Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of working mothers would be financed by Government beneGovernment would provide nurseries at the factory so that cers could nurse their offspring on company time. A delegate China asked Don Knowlton, of Cleveland, Ohio, a member of -United States employer delegation: "Don't you have families over

In my country, the mother takes care of her babies at home." 2ther member of the United States employer delegation to the 20, Will McGrath, of Cincinnati, Ohio, captured the meaning of -Gevention for Maternity Protection when he observed that are treated merely as a biological necessity."

are Joint Resolution 1 would not prevent the United States aking humanitarian treaties subject to two conditions: First, treaty can be effective to undermine the constitutional rights Azerican citizens (sec. 1); and secondly, no such treaty can be ve to entrust the rights of American citizens to the supervision trol of international agencies over which they exercise no sec. 2). Tat is section 2 and that is the one I want the representatives of the gran Bar Association to give their attention to. There are many s that are within the province of the Federal Government of intry that are of purely domestic concern, the power to tax Any other things, the power to supervise social security, wages ours, which are now under the interpretation of the Supreme in its recent decisions in social security cases purely a matter Feral concern and if the Federal Government can exercise that, - Federal Government can join with others in the exercise of it an grant such powers to international authority. It is to prevent d of a diffusion of power over the citizens of America to outauthorities that we have drafted section 2.

§ 5, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the consideration and urtesy of this committee for allowing me this morning to explain eding resolution. In working on this problem for more than e of years now, Mr. Webb in my office has been giving pracall his time to it, he has been in constant touch with the repreatves of this committee. I have discussed it personally with ers of the Senate and I was gratified when I presented this tion No. 1 that 63 other Members of the Senate saw fit to trust dgment and consideration of this subject and join with me in resentation.

s is a clear and an imminent danger to the rights of the American In the Declaration of Independence there was a new phi*y of government expressed, something new in the expanding dence of the world, and that philosophy was that the Ameripeople are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Those inalienable rights are beyond the reach of the power vernment itself.

ys further in that declaration that governments are instituted en to secure these rights, hold onto them, keep them, not give t to hold onto them. There is no nation, as I understand it, History of the world, and I have diligently searched to find a ar provision, there is no nation that has a similar concept of liberty any place in the whole wide world either before or the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

SC72-53

Now, the Constitution was drafted to secure those rights, followi up the purpose and the intent of the philosophy expressed in t Declaration of Independence. The people of the country were n satisfied with the Constitution that was submitted and as a rest under the leadership of men like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferso old Sam Adams and some of the rest of the leaders, they demand a bill of rights, a bill of rights which would secure for all time t inalienable rights of the citizens of this country against the power government itself.

Every other country on the face of the earth today looks upon th rights of individual citizens as something that government gives them and if government gives it, government can take it away, whi in this country they are put clearly beyond the reach of governmen Had it not been so and had not the Bill of Rights been drafted an adopted and ratified by the States, there might have been times in th country when passion and when a popular movement might have wipe out freedom of speech or freedom of religion even or the freedom o assembly, and today those inalienable God-given divine rights ar imperiled by treaty law. What this amendment would in essence d is to keep the rights of the American people in the spiritual realn and not place them in temporal power of government, and certainl not in the temporal power of an international government which í controlled by countries which are totalitarian in their philosophy and seem to have no concept of the God-given inalienable rights that th people of America enjoy.

It is for that reason that I have been insistent upon this, that I have diligently worked on it and that I have brought it to the attention of the committee this morning.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee, and especially I want to express my appreciation to the American Bar and to the others for the fine support they have given, and to Frank Holman who was the first man to see this danger and point it out to the American lawyers and to the American people.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Watkins, have you any questions?

Senator WATKINS. I have no questions. I merely say I join wholeheartedly in Senator Bricker's statement. I am one of the cosponsors of this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dirksen?

