a moral victory for the United States, since the single negative vote was a Soviet veto." The proponents of a World Court, if asked whether there is danger that the Court will infringe on matters that are purely domestic, say "of course not." If asked whether the Soviets will submit to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court if we set the example, they say that the Soviets will ultimately be shamed into doing so. They have not yet explained why the revulsion of the civilized world did not shame the Soviets into stopping their slaughter of Hungarian patriots. It is hard to believe that any elected official who has sworn to uphold the Constitution would contemplate such action even for a moment, or that any elected official would contemplate sacrificing the future of the children of or country in such a manner. For your information, I enclose copy of a statement made by Mrs. Myra Hacker of West Englewood at a meeting of the Northern New Jersey Study Group. I would appreciate very much receiving a letter from you stating how you stand on the subject of a World Court. Very truly yours, Mrs. J. McCONNELL. P.S.-If Senator Humphrey and others who are backing his move do not want the World Court to interfere in our domestic affairs, why are they trying to get the safeguard repealed? HILLSDALE, N.J., January 27, 1960. CLERK, U.S. SENATE FOREIGN RELATION COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: I respectfully request that the following statement of the Bergen County (N.J.) Conservative Club chartered by the New Jersey Conservative Club be inserted in the record of the hearings on Senate Resolution 94. "President Eisenhower, in asking Congress to repeal the Connally amendment, has advocated that the future of the Panama Canal be placed in the hands of the World Court. The Panama Canal is a vital link in America's defense system. Should we allow a Court made up of 14 foreign judges to make a decision which could seriously endanger the security of the United States? The agreement under which the United States participates in the World Court provides that the Court cannot interfere in domestic affairs, of a member nation. In order to define what constitutes domestic affairs, the Connally amendment added the clause 'as determined by the United States.' In a recent letter, Eisenhower expressed agreement with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Democrat, of Minnesota, that the phrase should be stricken. "This is another blatant attempt on the part of forces who are working to undermine the sovereignty of our Nation and to promote the idea of world government. Should the safeguard of the Connally amendment be removed, we shall leave ourselves open to the subjugation of a world government administered by people whose concepts of justice, equality, and freedom are vastly different from ours. This difference has been displayed repeatedly in the treatment accorded members of our Armed Forces under the status of forces treaty." Resolution S. 94 is designed to repeal the Connally amendment which consists of six words "as determined by the United States." The Bergen County Conservative Club respectfully requests that you reject this resolution. Sincerely, ROBERT A. KRETZER, Chairman, Bergen County Conservative Club. Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, WEST ENGLEWOOD, N.J., January 27, 1960. Chairman and Members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, GENTLEMEN: I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record of the hearings on Senate Resolution 94, introduced by Senator Hubert Humphrey, March 24, 1959. Senator Humphrey, through his resolution Senate Resolution 94, is asking for the repeal of the Connally reservation "as determined by the United States," which was attached to the World Court resolution in 1946. It is this reservation (amendment) which gives our country the right to decide for itself just what does and what does not constitute a domestic issue and therefore what issues concerning our country can come before the World Court. With the World Court being composed of 14 foreign judges and only 1 American judge, several of the 14 being from Communist or Communist-controlled countries, whose law do you think will prevail in that Court? 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. A prominent representative of our own State Department, in 1950, said there is now no difference between domestic and foreign issues so we have no assurance as to what subjects the World Court might consider as proper to come before them. Such questions as our defense bases in other countries, our continued ownership and control of the Panama Canal, our tariff laws, immigration, foreign aid, and countless others could be thrown into the World Court for adjudication. I will never understand why the very men who have sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, as our duly elected representatives, would even dream of relinquishing our country's right to say what is and what is not a domestic issue. When we have given up this right we have no sovereignty left. Your rejection of this Senate Resolution 94 is requested. Most sincerely, GERALDINE EARLIN, Education Chairman, Legislation Study Club of West Englewood, N.J. