Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Senator WILLIAM FULBRIGHT,

RODDIS PLYWOOD CORP., Marshfield, Wis., January 22, 1960.

Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I wish this letter to be part of the official record of the hearing of the Connally amendment to the World Court resolution.

"World Peace Through World Law" is apparently to be the beguiling slogan offered the American people to still their protests against a massive surrender of the sovereignty of the United States to the World Court. Thus, repeal of the Connally amendment to the World Court resolution is offered in the name of "peace," and in high flown language which actually brings applause from a Congress, which seems to have collectively forgotten its oath of office to defend the Constitution and the integrity of the United States.

That it constitutes a proposal to modify our sovereignty was conceded by the Chicago Sun Times in a December 31, 1959, editorial, which may be found in the January 7 issue of the Congressional Record, page A41. It makes this acknowledgment by describing Vice President Nixon as "an outspoken champion * * * of the World Court, even at the cost of modifying U.S. sovereignty.” In 1946, after lengthy debate, the United States accepted the jurisdiction of the World Court in international affairs only. The Connally reservation, which carefully reserved to the United States the right to determine what matters are international, and what are domestic, was adopted by the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 60-2. I would like to suggest that you review the debate of 1946, and that the reasons for this vote are more compelling today than they were in 1946, since we have already had at least one decision of the Court, whereby the interests of the United States were adversely affected. I refer to the decision by the Court which required the reinstatement of 11 security risks, employed by the United Nations, and forced the United States to pay substantial sums in back pay.

Proponents of repeal of the Connally amendment claim that the World Court resolution bars the Court from intervening in disputes which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. However, a provision of the World Court statute, itself, makes mincemeat of this protection, since it specifically provides that, if there is ever any dispute as to whether the World Court has jurisdiction, the Court itself will decide the question-and there is no appeal from its decision.

Thus, the proposal to repeal the Connally amendment to the world court resolution becomes the greatest threat to constitutional government in our generation. Without this all-important reservation, the world court would be empowered to intervene at its own discretion-in the domestic affairs of this Nation. It takes little imagination to realize that our right to control the Panama Canal, our Immigration Act, our tariff laws, and even our right to reduce foreign aid, might one day be subject to the review of the Court.

Of immediate concern is the fact that the world court is not now-and never will be bound by the provisions of the Constitution. It has many covenants which, if enforced in this country, would do violence to our Constitution, and the freedoms it secures. We have but 1 vote on its 15-member body, and no assurance that we will always have even that 1 vote. The Communists accept no jurisdiction of the Court, but they are amply represented on it. The suggestion that the Communists will be shamed into acceptance of jurisdiction, if we surrender additional sovereignty, mocks the intelligence of the American people. If the Communists couldn't be shamed over Hungary, when will they ever be shamed?

There is one more argument in behalf of repeal of the Connally amendment, which must be examined for its validity. It is frequently asserted that the American Bar Association supports repeal of the Connally amendment, and its presently constituted committee on peace and law is trying to give this impression.

It is true that in 1947 the American Bar Association did support such a resolution, but that was before the Soviet Union exposed its true colors, and before the internationalists in high echelons of our own Government brazenly announced, "There is no longer any real distinction between domestic and foreign affairs." This statement, together with John Foster Dulles' warning of the dangers of treaty law, triggered the long fight for the Bricker amendment, which

was led by the American Bar Association, and which was lost by one vote in the Senate.

Because we have no Bricker amendment, the Connally reservation is the only safeguard possessed by the American people that constitutional government shall endure in this country. Thus, Senate Resolution 94, introduced by Senator Humphrey, of Minnesota, must be defeated if the United States is to retain its Constitution and its sovereignty. The great majority of the bar association understands this perfectly. Many of its members, including the Texas Bar Association, have served notice that they consider the 1947 resolution out of date and themselves no longer bound by it.

Apparently Attorney General Rogers, who is among those pushing this proposal, also considers the resolution out of date, because he has urged that a reaffirmation of the resolution be submitted to the bar association's house of delegates. It is not without significance that Mr. Charles Rhyne, chairman of the American Bar Association Committee on Peace and Law, has contented himself with calling attention to the old resolution, but has not called for reaffirmation. The writer questions whether such reaffirmation would be given. The importance of the world court issue cannot be exaggerated. It is this country's tragedy that very few Americans are even aware of it as an issue, much less that it constitutes a "clear and present danger" to the United States. The very survival of our Republic is threatened, since further impairment of our sovereignty could serve as a steppingstone to a world government under alien control. No more terrible price could be paid for peace. I therefore urge you to oppose Senate Resolution 94.

Sincerely yours,

H. S. JONES.

BRONXVILLE, N.Y., January 22, 1960.

Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,

Senate office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are forwarding to you herewith a copy of my letter to Senator Kenneth B. Keating regarding Senate Resolution 94 on which your committee has scheduled public hearings for January 27, 1960.

The principle mentioned in the letter applies to every Member of the Congress of the United States who would support a world court resolution. Will you therefore include same in the record of the hearings. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

H. JOSEPH MAHONEY.

BRONXVILLE, N.Y., January 22, 1960.

Hon. KENNETH B. KEATING,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: In your remarks entitled "Revision of Connally Amendment: A Duty the Senate Must Not Shirk" which are noted on page 445 of the Congressional Record, January 14, 1960, it is pointed out that, "In our Nation there is a passion for justice and a feeling almost of reverence toward the law." Our supreme law states that, "The Senators and Representatives *** shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this (United States) Constitution" (art. 6, clause 3).

The first law (1 Stat. 23) passed under the Constitution of these United States and which our first President signed on June 1, 1789, lays down the form of oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. You as an elected officer of the Government were required to "solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;" (15 Stat., July 11, 1868).

The original "Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction of International Court of Justice, August 2, 1946," is in violation of our Federal Constitution since "The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court" and should be terminated rather than compound the crime with another declaration (S. Res. 94, introduced by Senator Humphrey) which would be a loss of significant U.S. sovereignty to an international organization and propel our Nation into alien control. Such declarations are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

I doubt very much it can be said of you that, "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution * * * altering fundamentally the forms of our governments."

We hope that you will not continue to support this or any other World Court resolution,

Sincerely yours,

H. JOSEPH MAHONEY.

FLORIDA COALITION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES,
Tampa, Fla., January 23, 1960.

Senator WILLIAM J. FULBRIGHT,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I wish to register my opposition to the passage of U.S. Senate Resolution No. 94, introduced by Senator Humphrey and intended to repeal the so-called Connally amendment. This Connally amendment was designed to prevent a world court from taking jurisdiction over the domestic and internal affairs of the United States and to protect the people of America from legal interpretations harmful to their interests. There is no reason whatsoever to repeal this amendment. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain. We cannot take the risk of foreign courts interfering in our domestic affairs.

The U.S. Senate was created originally for the purpose of protecting and defending the rights of the States and its individual citizens. The present U.S. Senate has no right whatsoever to pass any resolution or to take any action or to commit a single act which will in any way make it possible for our children to lose their freedom and liberty or cause our country to risk any part of its national sovereignty.

I am not willing to trust the future of this country or of its citizens to decisions of a world court. The people of our country can expect no mercy or justice from foreign judges. I vigorously protest the passage of Senate Resolution No. 94. Such a course would lead our children into bondage from which they could never return. I desire that this letter be made part of the record of the hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Yours sincerely,

SUMTER L. LowRY, Chairman.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
January 25, 1960.

Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

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

DEAR BILL: I am enclosing a letter I have received from several citizens of Silver City, N. Mex., in which they advise me of their opposition to Senate Resolution 94, relating to our recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

I understand hearings will be held by your committee this Wednesday, January 27, on this resolution. I would appreciate this letter being brought to the attention of your committee and being made a part of the record.

Sincerely yours,

CLINTON P. ANDERSON.

SILVER CITY, N. MEX., January 21, 1960.

Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ANDERSON: The resolution to repeal the Connally amendment is to be voted upon very soon. We as citizens of Grant County, State of New Mexico, do pray and plead that you represent us by voting against the repeal of the amendment.

Oppose Senate Resolution 94. We condemn it, think it unwise, un-American and extremely dangerous to posterity as well as to citizens now living.

Don't throw us into the arms of communism by surrendering our sovereignty and our last vestige of hope to remain a sovereign and free people. Let us not be subjected to compulsory jurisdiction of the Court of International Justice. We respectfully request your support of the Connally amendment. Thank you. Very truly yours,

Mrs. Jesse L. Turner, Grant County Democratic Chairwoman; Mrs.
Owen C. Matthews, A. R. Rhodes, Joseph W. Hodges, Mrs.
Monroe Pennington, Edna Madrid, Mrs. I. S. Turner, Mrs. Minnie
Hendrix, H. F. Rutishauser, George Ewen, Wayne C. Tomey,
Jack O. Stewart, Mrs. Rita Nancy Hansen, Jr., Harry G. Hansen,
Jr., W. D. Rains, Marie Rains, Carrol Mann, Jay Lee Mann,
Jackie Wilson, Jerry O. Van Winkle, J. R. Tipton, W. H. Emerick,
Mrs. A. R. Rhodes, Owen C. Matthews, Mrs. W. F. Moore, W. F.
Moore, Mrs. J. B. Roach, Mrs. T. A. Baker, William South.

Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT,

WESTWOOD, N.J., January 27, 1960.