Senator DIRKSEN. No. I may have some at a later time. But I do want to do honor to my friend, John Bricker, who I know has labored so long and earnestly and has discussed this matter all over the United States. I think the Congress and the people owe him a debt of gratitude for the service he has rendered the country in making the country conscious, for without that labor, I doubt whether all of the editorials which have appeared in the newspapers, the articles, which could have brought the consciousness which is revealed today in the letters of people to Members of the Senate who have expressed their concern about this matter. I do not think, John, it could have been done in any other way except the hard labor you have rendered in connection with the good efforts of the American Bar Association and those I have followed also.

Senator BRICKER. You are very gracious and I appreciate it very much, Senator Dirksen.

Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this matter with the representatives Twill testify further here this morning. I have read the testimony f some of them. I want to come back and spend all the time here I can. Mr. Webb will be here throughout all the hearings. He I have discussed this practically every day for the last year when Lave been here. I have a meeting with the Atomic Energy Comee which is very important this morning, if I may be excused. The CHAIRMAN. I am going to relax the rules and permit somebody the American Bar Association to ask you any questions they tay care to. I will designate Mr. Holman. Are there any questions want to ask the Senator before he leaves, Mr. Holman? Mr. HOLMAN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Senator and I have exchanged hundreds of questions pon this matter and we of the American Bar greatly appreciate terest and his efforts and his spirit of cooperation in attempting Fork out some proper amendment here. We endorse wholeheartall his statement with respect to the need and necessity of the

Ciment.

I think the final job of this committee, if I may say so, is merely an appropriate text be submitted.

At this stage I have no particular questions to ask. The CHAIRMAN. Could you say before Senator Bricker leaves how resolution of the American Bar Association differs from his? Mr. HOLMAN. Yes; our resolution is drawn in somewhat less lanI should state for the record, sir, that I do not represent the rican Bar Association. I am no longer on this committee. I For the committee from its inception in 1944 until I became presiof the American Bar Association. Then Mr. Schweppe under appointment became chairman of the committee. I have been a of roving free-lancer, making speeches and writing articles and ing half of my time and thousands of dollars of my own money ng the last 4 years.

Sin answer to your question, there is a text, sir, that was officially ved by the house of delegates of the American Bar Association 4 February 1952 and its September 1952 meetings. Since that

ere was a 4-day meeting in New Orleans by the American Bar mittee, of which Mr. Schweppe is chairman, which I was asked to - as consultant and in which some slight change has been made in the language that was officially adopted by the American Bar Sation, but the change in our opinion does not in any wise change purport of the American Bar's resolution. So, I am giving you sir, the last text which was introduced by Senator Watkins in Late on Monday as Senate Joint Resolution 43.

The last text, sir, reads this simple, three sentences. It will be in statement which I shall make:

Aprovision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution be of any force or effect.

ence No. 2:

I treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

er words, the legislation cannot raise itself on the steps of the The only change in that sentence was that in the original an Bar draft last February we said "only through legislation

by the Congress." In New Orleans that phrase was taken out becau in some instances you do have State legislation. For example, in m neighboring State of Idaho they have an alien-property law, as do California and my own State of Washington, but Idaho's law is little differently drawn in that it provides that aliens are not entitled own land in the State of Idaho except where aliens of a particula nationality are so granted that right by treaty. So there you ge some State legislation, you see.

In the old case of Geofroy v. Riggs, a treaty was implemented b State legislation, and we felt that we did not want to change any moi basic concepts than were necessary and that hence, if we said "onl through legislation," leaving out the phrase "by the Congress," tha would leave the State to function where it has a right to function an may function and leave the Congress with a right to function.

That, to my mind, illustrates what Sir Henry Main once said: tha the more you work over language, the simpler it gets and the mor you are inclined to eliminate prepositional phrases and causal clauses So, this last draft is compressed down with the prepositional phrase out in two or three instances.

