United States, thus directly affecting our constitutionally protected rights and liberties of every individual.

In the United States, the law is established with relative firmness and clarity; there is the basis of common law, written law, and the body of established precedent. We have the further protection of having available the legislative means to repeal, amend, or enact law to meet changing conditions.

UNLIMITED POWER FOR THE PRESIDENT

Behind the smokescreen of the catchy slogan "World peace through world law" lies a deadly boobytrap. The internationalists, the Socialists, and the crypto-Communists, who apparently exert such great influence on both political parties, believe they have a way whereby they can control the United States through the office of the Presidency and through the loophole in the Constitution regarding "treaties being the supreme law of the land."

DEFEND THE CONNALLY AMENDMENT AS AMERICA'S ONLY SAFEGUARD

There is only one defense that the citizens of the United States have against the internationalists who wish to make the United States a mere satellite of Communist Russia and that is preserve the Connally amendment, which protects the national sovereignty of the United States of America.

STATEMENT OF FRANK J. VAN DYKE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, MEDFORD, OREG., FEBRUARY 17, 1960

My name is Frank J. Van Dyke. I am a practicing lawyer of Medford, Oreg., with membership in the Oregon State Bar and the American Bar Association. I am a former vice president of the Oregon State Bar.

Having adhered to the statute of the International Court of Justice in 1946, the United States accepted the principle that the Court of International Justice should have compulsory jurisdiction of international legal disputes. Disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America, under the term of the statute, are not within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. By adding the words "as determined by the United States of America," the United States violates a basic principle that no man, no nation, should be the judge in his or its own case. Furthermore, because of the reciprocal nature of consent to the Court's jurisdiction, the self-judging domestic jurisdiction reservation enables any other party to a suit brought by the United States to determine if the matter is within the domestic jurisdiction of that country and thereby prevent the United States from utilizing the International Court.

For the reasons above indicated, the effectiveness of the World Court of International Justice has been materially impaired by the Connally reservation. In the 13 years of its existence, the International Court of Justice has only decided 10 disputes on the merits, has rendered 10 advisory opinions, and has 8 cases now pending. There were 21 legal disputes which arose during this period which were not referred to the Court and 6 legal questions on which advisory opinions might have been requested but which were not so requested.

The United States of America must take a position of world leadership in the ideological struggle with Russia. Not only must principles of international conduct be established but a system for the peaceful settlement of international legal disputes must be evolved. We propose to do this through the International Court of Justice. To make that proposal effective, the Connally resolution must be repealed as provided in Senate Resolution 94.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN R. LECHNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANISM EDUCATIONAL LEAGUE, INGLEWOOD, CALIF., FEBRUARY 17, 1960

Having studied the many facets of the Communist international conspiracy for 35 years for the purpose of keeping the American people in this area informed on matters vital to the security of this Nation, I feel compelled to analyze the statements made at the January 27 hearing on the Connally amendment by

officials of this Government and by other spokesmen who advocate the rescission of the reservation in question.

Although I have spoken before thousands of civic and patriotic organizations, and have served more than three decades as a spokesman for several of these, I offer this analysis as a private American citizen.

I concur in the lofty objective of administration leaders who pledge this great Nation to advance international morality by rule of law in this troubled world. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Too many millions of human beings have been enslaved in our own time through rule by ruthless men.

In studying the statements made by Mr. Herter, Mr. Rogers, and others, favoring Senate Resolution 94, I find repeated references to the Connally amendment as a "preemptory domestic jurisdiction reservation of a discretionary nature," and as "a self-judging reservation," which shows mistrust of the International Court of Justice and thereby sets a bad example for the other nations of the world.

Nowhere do I find the simple facts for public scrutiny, that this Court is comprised of 15 international judges, only 1 representing the United States, and that 9 judges constitute a quorum in hearing a case, with only 5 judges needed for a majority, whose decisions become final. The provisions of this World Court leaves no room for doubt on its absolute authority, since there can be no appeal from its decisions. Furthermore, under the section of the United Nations Charter dealing with the jurisdiction of the International Court, and agreed to by this Government in Senate Resolution 196 of the 79th Congress, the Court shall have compulsory, ipso facto jurisdiction over such matters as "the interpretation of a treaty; the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; and any question of international law."

