at any time, on my own time and at my own expense, I will fly down to Washington on 48 hours' notice.

Senator FERGUSON. We had one more witness who wanted to appear. Senator HENDRICKSON. I want to thank Mr. Holman for his testimony, Mr. Chairman. I think he has made a great contribution to the solution of the problem that is before us.

Senator FERGUSON. The argument of Professor Chafee yesterday seemed to be along the line of one of policy, whether or not we should not feel as Senators that we can take care of a situation at any time that it might arise, and that the Senate will not approve anything that is not right for the people. Of course, the people, when they drew the Constitution, did not think that, because they said that the Constitution would be the brakes on the Senate and the House. And I am wondering whether they would not feel the same way about it in a treaty if it was presented to them, as you have presented it here today, that they must preserve unto themselves a means of protection, rather than to say a majcrity in the House and the Senate, or twothirds in the Senate of the members present, could change their whole fundamental law.

Mr. HOLMAN. Well, I think they feel that way very strongly.

Senator FERGUSON. That is what you were saying at the last there, is it not?

Mr. HOLMAN. They do not feel in any doubt about the Senate, but the Senate is very busy, and there is a lot of fine print in these treaties like there is in an insurance policy. Even lawyers, in connection with insurance policies, sometimes don't read the fine print. And as I said as to this other matter, it is a protection to the Senate. It is a protection to everybody.

Senator FERGUSON. At least it is a flag which would call it to our attention.

Mr. HOLMAN. And I would like to say this, Senator. And then I will have to ask to be excused. I have an appointment over in the House of Representatives on another matter.

As I read the temper of the people of the United States, I might say this. Up to the present time the American Bar Association has tried to support the United Nations. You will find in all its reports that its only attack has been upon this particular thing. As an organization to discuss and attempt to keep the peace, the American bar has supported it, and so have I. But the American people are souring on the United Nations. And I would think that it was the better part of wisdom, even though we are an ardent internationalist to begin to see the light, and if this treaty made by the Social and Economic Council goes on and it becomes more and more evident to the American people that their basic rights are being changed, I think they will just sour on the whole of the United Nations. And I think the best service this committee can render and the best service the Congress can render to the United Nations is to protect the American people on this issue and then let the United Nations function as a collective security organization to discuss and attempt to maintain the peace.

Senator FERGUSON. Thank you.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Would it surprise you that this morning I talked to a prominent member of the American World Federalists, and he thought we should pass such an amendment?

Mr. HOLMAN. They are beginning to see the light. It has been a hard job.

Senator FERGUSON. We have a matter on the floor that the Judiciary Committee is vitally interested in, being the immigration bill. I understand that they are taking voice votes there, and I think we will really have to recess until Tuesday morning.

I am sorry that we cannot go further.

We will recess until Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock in room 424. (Whereupon, at 2:45 p. m., Thursday, May 22, 1952, the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m. Tuesday, May 27, 1952, in room 424.)

TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1952

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C.

in room

The subcommittee, met, pursuant to recess, at 10:25 a. m., 424, Senate Office Building, Hon. Willis Smith presiding. Present: Senators Smith of North Carolina, Ferguson, and Hendrickson.

Also present: Wayne H. Smithey, professional staff member. Senator SMITH. Senator McCarran has been delayed in getting in. He just sent word for me to proceed with the hearing.

I am going to now call on Mr. Bruce, Under Secretary of State, who was to be heard at 10:30, and then we will get back to the others who are listed on the agenda.

Mr. Bruce, I do not know just what Senator McCarran had in mind about procedure this morning and whether or not he had any understanding with you one way or the other. But if he did not, you could proceed in such manner as you wished to in discussing this resolution. STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID K. BRUCE, ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE, ACCOMPANIED BY ADRIAN S. FISHER, LEGAL ADVISER, STATE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BRUCE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have to read such a long statement. I think it will take in excess of half an hour. But after giving a great deal of consideration to this proposed resolution, we decided, as regards the State Department, that it was of such fundamental importance that we wanted to be accorded the opportunity to have a careful response to your invitation to appear before you in the record.

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Bruce, do you cover the American Bar Association's proposal as well as the Senate Joint Resolution 130, in your remarks?

Mr. BRUCE. I touch on the American Bar Association's proposal, sir. Senator FERGUSON. You have that in mind in making the statement? Mr. BRUCE. Yes; we have that in mind.

I was very much struck, as will come out in the statement in part, in going over some of the questions which were raised by this very interesting resolution, with the similarity, the very fundamental similarity, between this question being discussed today and what occurred 160 years ago in the Constitutional Convention, which was commented on, as you will recall, at great length in the Federalist Papers. And in the discussion we have included a great many comments on the Federalist Papers.

22984-52- -12

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I should first like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to give you the views of the State Department with regard to Senate Joint Resolution 130. This proposal to amend the Constitution with respect to the treaty power of the Federal Government concerns every agency of the Government which operates in the foreign field. It concerns our Armed Forces whose operations and status abroad depend upon international treaties and agreements. It concerns our Mutual Security Administration, our Department of Commerce, and even our Post Office. But, of course, it concerns the Department of State most of all.

Mr. Chairman, the Department has already written the subcommittee that we think that an amendment to the Constitution such as proposed in Senate Joint Resolution 130 would not serve the best interests of the citizens of the Government of the United States.

This proposed amendment would alter the basic structure of this Government as established by the Constitution. It is contrary to the basic theory of separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States Government. It would seriously curtail the treaty-making authority of the United States and prevent this Government from entering into many treaties which are beneficial and necessary to the interests of the United States and its citizens.

Senator FERGUSON. Could I inquire there if it is the contention of the State Department that the treaty-making power is now unlimited, with no restrictions whatever on it?

Mr. BRUCE. I deal with that later in the brief, sir, but if you want I could take it up at this time.

Senator FERGUSON. No. Is that your contention, though?

Mr. BRUCE. No, that is subject to the restrictions placed thereon by the Constitution, ratification by two-thirds of the present Members of the Senate.

Senator FERGUSON. And do you cover the question of agreements? Mr. BRUCE. We do, sir, quite fully.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you distinguish between the treaty and the executive agreement?

Mr. BRUCE. We do, sir.

It would so seriously interfere with the historic and fundamental functions of the Executive and the Senate in the field of foreign affairs that it would jeopardize the influence of the United States in the world today.

Any proposal to amend the United States Constitution is, of course, a very serious matter. The greatness of the United States today, the strongest and freest country in the world, is the living proof of the greatness of our Constitution and of the wisdom and foresight of the statesmen who wrote this magnificent instrument. I think, therefore, when we propose to change any part of this instrument which was so carefully worked out in Philadelphia in 1787 we should look back to see why they wrote that part as they did.

Alexander Hamilton explained quite fully in the Federalist (No. LXXV) why the treaty-making authority was conferred jointly upon the President and the Senate. This was a great exception to the general rule of the Constitution that the executive and the legislative branches of Government exercise separate and independent powers.