« 이전계속 »
3. Status of Forces Treaties and Executive agreements to deliver American
citizens in arms to the jurisdiction of foreign nations for trial and punishment under alien laws
Abdication by the United States Senate of its constitutional duty and obligation to consider' maturely and carefully treaties, Executive agreements, and laws has brought about a situation where American citizens in arms in foreign countries are but pawns in the chess game of world power politics. The executive department usurps the right and authority to deprive citizens in arms of every civil right under both the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The while this situation exists, the United States Senate fritters away its time considering so-called civil-rights legislation under the lash of the executive department of government and of powerful organized minority groups of citizens with votes needed by the politicians, but which citizens are presently safe at home and with ciivl rights amply guarded by domestic laws, the Constitution, and the courts.
How desperately the people of the United States need Senators even to filibuster against laws which may strip them of every shred and vestige of personal cause for concern with the future welfare of the United States as a nation; for if a citizen be orphaned and disowned by his own Government at a time when peculiarly he needs the protection of its constitution and its laws, of what value is American citizenship to him?
Readiness of the United States State Department to deliver American soldiers like William Girard, who may be in military service abroad, over to foreign governments for trial and punishment conformable to their laws, contrasts strangely with the immunities from prosecution for crime under American law it extends to Communists from the Kremlin who may be on diplomatic missions or assigned to service with the United Nations in the United States. The laws committing our armies to military service abroad should have assured them that the flag of the United States symbolized something for them, even in Japan. 4. Taxing the American people to support foreign governments · If the Communists had coldly conceived and executed a plan to ultimately bankrupt and through this means destroy the United States, it is doubtful if one more ingenious could have been conceived than the plan which obligates the taxpayers of the United States to provide indefinitely the economic sinews to sustain all the weak and faltering governments of the world.
This radical change in national policy in effect drafts every sovereign citizen of the United States in every business and occupation, where he is subject to taxes, in the service of every foreign nation to which so-called Marshall plan aid is extended, for taxes are but part and portion of the wages of the American people for their labors.
The Marshall plan, as initially proposed, contemplated economic aid from the taxpayers of the United States, even to the major enemy of our Nation.
In practice there can be no assurance that presently the Iron Curtain countries are not substantial beneficiaries of foreign-aid spending, for information and means of obtaining information concerning the final and ultimate disposition of American dollars sent abroad is believed not even available to the average United States Senator. Certainly such information is not generally available to the American citizens who provide the money.
To us there is no great difference between the indefensible scheme whereby plates from the United States Treasury were made available to a foreign power for printing United States dollars abroad for the use of some foreign government and in having our money printed in Washington for the same purpose.
Marshall plan spending abroad appears to rest on the false premise that we can buy friendship with money, that we can hire foreigners to give their lives for our country.
The lash of the executive branch of Government and agitation by specialinterest groups, the identity of which to the general public remains obscure, brought about this radical change in American public policy. A filibuster by a courageous representative of the once sovereign American citizens in the United States Senate might have prevented adoption of a national policy the result of which can only lead to national bankruptcy and which in any event makes us slaves to foreigners. 5. Oensuring Senator Joseph McCarthy
An outstanding example of great public need for some courageous Senator to stand guard to the bitter end with the Nation's defenders was that day recently
when the United States Senate was under the whip of a strange combination of political powers, actually considering the censure of the late United States Senator Joseph McCarthy. No man of our age is more worthy of praise for brilliant, courageous, unyielding, and patriotic performance of duty in an effort to expose the most dangerous and effective enemies of the United States who have been operating in secret, and even in the United States Army.
Courageous and unflinching support at that time, rather than condemnatioin, for United States Senator McCarthy might have resulted in a desperately needed change in overall public policy, in a wilingness and zeal to ferret out and expose all traitors, all spies, and all disloyal citizens in every department of American public life, and in a determined purpose to win the existing world war against communism in the Nation's Capitol, and in our own Armed Forces. The Senate should at the least have discovered who promoted Peress.
Nothing could more graphically vindicate McCarthy's position than the recent disclosure that the United States Government is vainly attempting now to obtain release to its jurisdiction from France of intelligence officer George Zlatovski and his wife, Jane, so that these citizens who have been indicted for treason may be tried in American courts and under American law for offensés committed in America against the peace and security of the United States. The alleged treasonable acts are reported to have continued for some 13 years and during a time when Zlatovski was an officer in the United States Army. -6. Some further illustrations of legislation which needed more consideration in
the United States Senate We conclude by directing attention to four purely domestic laws which also illustrate, in our opinion, well the great need for more rather than less mature consideration by the United States Senate of Federal laws that involve dubious principles of basic public policy.
A. Federal regulation of suffrage at elections conducted under Federal law. Minority groups and professional reformers throughout the United States continue agitation for civil-rights legislation to extend the power of the Federal Government to regulate elections and the suffrage Strangely no criticism seems to have been directed toward certain laws which have been enacted under the pretext of an emergency whereby the Federal Government has attempted to prescribe terms and conditions under which the suffrage may be exercised at elections specifically provided for by Federal law.
