Resolved, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, urge Congress to adopt Senate Joint Resolution 130 to prevent treaties becoming the supreme law of the land;

Resolved, That every Daughter attending this Congress considers herself pledged to go home and make known to her two Senators the urgent need of the adoption of this resolution.

Also adopted was a resolution opposing world government:

Whereas the Charter of the United Nations was adopted upon the thesis that the Big Five, and the other nations which should sign the Charter, should retain their individual sovereignty as free and independent nations, combining their efforts and, under certain conditions, their armaments in a joint effort to promote and maintain peace:

Resolved, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution uphold that interpretation of the United Nations Charter and reiterate their opposition to any attempt to bring about through the United Nations or by any other medium a world government or a partial world-government organization. I urge your subcommittee to approve Senate Joint Resolution 130 as soon as possible.

The Daughters of the American Revolution have a special interest in section 2 of the proposed amendment. My testimony will be limited to that section, to amplify the stand of the American Bar Association.

If section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 130 is adopted and ratified by the required number of State legislatures, three-fourths of the 48, then it would require an amendment to the Constitution before the United States could surrender its sovereignty to any world or regional government.

I believe that section 2 of Mr. Bricker's proposal is essential in any amendment designed to protect the freedom of the American people against abuse of the treaty-making power.

In the first few years after the end of World War II, some 23 State legislatures memorialized Congress to hasten the day of world government. This action was inspired by impractical idealists, unthinking humanitarians, and others whose motives were less honorable.

At this point the Daughters of the American Revolution pioneered in and later were joined by patriotic and veterans' organizations in an educational campaign to warn against imminent dangers jeopardizing our national sovereignty through any form of world government.

Of the 23 State legislatures which passed world-government resolutions, 18 have rescinded their action. This would indicate that the vast majority of the American people are opposed to world government or the loss of our independence of action.

We are concerned, however, by the fact that essential attributes of national sovereignty may now be surrendered by treaty or executive agreement. Some proponents of the Atlantic Union form of world government recognize the fact that an amendment to the Constitution should be approved for their resolution. Some of the United World Federalists advocate the same procedure. But the Constitution at present contains no express prohibition against a surrender of national sovereignty through treaty adoption.

The greatest threat to American sovereignty is presented by those who seek a gradual approach to world government through the United Nations.

The American Association for the United Nations is an organization which maintains that world government can and should be achieved by United Nations treaties and by flexible interpretation of the U. N. Charter.

The position of the Daughters of the American Revolution is that our national sovereignty is essential to the freedom of the American people and the preservation of our constitutional Republic. Our organization will continue to fight those who seek to destroy American independence for the sake of world government. We will continue to oppose those who try to indoctrinate our children with the idea that they are now world citizens or citizens of the United Nations rather than American citizens.

The Daughters of the American Revolution will continue to expose the fallacies inherent in the world-government idea. The fundamental fallacy, of course, is that the people of the world now have so much in common that they can unite under one government. The establishment of our own union is cited as a precedent.

The fact is that the American colonists had a common language, a common concept of law, common political and economic institutions, a common distrust of governmental power, and common moral and spiritual values for over a century and one-half before our Constitution was adopted.

The proponents of international rule claim that world government would insure peace. Any serious attempt to create a world government would have precisely the opposite effect.

Men the world over, whatever their ideology, love their country and are willing to fight for its independence. The rising tide of nationalism in the Far East, and especially in countries subject to colonial rule, is ample proof that like-minded people want to control their economic and political destiny free of any outside dictation.

Some of the blueprints for world or regional federation have been ingeniously contrived and have a pleasing surface appeal. In any case it is not the system of national sovereignties which contains the seeds of war. Look north to the undefended border between the United States and Canada.

Those who advocate world government contend that the United States and other nations would delegate to it only limited powers, comparable to the concessions made by the States at the founding of our Republic. It is not especially reassuring to know that the United States would retain a limited sovereignty.

The world-government proposal runs counter to the tradition of local self-government.

An international court would have to be established to consider cases involving crimes against world government. It is significant, I think, that article 37 of the U. N. draft statute for an international criminal court provides: "Trials shall be without a jury."

A world government would have the power to tax. The Daughters of the American Revolution know that direct taxation by a worldgovernment organization would drastically reduce the American standard of living.

Tariff walls and immigration barriers would be destroyed by any form of federal union.

A world government would have to have power to coin and to regulate the value of money. Our capitalistic free enterprise cannot coexist with the socialism and communism under the authority of one government. The Daughters of the American Revolution want to retain our system of free enterprise which has made our Nation the greatest in the history of the world.

Finally, we are told that the world government will have its own international army, its own navy, and air force, and control of all atomic weapons. Nations will retain only local police forces. War will be impossible, we are told, because nations will not have the means to wage it.

But what if the international general staff becomes tyrannical? Who will control it? Should despotism be established on a universal basis there would be no sanctuary and no place to look for hope of deliverance.

In order to save the valuable time of our respected Senators, I have concentrated on section 2, but the Daughters of the American Revolution wholeheartedly endorse Senate Joint Resolution 130, in its entirety, for the protection of every American citizen.

There are still some islands of freedom left in this unhappy world. The greatest of these is the United States of America. The Daughters of the American Revolution believe that the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 130 will preserve American freedom and aid in extending its beneficient influence throughout the world.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the privilege and honor. I leave our constitutional Republic under your loyal protection.

Senator FERGUSON. Thank you very much.

Senator O'CONOR. We are indebted to you, Mrs. Patton, and thank you very much.

Mrs. PATTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator O'CONOR. The committee is anxious to serve the convenience of our friends who have come from outside of the city, and I do understand that two representatives from the Association of the Bar of the City of New York would like to be heard as soon as possible. We will be very pleased to have you come forward now. I understand that they will not be able to be here on another date.

