Mr. GUNTHER. However, I certainly feel that this should not be the general practice and that if it is at all possible, if there is no overriding reason why it should not be presented to the Senate, then it certainly should be presented here for ratification.

Senator SMITH. Do you not feel that the Senate has just as much responsibility in the passage of any adoption of a treaty as does the Executive to the people?

Mr. GUNTHER. They certainly have more responsibility in the ratification of the treaty. However, I think the Constitution places the negotiation and terms of that treaty in the hands of the Executive with the exception that the Senate may, in ratifying a treaty, place exceptions or limitations on it.

Senator SMITH. In other words, the Senate under the Constitution is given that power in order that it might be a check on excessive use of power by any executive.

Mr. GUNTHER. That is one of the reasons why in reading the resolution Senate Joint Resolution 130 we feel that you make quite a change in the Constitution of the United States. I think it is section 3, where we talk about joint resolution. I think we might very well do away with the whole concept of the two-thirds of the Senate in regard to treaties. I do not think it would.

Mr. SMITHEY. You do not think that a treaty should abridge the laws of the United States or the Constitution?

Mr. GUNTHER. Even though the treaty did not do that, I would feel that under the language of that subsection they could still go right ahead and ratify it by a majority group.

Senator SMITH. Would not that illustration you just described be one attempt to invalidate one of those provisions? Suppose the State of Florida had a very severe restriction on practicing law, and we all understand why that is done, if the American Government wanted to enter into an agreement whereby its nationals could go to Florida and practice law, that would invalidate the law of Florida. I think that would be an illustration of that.

Mr. GUNTHER. I am afraid that it would be read to me without much difficulty that the Congress can, by joint resolution, which means the majority of the House and the Senate, pass some constitutional legislation. I do not think that can be done. I do not think it should be done. It certainly can be done if the Constitution says so.

Senator SMITH. Your point there is that a treaty under the Constitution at present would require a two-thirds majority and that this might, instead of requiring a two-thirds majority mean a treaty could be ratified in fact by an act or joint resolution of the Congress, which would be a majority.

Mr. GUNTHER. Yes. I think getting the Senate to do something is much more difficult than a majority of the Congress.

Senator SMITH. I agree with that. The party in power could push it through much more easily. I think myself that is a section there is criticism of and that we could afford to take another look into it. Senator HENDRICKSON. I think that criticism is justified. Senator O'CONOR. Are there any further questions?

Senator SMITH. You may have gotten his opinion of this before I came in here. I refer to this proposal in section 4 about executive agreements being terminated automatically 1 year after the end of the term. As to whether or not it ought to be in the Constitution is

one thing, but as to principle do you not think it is a good idea so that one President cannot tie the hands of his successor for a long time in advance?

Mr. GUNTHER. Since the executive agreements, we feel, have a limited usefulness and are primarily to be used in time of emergency, whether it be cold or hot war, then there could very well be practical limitations. I do not feel that there should be rigid limitations.

Senator SMITH. In other words, you cannot conceive of a new President ever wanting to expose something his predecessor had done if there was good reason that secrecy should be there?

Mr. GUNTHER. That is right.

Senator SMITH. I cannot conceive of a man big enough to be elected President ever wanting to do a thing of that sort.

Senator O'CONOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Gunther. We are very much obliged to you.

We will next hear from Mr. Brenckman, a member of the Pennsylvania State Grange. Mr. Brenckman, we will be very pleased to have you submit any statement that you desire to read, or would it be agreeable to you if we were to consider it all incorporated in the record and then make any supplementary remarks that you may desire to? Mr. BRENCKMAN. My statement is very brief and I believe I had better read it, if there is no objection.

STATEMENT OF FRED BRENCKMAN, REPRESENTATIVE, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE GRANGE, PALMERTON, PA.

Mr. BRENCKMAN. For many years I have been a member of Towamensing Grange, No. 1806, of Palmerton, Pa. I am likewise a member of the legislative committee of the Pennsylvania State Grange, which has a membership of 83,000. I want to make it clear that on this occasion I am not speaking for the National Grange, which has not formally taken any position with reference to the matter contained in Senate Joint Resolution 130.

At the seventy-ninth annual convention of the Pennsylvania State Grange, held at Butler, Pa., October 23-25, 1951, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

BILL OF RIGHTS

Whereas any treaty that has been ratified by the United States Senate thereby becomes a part of the supreme law of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution itself; and

Whereas the Appellate Court of California some time ago declared the alienland law of that State null and void on the grounds that it violated certain provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, which the court said was the supreme law of the land; and

Whereas the assembly of the United Nations is now engaged in framing a socalled Convention on Human Rights that is but a poor imitation of our own Bill of Rights, embodied in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we oppose ratification of this proposed treaty or any other treaty which might be construed by the courts as superseding the Constitution of the United States as it now stands, particularly with reference to all rights and immunities guaranteed to the people by our fundamental law.

It has been brought to our attention that since the above resolution was adopted by the Pennsylvania State Grange, last October, the Supreme Court of California, on April 17, 1952, handed down a decision reversing the court of appeals.

The supreme court, in a 4-to-3 decision, held the alien-land law invalid on the theory that it violated the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

However, both the majority and minority opinions rejected the reasoning of the district court of appeals that the statutes had been superseded by the Charter of the United Nations, which pledges signatory powers to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race.

The supreme court took the position that the provisions of the Charter, as they affected the plaintiff in the case, were not intended to be self-executing or to supersede existing domestic legislation.

In view of this decision it is held in some quarters that the nonself-executing character of the Charter of the United Nations in matters involving domestic legislation has been firmly established, and that we may, therefore, safely dismiss the subject from our minds.