We direct attention to provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, whereby the production of basic commodities on American farms may be prevented and violations punished as a public offense. Adoption or rejection of such farm programs are made to depend upon the result of elections conducted under Federal law. At such elections the right of suffrage 'is withheld generally from all citizens of the United States except those who presumably will benefit from the adoption of acreage allotments. Not even all farmers are eligible to vote at such elections only such as have allotments of corn, or wheat, or cotton, etc..
Agitators for civil-rights legislation, who habitually criticize the sovereign States for imposing requirements in some instances that voters be limited to persons who, at least through poll taxes, help pay the burdens of Government, do not even discuss Federal laws disenfranchising in effect every citizen of the United States except those relatively few farmers who have basic crop allotments.
The issue to be determined at such elections is one of general public concern for it involves among other things the food supply of the Nation. More mature consideration against such invasion of the civil rights of American citizens disenfranchised by such laws would have been eminently in the public interest.
B. Old-age and retirement pensions for favored citizens range from $22,500 to $35,500 per year.–Overall public interest in recent decisions of the Federal courts, particularly of the Supreme Court of the United States, prompts us to invite attention to the circumstance that to encourage reirement of Federal judges, and to create vacancies so that the present judges might be installed in their high offices, the Congress of the United States under Executive pressure and assuredly without judicial remonstrance in recent years has passed legislation not only substantially increasing salaries of Federal judges but providing, in effect, retirement benefits and old-age pensions for Federal judges in sums varying from $22,500 to $35,500 per year. | The wisdom of a public law whereby any public officers is to be retained upon the public payroll for life at full pay, work or play, regardless of the character
of his service, needed certainly more consideration by the United States Senate.
C. Exorbitant Federal taxes and an ever-mounting public debt.-The lavishness with which the Congress, often under Executive pressure, and generally with undue haste, appropriates the people's money, reminds us to direct attention to the present exorbitant and confiscatory Federal tax rates, and the evermounting public debt.
Hasty lawmaking has brought about a condition where the United States Government possibly owes more money than all the nations receiving Marshall plan aid combined. Despite this, the American people possibly pay more in taxes than under any government on earth. Under present trends there appears no likelihood of relief despite income tax rates which mount to 91 percent in the top brackets. More deliberation in lawmaking might have prevented this lamentable condition which weakens and shames us before the world.
D. Federal laws for committing deviationists to the mad house.--A final illustration of unwise legislation which, in our opinion, might have been avoided by more mature consideration in the United States Senate is found in sections 4244_4247, title 18, United States Code, relating to alleged mental incapacity of citizens after arrest and before trial.
Under provisions of this section of the penal code of the United States, as construed and applied by the courts, a brilliant citizen who writes well but does not write the things some Federal judge thinks she should write, may be mauled around, humiliated, forcibly committed to an insane asylum, then tried and convicted of the offense of giving bad advice, advice which, by the way, no one appears to have needed. Even the circumstance that no one was shown to have followed the alleged bad advice the Federal judges considered immaterial upon the issue of whether a Federal crime had been committed. This legislation establishes a perfect pattern and procedure for purging political adversaries in the United States for deviationism within the framework of existing law.
Mr. FOSTER. We say, concluding, may we for the reasons stated and illustrated above earnestly urge that the United States Senate reject any proposal designed to expedite the passage of more new laws or to further limit the Senators in their analysis and debates upon the merits of any proposed action by the United States Senate.
That is respectfully submitted by the United States Day Committee, W. L. Foster, chairman; W. E. Garrison, executive secretary; and - Glenn O. Young, attorney and counselor.
This is our signed copy, gentlemen.
Mr. FOSTER. I will leave that with you and ask that it be put into the record.
Senator JAVITS. Would you read the resolution?
Mr. FOSTER. The following resolution was passed by unanimous vote by the United States Day Committee in regular session with a quorum present on May 31, 1957:
Whereas we have witnessed, during the last two decades, the undermining of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the loss of our individual liberties, and general regimentation; and
Whereas we are mindful of the fact that the right of unlimited debate in the United States Senate is one of those freedoms that must be preserved, at all - costs, if we are to preserve the American way of life which has placed this Nation in a position of world leadership, and
Whereas the alternative to unlimited debate is "gag rule” or at the least a form of censorship : . Now, therefore, be it
Resolred, That the United States Day Committee, in regular session assembled on this the 31st day of May, in the year 1957, do hereby urge that the United States Senate place no limitation whatever on debate pertaining to any measures affecting the lives and fortunes of the American people, except as is now provided in Senate rule XXII.
Senator Javits. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster.
Mr. FOSTER. May I also state, Mr. Chairman, that I am the vice president for the southwest division of We, The People, and asked by the president, the headquarters of We, The People being in Chicago, that this statement represents their sentiments.