It should be clearly pointed out that neither the U.S.S.R. nor any of its satellites has agreed to submission to the "compulsory jurisdiction" of the International Court, yet the voting strength of the Soviet bloc on the Court is irrevocably bound to the Kremlin interests. So far as adherence to the decisions of the Court is concerned in matters affecting the Soviet Union, submission to its rulings would be on a unilateral basis, in which only the United States is actually bound by these decisions. In the light of our experience with the Kremlin leaders, our willingness to abandon the right of self-determination is a mark of weakness and will in no way influence Soviet actions, unless these actions are consistent with the overall plans of the "universal state" for world domination. As a matter of fact, the arguments advanced by administration leaders ignore completely a basic condition for the efficacy of international law, the acceptance of all parties of the moral obligations inherent in the establishment of moral values in an international code of conduct. The entire record of Soviet history, except for a few isolated cases in which the Kremlin has altered its usual tactics, points to a complete disregard for moral values, both domestic and international. To expect a change of heart by dedicated Marxists because we preach good will and peace, and government by law, is to deceive ourselves and to invite serious depredations upon the sovereign interests of the United States of America. Stewart Alsop's objective revelation in the Saturday Evening Post, January 30, of the technique for absolute control over the people within the Soviet orb as "rule by terror," must be applied to the Soviet method in relations with all other nations outside the Iron Curtain.

What the opponents of the Connally reservation are completely ignoring is that fact that the abandonment of our right to determine issues to protect our national interests is inconsistent with the established policy of the State Department itself, hence the Government of the United States. Would this administration and the advocates of S. 94 propose, as a corollary measure, the abolition of the right of veto in the Security Council? This right has been jealously guarded by our own Government as an essential safeguard against ulterior designs of the Soviet Union, despite the flagrant abuses by the Kremlin since the inception of the Council. In essence, this right of veto is a self-judging privilege of the first order, and provides a major safety valve for the actions of the U.N.

Attorney General Rogers has devoted most of his testimony in the previous hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to an expression of confidence in the operation of the International Court, based upon the adjudication of a dozen or so cases by this Court during the last 13 years. He states that in no instance was there the slightest encroachment upon the sovereign rights of this Nation.

This statement is correct as far as it goes. However, Mr. Rogers is incorrect in assuming that this is proof that there is no likelihood of intervention in our domestic affairs by the Court in the future. The World Court has no precedents by which to guide its actions, or by which this Nation can measure the future domain of issues to be adjudicated. What is to prevent, one day in the not too distant future, a majority of international judges, influenced by either the Soviet Union directly or by their own pro-Soviet governments, demanding jurisdiction over issues arising from our control over the Panama Canal, or our immigration laws, which might restrict the entrance of hordes of pro-Communist immigrants, or our tariff structure, which may be designed to protect American industry from the impact of Iron Curtain goods or cheap labor products? To hold that a stacked Court would respect American interests at all times in domestic matters would be highly presumptuous in the light of the Soviet disregard for international honor and morals. This is not a ridiculous warning, as our well-meaning internationalists would contend. The Senators who will resolve this vital issue must remember that the Soviet Union has deliberately violated 50 of the 52 major treaties which it consummated with other nations since its ascendency in the family of nations, and they cannot ignore the shameful record of aggression against helpless nations in its inexorable expansion for world domination.

Mr. Herter also cites the examples of France, India, and the United Kingdom, which relinquished the self-reservation clause in accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, as impelling reasons for similar action by this Government. He further cites these examples as expressions of faith in the International Court, urging that we express a like faith by abandoning the Connally reservation.

