If we are to study the cycles of the ages, if we are to be guided by the lessons of the past, let us remember that a nation which overreaches itself always falls headfirst into the mire.

That is why we must resist the repeal of the Connally amendment. To give an international court the right to adjudicate, against our wishes, matters which we consider our domestic concern, would be to take a keystone from under the foundation of our Constitution.

Further, since the Court, itself, would decide what it would or would not accept, the Pandora's box of all sorts of tyranny would be opened wide.

The truth is that we in America believe that the rights of the individual are natural rights; that is, they are inherent in the nature of man and the universe, they come from God. That belief is the basis of our Declaration of Independ ence, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and the vast majority of our court decisions.

Government in the United States, under our Constitution, is therefore the servant of the citizen, representing him among nations and performing for him at home those functions which the individual cannot accomplish alone. Legislators and executives, Federal, State, and local, are accordingly elected to represent and further the interests of the voters. Both the rights of man and the law itself should be supreme over the members of government. We must preserve the constitutional guarantees that protect our God-given rights from governmental encroachment.

Distinguished Senators, I ask your rejection of the Humphrey resolution, Senate Resolution 94, as a threat to our sovereignty and a dangerous surrender of our basic liberties to a World Court which has no attributes of a court under U.S. law. This resolution could be a step backward in the history of liberty and an unwarranted extension of governmental powers. The history of liberty is the limitation of the powers of government.

We recognize and must preserve the careful constitutional system of checks and balances in which the President, Congress, and the courts are subordinate to the Constitution. We must preserve the constitutional guarantees that protect our God-given rights from governmental encroachment so that at all times we have a government of laws and not of men. The American Constitution is built on the basic principle of limited government.

This concept of limited government is uniquely American and is the primary reason for the great material and spiritual development of America and under which liberty for the first time became an actuality.

Yet, we are asked to repeal the Connally amendment, to pump our blood into the International Court, so that its empty halls may be filled with cases concerning us, so that its assorted judges-1 American and 14 Russian, Polish, Chinese, Latin American, and other foreign nationals-may tell us how to behave and wield the big stick if we demur.

Why anyone in this country should desire us to assert our world leadership by first committing national suicide is the mystery of this generation. Do they not realize that an America shackled by the domination of foreign ideologies and hamstrung by the weakness of foreign economies and policies can be of little use to itself or to the world at large?

I ask your rejection of Senate Resolution 94.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRO AMERICA,

January 27, 1960.

Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: Believing, with you, that it is the solemn duty of our elected representatives to protect this Nation from foes within and without who would reduce our people to that estate from which we rose when we became a free people some 180 years ago, and it is also their solemn duty to direct our Government to recognize its statutory limitations and to keep the liberty so hardly won, the National Association of Pro America has repeatedly stated its belief in the institutions of the United States. We do now come before this committee of the U.S. Senate urging that no action be taken which would recommend to the Senate that it allow any body, regardless of how it be constituted, to assume or even to share the right of the United States to determine for itself whether a matter be domestic or not.

We ask the question, Senator Fulbright and gentlemen of the committee, "What universal code of law or jurisprudence can in justice and equity be cited, upon which can be based a determination of questions brought before an international court, when each nation which becomes a party thereto has-and properly-its own system of justice and its own comprehension of equity?" The citizens of this Nation should make no apology for choosing to be heard by their own judges, in their own courts, according to their own system of laws, and in the light of their own mores. These protections to freedom must be upheld not only for our own sakes, but as illustrious examples to those others in the world who have been less fortunate in their heritage or who live, voluntarily or otherwise, by and under other forms of government more suited to themselves. No man, and no combination of men or nations, gains either the respect of others or the possibility of becoming a living example to others, if he compromises his own standards to become like unto those whom he hopes to encourage to seek greater ideals and implement them, each in his own way. You can permanently lift no man or nation by force; but you can set for him an example, and give to him a helping hand when he looks for assistance in attaining his own interpretation of that which you have attained.

We would point out, and most respectfully, that it was not only by conceding that our concept of government was difficult to keep, and that our people might themselves not always be strong enough or wise enough to maintain it, that our Founding Fathers made for us this bastion of freedom and justice under God. They also fenced in the power of the general government and asserted to the people that in it they had the finest concept of men's minds which they, the people, must respect and work for without cessation all the days of their lives. The finest structure will endure only if its sworn protectors stand firmly in the path of ideas which would weaken or destroy. We request that you honorable gentlemen will thus firmly stand between the sovereign citizens of this Nation and ideas which, however well intentioned, are different, and less than protective of our rights.

An International Court of Justice to sit on those disputes between countries which are voluntarily agreed between the parties thereto, is quite proper, whether or not such court is widely used or even widely acclaimed. To invite such a court to adjudicate disputes not voluntarily submitted-by any countryis to result in a futility of decision and consequent debasement of the court, or, to imply that its decisions can be enforced upon any country which is involuntarily concerned. This would result either in chaos, or in the world rule not of law, but in the world rule of force.