Senator JAVITS. This statement you have just made?
Senator JAVITS. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster. We
Will you proceed ? Mr. Green, we generally like, if you would be good enough, to have you make some preliminary statement as to your organization, what it is, the number of its members. You may have it in your prepared statement. You do it in your own way.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW WILSON GREEN, STATE CHAIRMAN,
PENNSYLVANIA BRANCH, FOR AMERICA Mr. GREEN. I believe I have it in my prepared statement but I believe I will elaborate a little bit.
Senator JAVITS. All right. Mr. GREEN. My name is Andrew Wilson Green, and I am from Harrisburg, Pa. I am State chairman of Pennsylvania for America. And while I have not received express directions from our executive board to appear here this morning, I think I can state from my personal acquaintance with them that the views which I am about to state would represent the views of the overwhelming majority of our mem: bers. I should like to tell you a little bit about our organization. It is the Pennsylvania branch of For America which supported T. Coleman Andrews for President and Thomas H. Werdel for Vice President in the 1956 elections. I assume you have heard of our organization.
In Pennsylvania, we are becoming extensively organized, using the model of the two major political parties as the pattern of our organization. We have a State committee of 65 members, representing some 25 counties, and we feel we can call upon approximately 1,500 workers to give us support in any program of action which our organization desires to support.
I think I might say a little bit about the national organization. It has a national advisory board of about, oh, 100 members, and is active in about, I would say, two-thirds of the States, and is in touch with approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people in the United States.
I might also say that I am on the national advisory committee of For America.
I think the committee might be interested in knowing that it was our organization which placed the name of Senator William F. Knowland in the Republican presidential preferential ballot in Pennsylvania in 1956, and Senator Knowland received approximately 95,000 votes as opposed to President Eisenhower. However, I must say that after a reading of Senator Knowland's position on rule 22, it is possible that the confidence of our organization was misplaced.
Also, our organization takes substantial credit for the defeat of Senator James H. Duff in Pennsylvania in 1956, who trailed Eisenhower by over 600,000 votes and lost by approximately 14,000 votes.
I opposed his candidacy on a write-in basis, and I am willing to make an affidavit before this committee that a write-in voter in a northern State is more effectively disenfranchised than a colored voter in any State in the Union.
Now let's get on to rule 22. Let us look at the facts. In the Senate hearings on this subject in 1949, the tables indicate at that time that only 37 pieces of legislation have been defeated by a filibuster in the period from 1865 to 1948. In other words, in a period of 80 years, only one-half of 1 bill per session of the Senate is defeated by a filibuster. (Limitation on Debate in the Senate, hearings before the Committee on Rules and Administration, U. S. Senate, 81st Cong., 1st sess., p. 20.)
Furthermore, since the existence of the cloture rule in 1917 through 1948, it appears that cloture has been moved only 17 times, and successfully only 4 of these 17 times. Of the 13 times which cloture failed, it would appear that it had failed because of a lack of a majority in 7 of these 13 times. In other words, even if the cloture rule were liberalized as suggested, it would have brought to vote only 6 additional bills in a period of approximately 30 years.
The conclusion I come to from these facts is that the whole controversy on rule 22 is making a mountain over a molehill. The present rule is a good rule, and even if the Senate had no rule to invoke cloture, it would appear that there would be no substantial interference with the deliberative processes of the Senate.
This leads also to a further conclusion that the proponents of liberalization of Senate rule 22 are not moved primarily by any desire to improve the procedure of the Senate but primarily by political considerations. And I suspect that this political consideration is the desire to pass so-called civil-rights legislation. This conclusion is further confirmed by noting the list of the witnesses before the Senate committee in 1951. Outside of the testimony of members of the Senate, I note that no testimony was received from any person having the reputation of a political conservative, that 12 persons might be identified as expressing a labor-liberal point of view, and that the testimony of 5 persons representing the Jewish organizations was heard. I am sure that you can confirm this statement by checking the list of witnesses on page III of the table of contents of these 1951 hearings.
Since I do not wish to engage in religious controversy in any testimony which I give before this committee, I shall not comment on the testimony of the individuals representing Jewish organizations. I shall only say that testimony by representatives of religious bodies or bodies purporting to represent individuals of a particular religious faith is often unfortunate in the implication that there are no members of that particular religious faith that hold a contrary view.
Now, if I may, I think for the record I would like to state something of my own religious background. I was brought up as a Methodist and am presently a member of the Unitarian Church of Harrisburg.
I, when I belonged to the Methodist Church, opposed the political activity of such Methodist leaders as Dr. Harry Ward, Bishop Oxnam, and Bishop McConnell. And I might say, in my own opinion, judging from the actions of Bishop Oxnam and Dr. Ward, that they are under the discipline of the Communist Party of the United States.
And I might say also that one of the reasons I am not an active