitted Washington bar, 1911; admitted Utah bar, 1912; instruc tor in law, University of Utah, 1912-13; dean, Utah Law School, 1913-15 chairman, Utah State Board of Bar Examiners; vice president, Utah State bar 1923; practiced at Salt Lake City, 1915-24; practiced at Seattle, 1924 to date admitted to practice, United States Supreme Court, 1921; admitted to practic in various Western States and Federal courts; senior partner, Holman, Mickel wait, Marion, Prince & Black, Seattle; president, Seattle Bar Association, 1941 president, Washington State Bar Association, 1945; chairman, committee fo revision of Washington corporation laws; member, American Bar Association member, house of delegates, continuously since 1942; member, special committe for the organization of the nations for peace and law, 1944 and 1945; member special committee for peace and law through United Nations, 1946 and 1947 member, membership committee, 1943 and 1944; member, committee on juris prudence and judicial reform, 1943; member, Washington committee associated with the American Bar Association committee on improving the administration of justice; Coconvenor, Seattle Regional Conference on World Court, 1946; co convenor, proposed Seattle regional conference on progressive development of in ternational law, 1947; member, committee on credentials and admissions of the house of delegates, 1946-47; member, board of directors, American Bar Associa tion endowment; member, advisory board of the American Bar Association Jour nal; member, committee on assistance to lawyers in devastated countries, 194951; member, committee on scope and correlation of work, 1950-53; president of the American Bar Association, 1948-49; ex-officio member, American Bar Associa tion board of governors, 1949-50; chairman, alien enemy hearing board for the western district of Washington; member, national panel of alien enemy examin ers; member, Seattle Armed Forces Advisory Committee; member and vice president, board of national directors of American Rhodes scholars; life member of the Oxford Union; trustee, School of Public Law (Washington, D. C.); member American Society of International Law; member, board of directors of the Pacific National Bank of Seattle; member, advisory board of Seattle Children's Orthopedic Hospital; honorary member, the Order of the Coif; honorary member Phi Delta Phi (Ballinger Inn and Tillman D. Johnson Inn), international legal fraternity; honorary member, District of Columbia Bar Association; honorary member, Canadian Bar Association; member, Monday Club, Seattle; member Rainier Club, Seattle (president, 1950-51); Veterans of Foreign Wars certificate of merit "for outstanding contributions toward preservation of our American way of life," December 20, 1950; Cross of Chevalier of the Legion of Honor (France), January 1951; Marine Corps League meritorious service award in appreciation and gratitude for distinguished service in the interests of the United States of America, the United States Marine Corps and the Marine Corps League, September 21, 1951; American freedom award, 1952. SPEECHES AND ARTICLES - Inns of Court (Washington Law Review, 1926) ry of British India (Monday Club, 1932) Izards Problem in Ireland (Monday Club, 1933) and Rhodes Scholarship (English-Speaking Union, 1934) Constitution on the Supreme Court (Argus Press, 1936) Frenchmen Visit America-deTocqueville and Beaumont (Monday Club, Enemy Control (Monday Club, 1942) B.Sc Problem of Peace (Argus Press, 1944) Lawyer's Challenge (Washington Law Review, 1944) Is of Government (American Bar Association Journal, April 1946) 4 Government-No Answer to America's Desire for Peace (American Bar Association Journal, October 1946) ****ets and Prefaces-Elizabeth to Blackstone (American Bar Association rnal, July 1947) -Vade of a University Education (University of Utah Press, 1947) Suborn Facts of Peace (Argus Press, 1947) psal for an International Bill of Rights (Argus Press, 1948) rational Proposals Affecting Human Rights (Argus Press, August 1949) America Succumb to Statism (American Bar ssociation Journal, October 44 +1 American Form of Government ("I Am an American Day." Seattle, May America Away (Seattle Rotary Club, October 1949) Lawmaking (American Bar Association Journal, September 1950) p. America (Seattle Rotary Club, December 1951) ited Nations-A Hope or a Menace? (Knights of the Red Cross of ConLine, Seattle, Wash., March 8, 1952) Mr. HOLMAN. I have never been active in partisan politics, actually, though I am not saying this by way of making any point of e out of it, I have never made a political speech in my life. My wife says that I will always make a speech on this particular on whenever I am invited. I would also like to make it clear in the efforts that I have tried to make during the last 4 years to the American people to the dangers of what has been called y law and executive agreements, and the need for constitutional iment, that I represent no organization, not even the American Association, officially, and that I have never accepted any compenby way of fees or otherwise for travel expense or for other ers in connection with this program. I should also state that I was originally a member, one of the al members of this committee on peace and law when it was set 1944, which was a year before the organization of the United ons. In 1944, with the termination of World War II expected, with proposals in the air, if I may say so, by reason of the Dumon Oaks Conference, and by reason of declarations by the State Tent, with those proposals which eventually resulted in the ization of the United Nations, the American Bar Association, appointment or by its board of governors, which usually the power to appoint committees, but by spontaneous action house of delegates, a committee was organized, headed by Ransom, of New York, and the name then was known as the als for the organization of nations for peace and law. I was tern member on that committee. There was one other western r. Judge Schloss, of California, a very eminent jurist, and the members came from the Midwest and the eastern part of the ⚫d States. I want to make it crystal clear for the purposes of the record, the American Bar Association has never taken a position against the United Nations as such or proposals for the organization of nation: for peace and law with respect to a security organization to discuss and to attempt to secure the peace. This original committee had its name changed a little later when the United Nations was organized. and its present name is the Committee on Peace and Law Through the United Nations. So any criticism that has been leveled against the American Bar Association or against myself-and I have often received that criticism-that this movement for constitutiona amendment is an attack on the United Nations as such is untrue. Since the organization of the committee in 1944-Judge Ransom, by the way, the chairman of the committee, sat at San Francisco as an observer from one of the nonofficial organizations-since its organization this committee has prepared a careful report annually and semiannually and made its findings and recommendations to the house of delegates. While I myself, beginning with the meeting of the State bar in California at Santa Barbara in September 1948, announced the idea that it would require a constitutional amendment to meet this great crisis, it took the American Bar Association several years to come to that conclusion. I point that out merely to show that the conclusion which the American Bar Association came to, first, in February of last year at the February meeting was not a hasty conclusion. As you probably know, Mr. Chairman, when you start out to convince a jury not of 12 men, but you start out to convince a jury of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, of some 280 lawyers drawn from all over the United States and selected by their local bars and elected, you have quite a jury to talk to. I think you will recognize that, Senator Smith. And you will recognize that the American Bar Association house of delegates cannot be pushed around either by an American bar president or by anyone else. I went off the committee at that time. Mr. Alfred J. Schweppe, after the death of Judge Ransom, assumed the chairmanship. And I have not been on the committee since because there should not be two men from Seattle, and because I wanted to be a free lancer in this movement. So this committee, before it made any recommendations at all to the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, studied this question from September 1948, this question of the constitutional amendment, until February 1952, because there was considerable opinion, which you will have later voiced here, by the section on international law of the American Bar Association, and by others, that our constitutional rights could be sufficiently protected by reservations in treaties or understandings in treaties and that the constitutional amendment might not be necessary. But by February 1952, by an overwhelming vote of the house of delegates, and against the opposition of the section on international law, the house of delegates acted and adopted the text of a proposed amendment as to treaties. And when you read, sir, Mr. Smithey, this morning from the February report, the impression may have been gained by some that the house of delegates was reserving the matter of executive agreement because they did not think it ought to go into the same amendment. That was not true. They were reserving it in that particular |