Senator THOMAS of Utah. I am thinking of little groups when I ask you these questions.

Mr. TATE. I do not think the little groups come into it unless the concerted plan is the mass destruction of the whole group, either on this or any other aspect. That is formulated in the understanding just above this one, in paragraph (1).

Senator THOMAS of Utah. The best way to destroy a group in America would be to destroy all Tibetan or Dalai Lama priests and teach them the stuff.

Senator MCMAHON. Would you see any objection to "permanent injury to mental faculties which causes physical disintegration"?

Senator THOMAS of Utah. To me the simplest way to say it is "permanent injury to physical faculties"; that is, that you have not made a man so he is pensive or sensitive or all of those things that are wholly mental. That is happening all the time.

Mr. PERLMAN. If you do that, though, don't you just repeat what is meant by "bodily harm"? Then it becomes unnecessary.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes, you do.

Senator MCMAHON. What is the matter with saying "permanent injury to mental faculties which causes a physical disintegration"? In other words, it would have to be something of a type that would be evidenced in the physique.

Mr. PERLMAN. I think that is unnecessary, Senator, because it starts out with the idea that it has to be done with the intent to destroy a whole group. I mean, that is fundamental. It is just repetitive.

PHYSICAL INJURY TO MENTAL FACULTIES

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Why not accept the Bar Association's words, that "the phrase 'mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent physical injury to mental faculties of members of a group inflicted with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, social, racial or religious group as such"?

Mr. PERLMAN. That is repetitive too. I voted for that at the meeting of the Bar Association. You are reading from the report of the section on international law, which favors the convention.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It seems to me that if there is not an objection to this it would be awfully good to take a quote from them and accept their recommendation.

Mr. TATE. We could take up that phrase as they describe it: "permanent physical injury to mental faculties."

Senator MCMAHON. All right; it is all right with me.

Mr. TATE. Then you would add the word "physical" before "injuries" in the understanding as we furnished it to you?

Mr. PERLMAN. "* * *

faculties."

permanent physical injury to mental

Mr. TATE. Yes.

MEANING OF "COMPLICITY"

Senator MCMAHON. Now we have a third one:

In the event that it seems necessary to include an interpretive statement with regard to "complicity," the following might be used as subparagraph 3 along with the other suggested interpretations:

"(3) That the United States Government understands and construes the words "complicity in genocide" appearing in Article II of this Convention to mean accessoryship before and after the fact and aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime of genocide."

Mr. TATE. I would like to say about that, Mr. Chairman, that we do not feel that this understanding is essential. I think it is harmless. It seems to us more appropriate that this definition in terms of American law be put in the statute which will be enacted. However, if you and your committee believe that it is desirable to have an understanding in on the question of complicity, this will do the job and I am sure nor harm will be done.

Senator MCMAHON. I would like it for this reason, that despite telling the Senate--and we debated it 100 times-that a statute has to come into existence before this thing will be enforced, despite telling them that number of times, you will get wild speeches about "Look what they are making the law: Complicity in genocide. What does that mean? That means, I guess, that if I am within 30 miles of it I am going to be hooked into some kind of a conspiracy."

I think it is best that we have this. I question the word accessoryship." Mr. Solicitor General, what do you think of that word?

Mr. PERLMAN. I think if you took that out and put the word "participation" in there you would make it more understandable.

Senator MCMAHON. I would rather have that, myself.

Mr. PERLMAN. “* * * participation before and after the fact and aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime of genocide."

FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS

Senator THOMAS of Utah. I like :

In giving its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Senate of the United States of America does so considering this to be an exercise of the authority of the Federal Government to define and punish offenses against the law of nations, expressly conferred by Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the United States Constitution, and, consequently, the traditional jurisdiction of the several states of the Union with regard to crime is in no way abridged.

Senator MCMAHON. That is an excellent point of view. We will put that in there. The cry about State's rights can be largely vitiated if we state that plainly as our understanding.

With those suggestions, Senator, is it all right to report it favorably to the full committee?

UNDERSTANDINGS, NOT RESERVATIONS OR INTERPRETATIONS

Senator THOMAS of Utah. I would like to see this reported with these understandings, and that they be labeled as "understandings" in the report, and not as "reservations" or "interpretations." They are understandings on the part of the Senate when they do it. We leave the interpreting to higher authority, and we won't use a reservation, because that in no sense is constructive in getting final approval. That is, I myself accept wholly the efforts of the United Nations in attempting to do something about genocide.

I think that they invented a very, very bad word, a word which probably does more harm than good, although the man who invented

it argued with me for some time. But whenever you turn to the Greek for the first part of a word and the Latin for the second part of a word you have a hyphenated something that just isn't good, and if you look at it and assume that it is wholly Latin then you get another idea, and you can do that, of course. But the word has been made, and I suppose it will be with us forever from now on. I hope that it will be only a word.

Senator MCMAHON. I would like to put in the record that eight countries have deposited their ratifications of the treaty as required; four more have completed except for the ceremony of depositing, making a total of 12. Twenty are required to put the treaty into effect, and I hope we can speed it up.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you know what nations they are? Will you put them in the record so that we will have them?

Mr. TATE. I will be glad to check with Dr. Kalijarvi on that. I think there are 12 now.

Senator MCMAHON. I will record in favor of reporting the Convention Senators Thomas, Lodge, Pepper, and McMahon. Senator Hickenlooper is recorded as not voting.

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was closed.]

GENOCIDE CONVENTION-Continued 1

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1950

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met in executive session, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m. in the committee hearing room, U.S. Capitol, Senator Tom Connally (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Connally, McMahon, Wiley, and Smith of New Jersey.

Also present: Hon. Jack K. McFall, Assistant Secretary of State; Hon. John D. Hickerson, Assistant Secretary of State for United Nations Affairs; Dr. W. W. Chapman, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary in Charge of Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of State; Mr. Adrian Fisher, the Legal Adviser, Department of State; Mr. Stanley Metzger, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State; Mr. J. W. Sipes, Office of the Assistant Secretary of State; Mr. Warren Looney, Office of the Special Assistant Secretary of State; Mr. H. J. Deason, Chief, Office of Foreign Activities Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior Department; Hon. Phillip Perlman, the Solicitor General, Department of Justice; Dr. Francis O. Wilcox, on the staff of the committee; and Dr. Thorsten V. Kalijarvi, on the staff of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We have jumped over No. 2 on our agenda, to take up the Genocide Convention, but we cannot vote on that today as some of our members are absent.

How do you want to proceed? Do you want to be heard first, General Perlman?

Mr. PERLMAN. I would suggest you hear from the State Department first.

MORAL POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. FISHER. We do not have an awful lot to say, sir. We testified in some detail before the subcommittee in terms of explanation of the purpose of the Convention, and its importance to the moral position of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. The moral position?

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir, that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. What is wrong with our morals?

Mr. FISHER. Our morals are all right, sir. I think moral position is important. I would just hate to see this country, the freest country in the world, stand up and say, "We are afraid to ratify this," because it

seems to me

1 See notes, p. 361.