ments. But for large numbers of purely routine acts, about which no public opinion exists and no question as to their acceptability arises, the present (treaty) method is desirable as saving the time of the House of Representatives (McClure, op. cit., p. 378).

In the light of certain past experience, rejection of the Human Rights Covenant by the Senate might cause it to be submitted in the form of a joint resolution. And failing approval by a majority of both Houses, we might expect a partial adherence to the draft covenant by the President invoking his so-called inherent powers in the field of foreign affairs.

The Supreme Court has already confirmed to a dangerous degree the existence of inherent Federal powers in foreign affairs. The Supreme Court in the Curtiss-Wright case (299 U. S. 304), said that the Federal Government's powers with respect to external affairs exceeded those delegated in the Constitution. Later decisions have indicated that an executive agreement, not approved by the Congress, may become internal law, even to the extent that of overriding State laws or policies to the contrary.

We are told that American foreign policy vitally affects the life and liberty of the American people. That is true. It will continue to be true for generations to come. Because foreign policy does have an unprecedented effect on all phases of domestic policy it should be made subject to the same checks and balances. By bringing executive and other agreements under legislative control, I see no danger of hamstringing the conduct of foreign policy. One of the first acts of Congress would no doubt be a general authorization for the Secretary of State to conclude without further congressional approval current diplomatic business of a routine nature.

On the other hand, should the President be permitted to agree with other U. N. members that the United States will go to war to halt aggression when two-thirds of General Assembly so recommend? Is such an agreement now under consideration? If so, will the Senate or the Congress be asked to approve it? These are some of the questions which I would ask the State Department witnesses who testify in these hearings.

The most glaring weakness in the conduct of American foreign policy has been the assumption of international obligations by the President which the Congress has not approved and which it is reluctant to implement. Members of the Congress charge that the President has usurped power, or has suppressed information, or has failed to consult them in advance.

The President charges that Congress seeks to invade his constitutional prerogatives or that it is welshing on a valid international commitment. We can look forward to this perennial dog fight, no matter who the occupant of the White House may be, until such time as all the elected representatives of the people are given clear-cut responsibilities in formulation of foreign policy.

The pending resolution raises extremely complex issues of international and constitutional law. My hope is that these hearings will provide the information necessary to perfect its language. If I may be of any help to you in that connection, please do not hesitate to call on me.

We have been working on this in our office now for 2 years. We have explored many facets of it and the more we work at it the more

complex it becomes; and the more we analyze it the more dangerous the present trend seems to me to be to the liberties of the American people and to our constitutional structure.

I presented, as you well know, on the floor of the Senate many times various phases of this issue, and too often there are too few Senators on the floor and too few of us have the time to read the Congressional Record. At the fear of maybe putting too much in the record, I am going to suggest, though, that those presentations, along with the one or two others, be copied into this record so it will be available to the committee and for distribution to the members of the bar throughout the country.

I think it is justified, Mr. Chairman, on the basis that this is in my mind most of the most critical problems that we have in this country, and ought to have as thorough and widespread publicity of the educational advantage of this committee's research work as possible.

Senator O'CONOR. May I just inquire at this time if you will identify that?

Senator BRICKER. Yes. The first one I wanted to submit-and I give these in reverse order-is on the proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States that I presented on February 7, 1952, at the time I presented this Resolution 130. I might ask that be marked "Exhibit A" and placed in the record.

(This exhibit and succeeding exhibits appear in the Appendix and are marked with the exhibit designations placed upon them at the time they were offered for the record.)

Senator BRICKER. Then, I have here-this is outside of the Congressional Record-an article which was published in the Freeman, entitled, "The United Nations Blueprint for Tyranny" [exhibit B].

Then, I have another one, dated May 15, 1952, which was presented on the floor of the Senate, and is entitled "America's Greatest Danger: Domestic Legislation by Treaty." Possibly that could be marked "Exhibit C."

Another one here, dated April 22, 1952, "Dealing With the Problem of Socialism By Treaty," was not presented on the floor of the Senate, but was given before the Conference of Small Business Organizations here in Washington on that day. We could mark that "Exhibit D."