Now, the third sentence:

Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and t the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

Now, that third sentence is slightly different from the draft of the American Bar in the February report of this committee. For instance, we said the "function and scope of the executive agreements.' There you again get in one of these phrases which initially you think broadens what you are trying to say but actually is a limitation. Now there may be something in executive agreements, because they have been resorted to in time of crisis like Yalta, that comprehend something else than function and scope. So we took that phrase out and just simply said "executive agreements" without limitation-"Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress." Now, we had in the original draft of the American Bar "regulations insofar as they affect constitutional rights." There is another prepositiona phrase again which at first looks good, you see, but the general use of our original Constitution or the Constitution of the United States is itself brevity. It says, "Congress shall have power to regulate domestic and foreign commerce." It does not say "the scope and function of foreign and domestic commerce"; it just says "regulate." So we have taken out there; and it reads now, "Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article." So we have just three sentences. Now we have agreed with Senator Bricker, and I am very happy, and hope on Friday, after the developing ideas produced at these hearings are before us, to sit down with him-not for an hour but for 2, 3, 4, or 5 hours-and attempt to determine, if I may say, Senator Bricker, to what extent we can simplify yours, because, after all, we have to sell this to the State legislatures, and the simpler and more direct the language, it would seem to us, the better the public, the press, and the State legislatures will understand what we are trying to do. Now, does that answer you?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; thank you.

Senator BRICKER. You will, Mr. Holman, give attention to section 2, which you do not cover?

Mr. HOLMAN. We spent 2 hours on it last night, and we will spend hours tonight.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the staff any questions to ask?

Mr. SMITHEY. I would like to ask a question as to the word you ted might be inserted in the American Bar proposal, on page :f the bill which Senator Watkins introduced by request, Senate -nt Resolution 43. If that were inserted, it would read:

artite treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty. Senator BRICKER. Either multilateral or multipartite, which would > better word.

Mr. SMITHEY. Supposing that word were inserted, could the intent ft language be circumvented by the fact that a good many of

blateral treaties contain what is known as the most-favoreda clause? You will remember the testimony on Senate Joint ibition 130. Mr. Schweppe, on page 141, said that there were 35 ons with whom the United States has inserted these most-favoreden clauses. Would that present some problem?

ator BRICKER. I doubt very much. Those most-favored-nation :s deal with tariffs and commerce matters more than anything and I doubt if a treaty of friendship or commerce would in any * be subject to the most-favored-nation clause. If it were, it i have to be protected. I grant you that frankly. The CHAIRMAN. Now, when do you think you will have this worked this agreement between Senator Bricker and the American Bar Aation!

Mr. HOLMAN. As I said, sir-our minds are still open-we hope it by these hearings in the next day or two. We hope to profit those who are opposed to us, and we are going into session at ck Friday morning. We are going to spend as long at it as Ted to.

Ïe CHAIRMAN. Of course, you understand that will mean we will to have a hearing again on whatever you agree on. Mr. HOLMAN. I understand that, sir, but, as I understand, you teen asked, as the committee last year, to hold these open for ers from Secretary Dulles and others; and in that connection f it is in accord with protocol or practice, why, I am sure Mr. seppe and I will be glad to have notice so that we may listen further oral testimony that takes place. We only want to be fi, sir, and we would like to have the ideas of any other witnesses pear after today and tomorrow.

[ocr errors]

HAIRMAN. Mr. Holman, the only thing I want to impress the members of the American Bar Association is that Senator wants prompt action. I think that is true of all the cosponsors bill. We are not going to have any delay. In other words, Te are going to get this thing. We are going to give everybody in Tington a chance to be heard, but we are going to take prompt

[ocr errors]

n on it.

ator BRICKER. We will move very rapidly, I assure you.

ator WATKINS. In introducing Senate Resolution 43 I did so ... request of the American Bar people because they wanted to their text_officially before the committee. I am a cosponsor of ae Joint Resolution 1, and I was very happy to join in it. I am

« AnteriorContinuar »