The intrusion into the domestic affairs of our Nation by any external body, for any reason, is not to be tolerated by those who are the proud citizens of this Republic. To suggest that intrusion would never happen is conjecture; what is contemplated is the granting of the right from which such possibility is the legal sequitur. No such grant should be permitted, we are convinced, by those whom the people chose to act for them in this august body.

Further, we believe that this Nation should never agree to be a party to any international agreement, such as the one under consideration, which could lead to our own official approval of interference in the internal affairs of another nation. This seems to us to be no way to make friends and advance the cause of peace.

Thank you for the opportunity to express these convictions on behalf of the National Association of Pro America, whose members I serve as president. Respectfully yours,

MARY ELIZABETH SNOW
Mrs. John Howland Snow.

RE THE WORLD COURT-RESOLUTION SUPPORTING RETENTION OF THE CONNALLY

AMENDMENT

(Unanimously adopted by the New Jersey Chapter of the National Association of Pro America, December 10, 1959)

Whereas we believe in the principle of self-determination and home rule for nations; and

Whereas there is not at this time, and will not be in the foreseeable future, any common basis of morality and standards of justice among the nations of the world; and

Whereas the interests of the United States have already been adversely affected by the World Court; and

Whereas the jurisdiction of the World Court without the Connally reservation would subject the United States to foreign control and the beginning of world government: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That we oppose any and all attempts to repeal the Connally reservation which limits the jurisdiction of the World Court to purely international affairs and guarantees self-determination to the citizens of the United States and the maintenance of our sovereignty.

Mrs. RALPH HACKER,

Washington, D.C.:

MYRA C. HACKER,

Mrs. Ralph E. Hacker,
Chairman of Legislation.

DALLAS, TEX., January 26, 1960.

Texas chapter Pro America favors retention of Connally amendment.
Mrs. WILLIAM L. CRAWFORD, Secretary.

Whereas the Connally reservation resolution of the Texas Bar Association expresses the views of Pro America, be it resolved Pro America endorse the Texas Bar Association resolution as follows:

"Whereas a proposal to subject the United States to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court of International Justice (commonly and hereafter called the World Court) has recently been submitted to the Senate of the United States (S. Res. 94, Congressional Record, pp. 4510-4513), whereby if adopted this Nation would relinquish completely its power to determine unilaterally that any case brought against the United States in the World Court is exclusively within its domestic jurisdiction, and therefore wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the World Court, that power having been preserved to the United States by the Connally resolution of 1946 (S. Res. 196, 79th Cong. 2d sess.); and

"Whereas the World Court is composed of 15 members or judges, of which 1 is a citizen of the United States and the others are nationals or citizens of Egypt, Nationalist China, Australia, Greece, Poland, France, Mexico, El Salvador, Britain, Argentina, Uruguay, Norway, Pakistan, and Soviet Russia: that is, 2 are from Moslem nations, 1 is a Chinese, 2 are Communists, 3 are from common law countries, 4 are Latin Americans, and 1 each is from Greece, France, and Norway, the President of the Court being a Norwegian and the Vice President from Pakistan ; and

"Whereas the World Court is a tribunal in no way bound to or guided by any definite rules or a system of law such as the common law or the American system of constitutional law, and it is therefore entirely free, by the statute of its creation to follow to whatsoever judgment they may lead in any particular case, the whims and caprices engendered from time to time by national pride or interest, envy, greed, or actual hostility: in other words, the World Court is clearly subject to the criticism voiced by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, 'Let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution'; and

"Whereas the jurisdiction of the World Court includes 'all matters specifically provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force' (statute, art. 36), and the Charter of the United Nations expressly excludes from its jurisdiction 'matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state' (charter, ch. 1, art. 2, par. 7), nevertheless, one of the first actions of the General Assembly of the United Nations was, by vote, to override the contention of France that matters in controversy between its government and the people of Algeria were matters 'within the exclusive domestic jurisdiction' of France, on the ground that Algeria was not a colony but was an integral portion of the Republic of France; and there is no reason to expect that the World Court or any other portion of the machinery of the United Nations may not likewise overrule any contention of the United States that any other matter is 'essentially within its domestic jurisdiction' if this country should surrender its power, now expressly reserved, to determine that question unilaterally; and

"Whereas it has been claimed that the Court's paucity of business (10 or 11 cases decided in more than 10 years) is due to the fact that few if any nations have submitted themselves unreservedly to the jurisdiction of the Court (those not so submitting unreservedly including the United States and all the Communist nations), although it may as readily be inferred that few if any countries are sufficiently imprudent, under the circumstances herein recited, to submit to the unpredictable judgments of such a tribunal questions that they may regard as being 'essentially within their domestic jurisdiction;' and

"Whereas relinquishment by the United States of the power to determine unilaterally that any case brought against it in the World Court is exclusively within its domestic jurisdiction would:

and

"(a) seriously impair the sovereignty of the United States and of the several States composing it;