I am doing this so I will not have to go into details of the various phases of this matter. I wanted to save that much time with the limited time of the committee that I know exists for the members of the American Bar who have been working on this for a period of 2 or 3 years.

Another one is entitled, "Meaning of Freedom." This particularly applies to the freedom of the press and was given in New York before the Silurians-that is, a group of newspapermen who have been in the service for 50 years or more-on the 12th of November 1951 [exhibit E].

I have another one dealing with one special phase of this treaty and of the possibilities of an international court. It deals with the subject, Revival of the Star Chamber, and doing away with the trial by jury. That was delivered on September 18, 1951, to the Senate [exhibit F]. Another one, dealing particularly with the freedom of the press, was delivered on July 17, 1951, on the floor of the Senate [exhibit G]. Last Sunday we had a meeting at Ohio State University of the

rewrite people in the press of the State, called the "Blue Pencil Club." It dealt with another phase of this matter at that time. I would like to have that made a part of the record also [exhibit H].

Then, I would like to call attention at this time in regard to the freedom of the press and the attitude of the press generally toward these matters, to pages 50, 51, and 52, marked in red pencil, which is only a page and a half, of the report of the sixty-sixth annual convention of the American Newspaper Publishers Association, which was held at the Hotel Waldorf-Astoria in New York on April 22, 23, and 24. I ask that that page and a half be made a part of the record [exhibit I].

I have endless resolutions from various organizations. One just came to my desk. I do not want it made a part of the record particularly. However, it is from the National Society of New England Women. This meeting was held at Virginia Beach on May 12 and 13. That just came to my desk this morning. We have dozens of those and also editorials from various newspapers throughout the country, practically all of which support our position in this, or at least the spirit or intent of the amendment. Some of them might favor the American Bar amendment, and others might favor the details of the amendment which the 58 Senators submitted.

I do not want to burden the record with all of those. Many of them I have put in the Congressional Record, however, and in the interest of saving time I have submitted these and have limited my discussion to the matters which I have presented so that the American Bar members, which are not always with us, will be able to have all the time possible.

Senator O'CONOR. If Senator Hendrickson concurs, I would suggest that they all be considered as received and accepted by the committee in connection with the hearing. The committee has under consideration the suggestion, and to the extent they will be published because it has been proposed that certain of the testimony will be circularized, so if agreeable to you, they will be considered as accepted, and the entire committee then will pass on the question of whether to incorporate them at this point in the record or at another part as a supplement.

Senator BRICKER. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman. (The documents referred to were filed for the record and appear in the appendix.)

Senator BRICKER. We are working in our office now on getting up a similar pamphlet, and I wished that our office could keep in touch with the staff of this committee in regard to that. It might be put out as a committee document. We have sought to eliminate any duplication and extraneous matters and get down to the very heart of the problem in that pamphlet. It is in sort of booklet form and may be 100, 150, or 200 pages. We shall be very happy to cooperate. Senator O'CONOR. We are grateful to you for the comprehensive and very splendid statement that you have presented.

Have you any questions, Senator Hendrickson?

Senator HENDRICKSON. No.

Senator BRICKER. We are going into it very thoroughly on the floor, but, as I said, your audience is a bit limited.

Senator HENDRICKSON. I would like to say I have heard all your speeches.

Senator BRICKER. Yes; I know.

I wanted to express my appreciation to you, and to the members of the bar. Thank you very much.

Senator O'CONOR. I might mention that the able Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Saltonstall, has communicated with the committee since we opened the hearing this morning. It happens that General Ridgway at this minute is testifying before the Armed Services Committee, of which Senator Saltonstall is a very active member. He is coming here, and he wishes us, as you know, at the very earliest moment, but rather than to break into that testimony, he prefers to have the other witnesses to proceed, and then he will come over at the earliest opportunity when we will be glad to hear from him.

Senator BRICKER. He told me he wanted to testify here in support of the amendment. I think General Ridgway is testifying on the prison episode. I guess there are other members over there.