But the fact remains that the Supreme Court of California is not the highest judicial tribunal in the land. It is impossible to foretell what the Supreme Court of the United States might have to say if this case is brought before it on appeal.

We do know that the second section of article VI of the Constitution unequivocally states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

That language, to say the least, is rather embarrassing when it comes to the consideration of the provisions of treaties that are alleged to be non-self-executing.

When the provision which makes a treaty the supreme law of the land was written into the Constitution it was considered fair enough. It continued to be all right so long as treaties with foreign nations touched such things as boundaries, port amenities, fishery rights, reciprocal trade agreements, and kindred subjects.

It becomes an entirely different matter when international treaties begin to intrude on our internal social and economic arrangements, our civic rights, and our domestic laws.

Of course, the men who drafted the Constitution never dreamed that such a thing as the Charter of the United Nations would ever become the supreme law of the land. In discussing on the floor of the Senate the need for the proposed amendment, Senator Bricker said:

The menacing loophole we see in the Constitution today was simply not visible in 1787. It was not revealed until the invention of novel theories of international law. These revolutionary theories could not have been anticipated 165 years ago.

When the Constitution was drafted there was no thought that any nation or group of nations had any right to interfere in the purely domestic affairs of any other nation.

It is not only that the Charter of the United Nations, as now interpreted in some quarters, has brought about a change in this connection, but various agencies of the United Nations are now busy in drafting various "covenants" and "conventions" that are designed to implement and give teeth to the articles of the Charter which, as they stand,

represent only ideal intentions and are not in themselves considered mandatory. These "covenants" and "conventions" are then offered as treaties to be adopted by the member nations.

One of these instruments, known as the Genocide Convention, has already been sent to the Senate by President Truman, accompanied by an urgent plea for ratification.

Another "covenant," which is not yet in final form, and which has been subjected to numerous revisions, is known as the International Covenant on Human Rights. These proposed treaties, if they are ratified, will become the supreme law of the land.

Genocide means race murder. Every civilized person is naturally against that. However, the Genocide Convention goes further than outlawing race murder.

It outlaws: First, killing members of a group; second, causing serious bodily or mental harm to a group; third, deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and, fourth, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The purpose of the "convention" is to transfer criminal jurisdiction of all signatory countries to the United Nations for trial and punishment. If this proposed treaty should be ratified by the Senate, American citizens accused of genocide in one form or another could be brought before an international court to answer to the charge.

That is a revolutionary idea which the people of the United States cannot be expected to approve, regardless of the fact that they abhor the crime of race murder or any other kind of murder.

Turning to the International Covenant on Human Rights, this represents an attempt to safeguard the rights of the peoples of other nations of the world against abuse on the part of their respective governments, just as our own Bill of Rights protects the people of the United States against the exercise of arbitrary power on the part of the Government.

However, it would naturally be extremely difficult if not impossible to get the fifty-odd countries comprising the United Nations to agree to the provisions of a bill of rights that would be at all comparable with our own. Such a bill of rights would be so full of "jokers" as to make it worthless to all practical intents and purposes.

Our Bill of Rights, embodied in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution declares:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Congress is forbidden to legislate on these subjects at all.

But the International Covenant on Human Rights, according to last reports, sets forth these badly diluted substitutes for the genuine rights guaranteed in our own Bill of Rights:

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are pursuant to law and are reasonable and necessary.

The International Covenant further says:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression-subject to certain penalties and liabilities and restrictions, but these shall be only such as are provided by law and are necessary.

It further declares:

The right to peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary.

If the International Covenant on Human Rights were ratified as a treaty, and remembering that under the Constitution when a treaty has been ratified it becomes the supreme law of the land, what would become of our own Bill of Rights?

That is a question which the American people have a right to ask. It was reassuring to have Senator Bricker say when he introduced his resolution, cosponsored by a majority of the Members of the Senate, regardless of party :

The introduction of this joint resolution should not be construed as reflecting any lack of confidence in either the present membership of the Senate or the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. There is not the remotest chance that even one-third of the present Senate would undermine the rights of the American people by voting for the United Nations draft Covenant on Human Rights or any other treaty of similar import. However, the rights and freedoms enumerated in the Constitution must be protected in perpetuity, and not merely by the sufferance of the President and two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.

Senator Bricker made it plain that no sponsor of the proposed amendment to the Constitution claims that its language is perfect or in final form. The drafting of such an amendment naturally requires skill, patience, and the most mature deliberation.

Congress should welcome all constructive criticism regarding the proposed amendment and endeavor to eliminate any provision that in the future might prove embarrassing or unworkable.

However, that there is urgent need for this kind of amendment seems clear and beyond dispute. Under the Constitution, with the blessing of God, the American people have enjoyed a greater measure of liberty, happiness, and prosperity than has ever before been vouchsafed to any nation.

With democracy on the backtrack in many lands, and with a large part of the population of the world existing wretchedly under totalitarian rule, there is justification for saying that the Constitution is all that stands between us and the fulfillment of that dreary doctrine of tyranny and dictatorship that man is the creature of the state.

As Americans we like to think that Gladstone was right when he declared that the Constitution is the most perfect instrument of government ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.

If the Constitution is to be amended, we want it done by the American people themselves in the manner prescribed in our organic law, and not through an abuse of the treaty-making power, with foreign nations, who have no conception of the genius of our institutions, meddling in our domestic affairs.

Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable to you, I have a few specific comments that I want to make that I hope might be helpful to the committee in considering this question.

Section 1 of the proposed amendment reads:

No treaty or executive agreement shall be made respecting the rights of citizens of the United States protected by this Constitution, or abridging or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.