In the long run, as admirable as such faith may be, it must not be a primary criterion for our action on this amendment. One must be realistic enough to accept the bold fact that the Soviet Union is not concerned too much with the problems of these three nations, nor those of any other free or neutral nation in the Western bloc. Her sole target for disruption is the United States. The undermining of our sovereignty would inevitably lead to the capitulation of every other free nation in the world. Hence, this issue must not be resolved in the light of the fine examples of our sister nations, but in the light of our own integrity and security 5 or 10 years hence. For our Senators to do less would be to betray the immeasurable responsibility they have for the welfare of the next generation of Americans.

Mr. Walsh, Deputy Attorney General, adds to his chief's case for the repeal of the Connally reservation by stating that "the proposed amendment (S. 94) would tend better to effectuate our settled national policy to encourage and develop the rule of law in the affairs of nations."

His contention would be valid, except for one all-important factor. Until this very date, the fine example of the United States in its policies in dealing with other nations, as well as our repeated enunciation of moral principles and the acceptance of moral values in actual practice, has in no way whatsoever induced the Soviet Union to alter its traditional attitude of disregard for the moral concepts of the free world. It would seem prudent and sensible to wait until we are sure the Kremlin will not lead us to slaughter before relinquishing the means for our self defense. Let the U.S.S.R. first demonstrate her good intentions by turning over to the Court the disposition of the Berlin crisis, the problems of Germany's unification, and charges of infiltration by a number of free nations of the world.

Here again, we find the basic fallacy in the reasoning of the resolutions committee of the American Bar Association which submitted its recommendation for the abolition of the Connally reservation. Its report advocates "the elimination of the proviso reserving to the United States the unilateral right of determining as to what constitutes a matter essentially within its domestic jurisdiction." As lawyers grounded in the essence of common law, they stated the case well for our system of jurisprudence at home, and our police powers are such that no litigant can willfully escape responsibility in litigation merely by refusing to be a party to the case. However, what may be axiomatic in common law may not hold in international relations. The bar association committee ignores the nature of the Communist conspiracy with its predestined tendency to deceit, to evade, and to ignore edicts and moral codes when in the interest of its plans for a universal state. With due respect for the expert testimony of the legal profession, it must be pointed out that to expect any other course than that

of unilateral adherence to the decisions of the Court by this Nation in any major dispute with the Soviet Union, in which we alone will be morally bound, is pure fiction.

Members of the Senate of the United States have the great responsibility to read behind the lines of the impassioned pleas for turning over to an international court, rights which may easily supersede the authority of the Constitution of this Nation and the traditional freedoms of our citizens. In discussing the hearing before this committee of the Senate, I have many times encountered the statement that we can do little to stem the tide of internationalism, leading to a one-world government, because the trend is so definite. The Senate must penetrate the surface of this trend to learn who supplies the directional force which demands the surrender of the vital safeguards to our integrity as a sovereign nation.

We shall charge here that behind the scenes lurks a well-knit group of organizations, such as the former World Federalists, groups associated with the United Nations, pro-Soviet organizations, and intellectuals who envision a community of nations under international control, which will have relinquished national sovereignty and police powers, living under a utopia. These groups are powerful propaganda agents, using the slogans of "peace," "government by law," and like lofty concepts to ensnare the unsuspecting. It is a dangerous cabal at a time when the Soviet Union seeks to lull this Nation to sleep to make possible the final steps in bringing about a Marxist world. Perhaps Mr. Khrushchev had in mind when he predicted that our "children will live under communism," the peaceable surrender of our sovereignty through the brainwashing of utopian dreamers. The Senate must not accept the recommendation of the Foreign Relations Committee to repeal the Connally amendment without the most searching study of the consequences. It is in the light of tomorrow, not today, that we must examine this issue.

STATEMENT OF FRANK B. OBER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, BALTIMORE, MD., FEBRUARY 17, 1960

[The statements that follow are solely my views as an individual American citizen, and are not made on behalf of any person or organization other than myself]

For the record, my name is Frank B. Ober, an attorney of Baltimore, Md. I have been interested in efforts to substitute law for international force since 1910, when I won an essay on the subject at the Lake Mohonk Conference. I have also made special studies of communism since 1948, when the Governor of Maryland appointed me chairman of a State commission to draw an antisubversive act for Maryland. And I may add, as an indication that it was moderate and well-planned legislation, that it was adopted with substantial unanimity by the Legislature of Maryland, and on a subsequent referendum by a popular vote of almost 3 to 1. I have written articles on the treatymaking power and also on the Supreme Court cases in the Communist field (A.B.A.J. August 1948; September 1950; January 1958). I am a past president of the Maryland Bar Association.