Chairman, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT AND THE COMMITTEE: The "United States Day" Committee of Bergen County, N.J., respectfully requests that the following statement be made a part of the record of the hearings on Senate Resolution 94, introduced by Senator Hubert Humphrey, March 24, 1959.

The World Court resolution of 1946 was ratified by the U.S. Senate, only after Senator Tom Connally, then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, inserted the amendment which has become known as the Connally amendment, "as determined by the United States." This established the right of the United States to determine in advance, whether matters proposed for World Court decisions were within domestic jurisdiction of our country or were to be subject to jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Senate Resolution 94 is designed to repeal that safeguard of the Connally amendment.

Despite some criticism that we have abused that reservation, there have been many disputes that concerned the United States, on an international basis, heard before the World Court which proves that there has been no abuse of the provision. However, we point to the Berlin crisis and the Suez crisis as examples of two of the most important international issues confronting the world which were allowed to bypass the World Court, the very body set up to take care of such situations.

It must be remembered that the World Court is made up of 14 foreign judges and only 1 American judge, several being from Communist or Communistcontrolled countries. The concept of law in many of these countries differs entirely from our concept. One of the greatest differences being that in some of these countries a person is considered guilty until proved innocent which is directly opposite of our concept of law. There is a whale of a difference between those two concepts.

Americans shudder when they think of whose law will prevail in a court of justice made up of such philosophies.

In 1950, a prominent representative of our own State Department said there is no longer any difference between domestic and foreign issues so where is the assurance that any issue that those in control of the World Court would want to consider would not be considered by them? This could range from foreign

aid, immigration, civil rights, expropriation of American property abroad and even to our defense bases in other countries. There would be no limit as to what could be brought before that Court.

To imply that because the International Court of Justice has never, yet, usurped jurisdiction not belonging to it, is a guarantee that it never will is wishful thinking, for once we have surrendered the right to make our own decisions, affecting our liberty, we can expect anything to happen.

If the World Court does not intend to interfere into our domestic affairs, why are they so anxious to repeal this safeguard?

Gentlemen, we ask you to reject Senate Resolution 94.
Respectfully submitted.

LOUISE C. NEIL, D.O.,

Advisory Chairman, “United States Day" Committee of Bergen County, N.J.

[ocr errors]

Mr. DARRELL ST. CLAIRE,

RIDGEWOOD, N.J., January 27, 1960.

Chief Clerk, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. ST. CLAIRE: Thank you very kindly for your message advising that public hearings on Senate Resolution 94 have been scheduled for today.

I respectfully request that the enclosed copy of letter which I wrote to my Congressman in December be inserted in the record of hearings on the abovenamed resolution.

Thank you again for your thoughtfulness in advising me so promptly.

Very truly yours,

Hon. WILLIAM B. WIDNALL,

Republican from New Jersey,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

J. MCCONNELL
Mrs. J. McConnell.

RIDGEWOOD, N.J., December 19, 1959.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: "Six words stand between us and world government," a New Jersey newspaper quoted a speaker who addressed a recent meeting of the New Jersey Chapter of the National Society for Constitutional Security. "The campaign in the Senate to repeal the Connally amendment is sparked by Senator Hubert Humphrey who gained much importance in his own eyes when Khrushchev granted him hours-long interviews. The Senator proposes that we win friends abroad by submitting our destinies to the World Court whose prestige would thereby be so enhanced that other nations would follow suit.

"A world government, as far as we are concerned, would be made up of 99 percent foreigners who would have the power to (1) tax us; (2) make and enforce our laws for us; (3) accuse, try, and punish us; (4) coin money; (5) nullify our immigration laws; and (6) relocate entire populations at will. We would lose the protection of our troops by having them scattered all over the world.

"We are a peace-loving people. Why should we subordinate our flag, our Government, and our freedom to a world government controlled and dominated by foreigners? Once we have joined such an organization we will have no means at our disposal for withdrawing from it should we decide we had made a mistake. The United States would be disarmed; it would be bankrupt and the American people would have lost their liberty."

There are increasing rumors that there is going to be an all-out action by certain groups to repeal the Connally amendment. The Texas Bar Association at its annual convention in Dallas, adopted a resolution opposing the Humphrey proposal on the grounds it would seriously impair the sovereignty of the United States and effectively vest the power to amend the Constitution of the United States in a foreign tribunal. The United States has only 1 member on the 15-member Court. The Texas Bar Association is to be congratulated.

The World Court is an affiliate of the United Nations. We would be naive indeed to think that our interests would be protected. Only last evening one of our newspapers told us "the effective U.S. majority of 10-1 on the U.N. Security Council probably will dwindle to an 8-3 on most votes in the new year. An 8-3 majority is just one vote over the margin of safety, for seven votes are needed to pass any proposal. It used to be that a 10-1 vote was only

« ПретходнаНастави »