Mr. BACKUS. Mr. Pearson will present part of it.

Senator O'CONOR. If you want to sit together at the table, you may.

STATEMENTS OF THEODORE PEARSON AND DANA BACKUS, OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

Senator O'CONOR. For the record, your name is Theodore Pearson? Mr. PEARSON. My name is Theodore Pearson.

Senator O'CONOR. And Mr. Backus?

Mr. BACKUS. Dana Backus.

Senator O'CONOR. Will you kindly give your address?

Mr. PEARSON. 70 Broadway, New York 4.

Mr. BACKUS. 50 Broadway, New York, N. Y.

Senator O'CONOR. Gentlemen, will you be kind enough to indicate the authority that is given you to represent the association or whether you are members of the committee?

Mr. PEARSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am chairman of the committee on Federal legislation of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Mr. Backus is chairman of the committee on international law of that association.

Our two committees prepared a joint report for the association, which I would like to ask your permission to file as a part of the record here today.

Senator O'CONOR. We will be very pleased to have it so marked and considered as a part of our record for reference by the committee and anyone interested.

Mr. PEARSON. It constitutes really our statement of the matter. We, therefore, have not prepared any other written statement, and this is 42 pages long and I judge that you would rather we did not

read it.

Senator O'CONOR. We could probably cover it by saying to you that it will be considered as a part of the record in its entirety, and anything at all that you wish to say about it you are welcome to say. Senator FERGUSON. Could you summarize it?

Senator O'CONOR. Yes, summarize it, if you will, please.

Mr. PEARSON. I would like to speak briefly on certain points of it, and in that connection, I would like to speak on the aspects of Senate Joint Resolution 130 that deals with treaties, and Mr. Backus will speak on the aspects that deal with executive agreements.

May I say at the outset, Mr. Chairman and Senator Ferguson, that we very much appreciate the committee's working us in on its very heavy timetable here. We know that you have had so many notable people to make contributions here.

Senator O'CONOR. We are very happy to have you.

Mr. PEARSON. This report that we have submitted was the result of intensive study by the two committees of the City Bar Association in New York. It was distributed to the entire membership of some five-thousand-odd members, and at the annual meeting of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York the following resolution was adopted, which is brief, and I would like to read it into the record. It is printed at the front of the report:

Resolved, That the Association of the Bar of the City of New York approves the report of its committee on Federal legislation and committee on international law dated April 28, 1952, and entitled "Report on Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relative to the Making of Treaties and Executive Agreements," and opposes said proposed constitutional amendment known as Senate Joint Resolution 130.

Speaking briefly on section 1, which has already been commented upon, of the Bricker proposed constitutional amendment, which involves the prohibition of treaties "respecting the rights of citizens of the United States," as we indicated in our report, it seems clear that if such a clause had been in the Constitution it would have prevented the country from becoming a party to the United Nations because the United Nations Charter announces its intention-or rather the intention of the signers to enhance personal rights of the kind that are evidently dealt with by section 1.

It would also, we believe, prevent the country from making the treaty that closed the Revolutionary War because under that treaty this Nation undertook that

no former Tory should suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property.

It seems to us that a complete carving-out of an entire area from the power of the National Government would be most unfortunate, and as we read the thing, and as I understood it from the discussion today, and Senator Bricker's remarks on the floor of the Senate, it is so intended.

The "respecting" clause would prohibit a treaty which sought to raise the level of the protected rights or to maintain them.

The second clause of the section, of course, is directed against treaties which would reduce that level. There we feel, as has been indicated by others, that such an express prohibition is unnecessary. It might well be that a declaratory amendment could be adopted saying so in so many words.

Senator O'CONOR. Would you mind an interruption so that we can think along with you?

Mr. PEARSON. Please do.

Senator O'CONOR. I was wondering, so that we could have a definite indication on your part as to agreement or disagreement, whether or not the first sentence of the American Bar Association's proposal, which reads:

A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect

is such that you would agree with that?

Mr. PEARSON. Of course, you understand our report that the committees approved, and that our association approved was addressed solely to Senate Joint Resolution 130. There is a brief reference in the footnote to the American Bar Association proposal, but I am responding to your question just on my own views.

My belief is that I do not think the two opening sentences of the American Bar Association and Senate Joint Resolution 130 are the

same.

To my mind the American Bar Association one goes much further. It says: "Anything that conflicts" whereas the first clause of the Bricker amendment merely says: "Prohibiting the free exercise of rights of citizens."

There could be a number of ways that the treaty might or might not conflict with the Constitution generally,.whereas the Bricker proposal only deals, in effect, with the Bill of Rights and similar things.

I would have the same objection, if you want to call it that, to both proposals, that we feel strongly that they are not necessary. We are frankly perplexed when it comes to putting in words a provision of this sort. Maybe words could be found, and we are not prepared to say the task is impossible. Our judgment would be to let the matter stand where it rests.

We have gone one-hundred-and-sixty-odd years on these words and as far as I know, no proponent of either proposal has said that anything has gone wrong thus far.

Senator FERGUSON. Are there not things on the horizon, for instance, when a bill is presented on civil rights and I only refer to that because it was used in the preamble of the bill-and it is brought to a committee and it is contended that the Constitution has now been amended by a treaty, so that the people's Constitution has been changed by virtue of a two-thirds vote of the Senate of the United States consenting to that treaty; that there has been a change?

It is not that we are dealing with something that has never existed. It is the claim now of certain people and certain organizations that the Constitution of the United States has been altered by a treaty to provide for certain things that would change the whole fundamental structure of the people's government of America.

Is not that the contention?