I earnestly oppose the repeal or any modification of the reservations to our adherence to the International Court of Justice, whether it be a repeal of the entire reservation or merely that part of it which permits this country to determine whether or not a matter is essentially within our domestic jurisdiction. No discussion of any limited first step repealing the last clause would be complete without considering the more fundamental and broader question of the repeal of the entire reservation. In the following discussion I therefore take up first the question of a repeal of the entire reservation, and thereafter point out that a repeal of the last phrase involves precisely the same principles and would destroy the protection of the Connally reservation.

I. INTRODUCTORY

The United Nations Charter contains the provision in article II, section 7, reading:

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter. * * *”

This provision was fundamental. Otherwise this country would have been surrendering sovereignty "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction." Neither the administration, the Senate, nor the people, at the time of the adoption of the United Nations Charter or now, have been willing to reverse the Declaration of Independence and surrender sovereignty, particularly over our domestic affairs, to the United Nations. The extent to which the United Nations Charter may have limited power of the United States in foreign affairs need not be considered for we are here considering only the repeal of the Connally amendment, which would transfer judicial powers "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States." Accordingly, when the United States adhered to the International Court of Justice, the legal organ of the United Nations, by separate action, like 15 other states (including the Union of South Africa, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, the United Arab Republic, Israel, and Mexico), its declaration contained an important reservation. In the case of the United States, this reservation is known as the Connally amendment, and excludes from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice disputes "with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America, as determined by the United States of America" (U.S. Treaties and Other International Acts, Series No. 1598). Twenty-two other states have adhered without reservation or with minor reservations. (These, however, include none of the great powers except Japan. See January 1960 A.B.A.J. p. 25, note 26, giving the complete list. China, of course, as given in the footnote, means Nationalist China. The footnote is assumed to be correct that some of the reservations are minor, although in view of the bias of the author that cannot be taken as certain.)

The twin pillars of the Connally reservation are (1) the Constitution of the United States, and (2) the same insistence on maintaining our independence of the judicial organ of the United Nations that prevailed in article II, section 7 of the United Nations Charter itself; i.e., both, as would be expected, excluded from foreign power matters essentially within the jurisdiction of the United States.

II. THE PROPOSAL TO REPEAL THE CONNALLY RESERVATION IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The present proposal would in substance amend this by adding: “except insofar as one House of Congress, to wit, the Senate, shall vest by a treaty the judicial power of the United States in matters essentially of domestic jurisdiction in an international court of justice."

The crux of the proposal to repeal the Connally reservation is that it removes the limitation to our adherence to the Court, which excludes from its jurisdiction "matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America, as determined by the United States of America." It cannot be reasonably argued, therefore, that what we are concerned about here today is merely foreign affairs.

I am not unmindful of the fact that in the conduct of foreign affairs we have occasionally submitted certain disputes to arbitration. It has been said also that we have in some cases, whether rightly or wrongly, provided that disputes on matters of interpretation as to certain bilateral treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation may be submitted to the International Court of Justice. But there, at the least we know with whom we are dealing. We have made a definite agreement and the matter is solely one of interpretation. How far this should be extended, even in so-called treaties of friendship, commerce, or navigation, presents a different question.

While some of these may be borderline cases, certainly the vast majority are concerned solely with foreign relations, and the Senate has not approved deliberately any treaty surrendering to a foreign court matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States."

There is a fundamental distinction in the attempt to repeal the Connally reservation. Here the proposal would be to delegate a general judicial power. This would not be confined at all to (1) specific treaties, as to which we know what we are doing, or (2) foreign affairs. Ex hypothesi, it would be a grant of judicial power in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the