"(b) effectively vest the power to amend the Constitution of the United States in a tribunal essentially foreign, not necessarily competent, probably political rather than juridical in its attitudes and decisions, possibly dominated by our enemies and therefore likely disposed to be hostile to the major interests of the United States; and

"(c) unnecessarily and dangerously weaken and impair the ability of the United States to defend itself against enemy aggressors;

"Whereas the proposal so made, and now pending before the U.S. Senate, is being vigorously supported (without, we think, an adequate understanding or appreciation of its reach or dangers) by many influential public officers, individuals and national organizations, who may succeed, in the absence of determined opposition, in having the said proposal adopted by the Senate; and

"Whereas the members of the State bar of Texas are not only devoted to our State and National Constitutions and forms of government, but are bound by oath to support and defend those Constitutions: Now, therefore

"The State bar of Texas, in annual session assembled at Dallas, does hereby resolve:

"1. That it does hereby condemn, as unwise, un-American, and extremely dangerous to posterity as well as to American citizens now living, the proposal contained in the Senate resolution mentioned above.

"2. That a certified copy of this resolution be promptly sent to the President and Vice President of the United States, to each of the U.S. Senators from Texas, and to the president of the American Bar Association.

"3. That each member of the State bar of Texas is hereby urged to write, as soon as may be, to our Texas Senators urging them, as they love their country, to vote against the proposal, and to use their influence with other Senators to do likewise.

"Respectfully submitted by:

CONNALLY AMENDMENT

"ROBERT H. KELLEY.

"WM. E. LOOSE.
"NOWLIN RANDOLPH.
"W. H. EVERETT.
"WILLIAM P. LONGCOPE.
"W. JAMES KRONZER."

Oklahoma executive board of Pro America agreed upon the substance of the resolution below, January 28, 1960. Whereupon a telegram was dispatched in abbreviated form to Senator Fulbright.

"Whereas there can be no agreement on law in the United Nations because law cannot be formulated on a national or international basis without a common basis of morality and common standards of justice; and

"Whereas all rights under the United Nations come from government and not from God or the spiritual nature of man; and

"Whereas an America shackled by the domination of foreign ideologies and hamstrung by the weakness of foreign economies and policies can be of little use to itself or to the world at large: Therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the National Association of Pro America urge the Congress and the Senate of the United States of America to retain the reservations of the Connally amendment which provides that America will not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in matters which

are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States.

"Whereas the public pronouncements of the President of the United States and the Attorney General urging the nullification of the Connally amendment are not persuasive: Therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Pro America State board in session urge the Senate of the United States to retain the reservations of the Connally amendment, and ask that this be read into the records of the Foreign Relations Committee."

Passed by the State board of Pro America in Oklahoma, January 28, 1960, Oklahoma City. Forwarded by telegram to Senator J. W. Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

TACOMA, WASH., January 25, 1960.

Mrs. RALPH E. HACKER,
West Englewood, N.J.:

Washington State Chapter of Pro America after careful study strongly urges retention of Connally reservation and asks that this statement be included in your testimony before Foreign Relations Committee.

ERDINE SCHWAN,

State President, Pro America.

PRO AMERICA OF WISCONSIN RESOLUTION ON SENATE RESOLUTION 94 (Passed unanimously by the board and entire membership, January 25, 1960) Whereas under the act of 1946 recognizing World Court jurisdiction in international matters, the United States through the Connally amendment reserved the important right to decide whether cases involving this country are domestic or international; and

Whereas the United Nations Charter, chapter I, article 2, specifically states that its powers "shall not extend to matters *** essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any states"; and

Whereas Senate Resolution 94 now before the U.S. Senate would surrender American power over domestic affairs, and a quorum of five votes in the World Court could issue a decree which would become compulsory upon the United States, thus eliminating completely the protection secured by the U.S. Senate in 1946 in respect to the terms under which the United States accepted the Charter of the United Nations; and

Whereas Senate Resolution 94 would ultimately wipe out all liberties of the people of free America : Therefore be it.

Resolved, That the Wisconsin Chapter of Pro America hereby petitions the members of the Foreign Relations Committee in the best interests of the American people whom they represent, to kill this quasi-treasonable action as outlined in Senate Resolution 94; and we further request that this communication be read into the hearings on Senate Resolution 94.

RESOLUTION FOR RETAINING THE CONNALLY AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE TREATY BY THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF PRO AMERICA

A PECULIAR NATION THEREFORE WE REQUIRE OUR OWN LAWS

Whereas sovereignty in the United States of America resides with the people, the Nation having been established by the joint and voluntary efforts of people who had a common language, code of morals, religion, environment, and historical background which included a century and a half of similar experiences and development as colonies; and

Whereas the sovereignty is vested in the people, they alone have the power and the right to determine the concept of their rights and to choose their laws and enforce them;

CONDITION UNDER WHICH U.N. CHARTER WAS ACCEPTED

Whereas the Charter of the United Nations includes the following proviso: "Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Na