Thank you very much, if I may be excused now.

Senator O'CONOR. Yes, indeed.

We will be in touch with you about this.

The next group mentioned are the representatives of the American Bar Association. We will be very happy to have all the members come up, or Mr. Rix.

Senator HENDRICKSON. Mr. Chairman, before we start this testimony, I would like to say it is going to be necessary for me to leave. We are having a hearing at the House this morning on two compacts between the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Both Governors are down here and I have to leave and go over there, but I will be back as soon as I can.

Senator O'CONOR. We appreciate that, Senator Hendrickson.

STATEMENT OF ALFRED J. SCHWEPPE, SEATTLE, WASH., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND LAW THROUGH UNITED NATIONS OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Senator O'CONOR. Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Mr. SCHWEPPE. My name is Alfred John Schweppe, of Seattle, Wash.

Senator O'CONOR. You are chairman of the committee on peace and law through the United Nations of the American Bar Association? Mr. SCHWEPPE. Yes.

Speaking as chairman of the American Bar Association's committee on peace and law through United Nations, I appreciate the invitation extended to the members of this committee to be here today. All seven members of this committee are, or will be, present at this hearing today or tomorrow, in order to be of such assistance to the United States Senate as we may be in considering the subject matter of this important Senate Joint Resolution No. 130, introduced by Senator Bricker, of Ohio, with some 60 Senators as cosponsors.

For the record, the American Bar Association comprises approximately 50,000 lawyers of the United States, and in its make-up represents, so nearly as may be, the entire organized bar of the United States. The house of delegates of the American Bar Association, which is its governing body, comprising several hundred members, is

made up (1) of representatives of the members of the American Bar from each of the 48 States and the Territories; (2) of representatives of all of the State and the principal city bar associations in the United States; and (3) of representatives of other leading law organizations, such as the American Law Institute and the American Judicature Society.

The American Bar Association has, for its objectives, the protection of the Constitution of the United States, the maintenance of peace through law, and the improvement of the administration of justice in all its phases.

The resolutions of the house of delegates are adopted only after careful study by committees and such discussion and debate as the subject matter requires.

The resolutions of the house of delegates are the official action of the American Bar Association. The association, as such, speaks only by formal action of its house of delegates, just as does the United States Senate. Hence, in this hearing today, except insofar as I present an official resolution of the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, relating to the subject matter of the hearing, I— and that applies to other members of our committee-do not speak for the American Bar Association, as such, but solely as an individual member of the committee on peace and law, which, by reason of having made extended studies and reports in this field, has some moderately informed views on the subject.

The American Bar Association committee on peace and law consists of seven persons. Besides the chairman, the members are Mr. Carl B. Rix, of Milwaukee, vice chairman of the committee and a former president of the American Bar Association; Chief Judge Orie Phillips of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, who, incidentally, was recipient in 1950 of the American Bar Association medal for distinguished service in the cause of American jurisprudence, the highest award within the gift of the American Bar Association; Mr. Frank B. Ober, a distinguished lawyer from Baltimore, Md.; Mr. Vermont Hatch, of the well-known firm of White & Case, New York City; Mr. Eberhart P. Deutsch, one of the leading members of the New Orleans bar; and Dr. George A. Finch of Washington, D. C., who is a distinguished practitioner and professor in the field of international law in this city, who is also editor in chief of the American Journal of International Law, and who was a member of the State Department during the secretaryship of that great American lawyer, Mr. Elihu Root.

The American Bar Association committee on peace and law has for its field the study and appraisal of the work of the United Nations, and of the position of the United States in that work, and of the impact of United Nations programs on Federal and State law in the United States. The committee has studied and reported, and in some instances held regional conferences throughout the United States, on such subjects as the Statute of the World Court, the codification of international law, the Genocide Convention, the proposed Covenant on Human Rights, the proposed Covenant on Freedom of Information, the proposed News-Gathering Convention, and so forth. Because of the large number of new treaties being proposed by the United Nations in the political, social, and economic fields, and be