NEW YORK, Tuesday—Sometimes I wonder when I read such resolutions as were passed by such an important organization as the Daughters of the American Revolution—perhaps under the influence of the American Bar Association—whether it realizes that the United States Senate must be very sure of the constitutionality of any treaty it passes. Therefore, while it is true that a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, it cannot become so unless it is constitutional. So, there is no chance of any treaty nullifying the Constitution of the United States.

If Senator John W. Bricker's (R., Ohio) resolution, No. 130, were to be adopted, it would seriously hamper the making of any treaty by the Executive Department of our government and change the intention of those who framed the Constitution.

I do not think the D.A.R. could have read the Charter of the United Nations very carefully if they did not realize that in that charter there was an effort made to eliminate one of the weaknesses of the old League of Nations by setting up force within the United Nations. But that has not yet been possible. It is quite true that the Big Five and all other members of the U.N. retain their individual sovereignty, but each of them in deciding to cooperate agreed that they would yield some of their sovereignty in the interests of the peace of the world.

The U.N. is not a world government.

There is a group in this country and there are probably groups in other countries that believe the day must come when a world government will be set up. An ex-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Owen J. Roberts, is one of this group. I happen to believe that we are not as yet ready for anything of this kind, but at this very moment we are urging on Europe a unification in a federation somewhat like our own United States and, of course, all such federations lead to closer government organizations.

I have no idea what the D.A.R. resolution of indignation against Secretary General Trygve Lie's omission of a detailed list of assistance rendered by the United States to the Republic of Korea actually means, but I am sure there must be some good explanation and I shall try my best to find out what it is. If there was a mistake, I am sure an apology will be made.

I also do not understand the accusation that "a policy of appeasement is being followed by the U.N. in Korea which has subjected the U.S. to the scorn and derision of her Communist enemies." I have never come across anything like this in any of the meetings of the U.N. The Soviets are bitter against us, but that is because they feel we stand in their way. They would not feel that if the U.N. were supporting an appeasement policy.

I wonder whether these dear ladies think there is anyone who is not aware that a desperate struggle between the forces of good and evil is going on in the world. And I also wonder if they think that "every reasonable effort to end the war in Korea before it is forever too late" is not at present being made.

The resolution dealing with UNESCO booklets on "world understanding" is really funny, I think.

Do we really believe that a child today should not be given an idea that he is living in a world that is closely drawn together by modern invention and that it must learn to think in a global way? Learning to be a world citizen does not mean that you are any less a good citizen of your own nation.

These resolutions seem to me lacking in real understanding and knowledge of the world of today and the position of leadership that the U.S. occupies in that world. I grieve that either the American Bar Association or the D.A.R. should use their great influence to hurt the good which the leadership of the U.S. can do in this world.