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., January 27, 1960. MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate having the opportunity to submit this short statement on behalf of myself and some of the residents of the district I have the honor to represent (seventh, Texas). I oppose the repeal of the Connally amendment, and the surrender of U.S. sovereignty which would result from such repeal. I trust this honorable committee will refuse to put its stamp of approval on the repealing resolution. The following citizens of my district have requested that their opposition be expressed: Mrs. L. A. Flournoy, 314 North Popp Street, Nacogdoches, Tex.; Mrs. T. E. Strickland, Miss H. V. Strickland, Mrs. J. B. Chambers, all of Box 813, Nacogdoches, Tex.; Mr. and Mrs. John Y. Morgan, 1319 14th Street, Huntsville; Mrs. Joe Davis, 1106 Avenue O, Huntsville; Mrs. Wilburn Robinson, 1220 11th Street, Huntsville; Mrs. George Kearse, Richards Road, Huntsville; Mrs. John Smither, Post Office Box 551, Huntsville; Mrs. Wilbur Smither, 1312 Avenue O, Huntsville; Mrs. James A. Kesterson, 904 19th Street, Huntsville; Mrs. Earl Huffor, 1212 16th Street, Huntsville; Mrs. Ewing Bush, Huntsville; Mrs. Nell Burns, 1319 14th Street, Huntsville; Mrs. J. B. Hall, 1804 Pleasant, Huntsville. Mr. W. H. Kellogg, 1322 Avenue O, Huntsville, Tex., requested that a copy of his telegram to the chairman be made a part of the record, as follows: "I am informed that all persons wishing to testify on repeal of Connally amendment will have only the afternoon of Wednesday, January 27. Entire morning being given State Department who insist on this surrender of U.S. sovereignty over internal affairs. Please extend time of hearing so that all who wish to testify on this vital subject may be heard. Please advise by letter what domestic questions the advocates of repeal want decided by foreign judges of a one-world court and why they feel United States own court system inadequate on purely domestic cases. Also ask your honest opinion as to whether or not this constitutes treason to the United States and flagrant violation of oaths of office taken voluntarily by its advocates. Also ask this telegram be made part of official committee hearing minutes." Thank you for your consideration of these viewpoints. JOHN DOWDY, Member of Congress. ENGLEWOOD, N.J. Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. DEAR SIR; I wish to protest the repeal of the Connally reservation. To surrender to a World Court jurisdiction over our own affairs, would destroy all our constitutional liberties and freedom. It is incredible that our leaders, sworn to defend our Constitution, would consider such a repeal. in a World Court, many different ideologies and conceptions of justice would be represented. Everyone knows that Soviet Russia, for instance, would not accept the jurisdiction of the Court, but they would have judges on it. Our Bill of Rights could be destroyed. Because I know that many thousands of wives and mothers in this country feel as I do, I am requesting that my letter of protest be included in the hearings. Sincerely yours, JANE G. (Mrs. R.) LYDECKER. INDIANAPOLIS, IND., January 27, 1960. Senator JOHN FULBRIGHT, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: In the interest of protecting the United States Constitution from being subservient to the World Court, will you please vote against the Humphrey Senate Resolution No. 94? Please include my letter in the printed hearings. Thank you. Sincerely yours, DOROTHY (Mrs. James L.) RICHARDSON. EAST ORANGE, N.J., January 28, 1960. Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT: Kindly make this letter a part of the hearings. By appeasement the most sacred rights of the United States are being liquidated while Communist aggression is permitted to flourish. It is incredible that any true citizen of the United States is in favor of the repeal of the Connally amendment, August 1, 1946. We need those six words "as determined by the United States." We are but 6 percent of the world. If the Senators had known that Communist agents (among them Alger Hiss) had actually helped to write the U.N. Charter perhaps the Senators would have read more carefully the charter before ratifying it. Don't destroy our Nation's sovereignty. I strongly oppose the Humphrey resolution (S. Res. 94) that would impair our sovereignty. My ancestors came to Massachusetts from England in 1628 to free themselves of the shackles of the Old World philosophy. Now some elected and appointed leaders of this Nation would eliminate the Constitution and convert this Republic into a Communist Socialist one-world government. It is unbelievable. GLADYS H. WATERMAN. WEST ORANGE, N.J., January 29, 1960. MY DEAR SENATOR CASE: I respectfully request that this protest be included in the record of the current hearings on repeal of the Connally amendment. I realize that the World Court without absolute power is unable to demand obedience. However, in view of the fact that Soviet power is not shrinking; and in view of the fact that all, or nearly all, of the emergent nations are, at best, neutralist; and in view of the fact that Soviet control in the U.N. and in its agencies, and the World Court, is very, very persuasive, it does seem unwise to weaken control of areas that are of tremendous value in the fight for survival. One example, of course, is control of the Panama Canal. This one item alone, should cause us to be doubly alert. 51053-60-29 I hope you will feel that any further loss of control would grievously affect our position of strength, none too strong even at this moment. Sincerely, ISABELLE M. LANDON. NEW ORLEANS MEETING, Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, New Orleans, La., January 29, 1960. U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: On behalf of New Orleans Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) I am writing to urge that your committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, act favorably and promptly to repeal the legislation that prevents the United States from permitting disputes in which our Nation may be involved from going before the World Court without reservation. In other words, and to put it positively, we are eager for action by this Congress which would advance the peace leadership of our Nation and put us more on the way to world peace. We feel that unqualified support of the World Court will be a good step in the direction of peace. We would like to have our letter of support for the pending repeal legislation used in hearings in any way that seems effective, and to have it included for the record. Yours very truly, HENRY WHITE, Clerk. LAKE COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: Our attention was called to the Senate Resolution 94, that is presently pending before your committee regarding the jurisdiction of the United Nations International Court of Justice in all disputes between the United States and other countries. Please be advised that our organization passed a resolution against the abovenamed resolution at its monthly meeting held on February 1. We do not want our liberties surrendered to a world court. Thousands upon thousands of members of our country fought and died to preserve the liberties of the United States. They did not fight and die to let our congressional Representatives give away our liberties to a world court. There are many implications that could develop if our country would be under this Court's jurisdiction. Undoubtedly you are aware of these implications. This Court, packed with members and dupes of the Communist Party, would have jurisdiction over all areas of our lives. The passage of Senate Resolution 94 would be tantamount to treason in view of the fact that many thousands of our Armed Forces gave their lives to preserve our American heritage. We sincerely hope that you, as statesmen, will give this letter your serious consideration and enter same into the records of the hearings as being against passage of Senate Resolution 94. We trust that you will defeat this bill in the committee. RAYMOND WAGNER, Vice President. DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS AUXILIARY, UNIT 17, Hammond, Ind., February 4, 1960. Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate of the United States, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: The above unit of the Disabled American Veterans passed a resolution at its recent meeting against Senate Resolution 94, which would nullify the Connally amendment. Do not surrender our liberties to a world court. It is time for our representatives in Congress to awaken to the serious implications of the above bill now before your committee. Millions of Americans fought to preserve our liberties. Many hundreds of thousands died for freedom. Hundreds of thousands of veterans are disabled today from the battles of yesteryear. Our Armed Forces have won the wars but now our congressional representatives will lose the peace by surrendering our liberties to a world court. Were all the past wars in vain, gentlemen? How can your committee even consider such a resolution as you now have before your committee? We cannot conceive any responsible statesmen willing to subject the great principles that we have developed in America to destruction by an alien majority of Communist judges in the U.N. International Court of Justice. This Resolution 94 is detrimental to the freedom of America and it should not be brought out of committee. We respectfully request that this letter be read before the committee's hearings and also entered into the records of the hearing. Respectfully yours, ETHEL HOWELL, Legislative Chairman. HAMMOND, IND., February 4, 1960. SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GENTLEMEN: Considerable attention has been aroused by recent press coverage of your committee hearings pertaining to Senate Resolution 94, regarding the jurisdiction of the United Nations World Court over the United States in jurisdictional disputes. The passage of the above resolution would jeopardize our way of life by a Court that is not subject to common law or the American system of constitutional law. This Court will undoubedly be loaded with Russian bloc members and Communist dupes who would have jurisdiction over all areas of our lives, for Congress will no longer control our Trade and tariffs. Civil rights. Economics and education. Foreign trade. Immigration and emigration. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Mental health and birth control. Post office and censorship. The military. Welfare. The Panama Canal. I do not believe that any of you American statesmen are willing to jeopardize our American way of life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness by placing same in the hands of judges who are an alien majority. I urge you to defeat this bill, Senate Resolution 94, in your committee. Kindly include this letter in the records of the hearing on the above bill as being against it. Sincerely yours, Mrs. GLADYS DORNICK. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 4, 1960. DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I urgently request you to vote against Senate Resolution 94, which would delete from our treaty to establish the World Court the Connally amendment. It is inconceivable that any loyal American would surrender to an international body the right to decide jurisdiction in a matter which could mean life or death to our Nation, such as control of the Panama Canal, our overseas bases, immigration, or tariffs. I further request that you make this letter a part of your hearing record. Thank you. Sincerely, EDWINA S. (Mrs. A. I.) CURTIS. |