STATEMENT OF FREDA K. NADLER

Mrs. NADLER. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, my name is Freda K. Nadler. I live in Macon, Ga., in a plantation house over a hundred years old, which my husband and I call our Vine and Fig Tree. As I write this statement, I sit under a gnarled old wisteria in full bloom, and my heart cries for every man to sit under his own vine and fig tree and dream of war no more. How to do it? Not by sitting and dreaming, but by trying in every way possible to strengthen the United Nations, man's last hope for peace.

I am a graduate of Wesleyan College, first chartered college for women in the world, and have served the past 3 years as national president of its alumnae association. I speak not for our 8,000 alumnae. I am a member of the American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, and the executive committee of the Macon Council on World Affairs. None of these affiliations qualifies me to speak as an expert. I speak merely as an ordinary citizen who strives in all humbleness to find the answer which we all are seeking—a better way to preserve and strengthen our country in a world of peace. For the past 10 years, ever since the San Francisco Conference, I have met with various groups in Macon to study and discuss the United Nations: Its charter, its agencies, its weaknesses, its strengths. I am but one of many Macon women who have been so engaged in their clubs and churches. We women in middle Georgia have a deep interest in the U. N., in supporting it and its agencies, in strengthening it into an effective medium for preventing war.

We middle Georgians are gratified that the Committee on Foreign Relations sees fit to consult us on our feelings and desires regarding the U. N., and we are sincerely gratified for this opportunity to express ourselves. We welcome members of the committee to the Deep South, especially Senator Smith, with the assurance that many of us are not content to live in a shell of magnolias and moonlight and isolationism; we are, sirs, aware that in this year of 1955, a jet plane can fly from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 3 hours and 50 minutes. It is indeed a small world-a world that must be all of a piece, or all in pieces.

U. N. CHARTER OUTMODED

We know that the U. N. Charter was outmoded even before it was signed, that its conception of war antedated atom and hydrogen and cobalt bombs. Is it a rigid document whose words are written in cold, leaden script? Why can it not be organic, alive, and malleable to meet a changing world and terrifying changed conditions? What a challenge and a high privilege could be ours to grasp the initiative in revising the U. N. Charter-thus might the United Nations become the prophet of peace among nations, proving to misguided peoples all over the world that we are not the warmongers they currently fear and mistrust.

Time has revealed certain weaknesses in the U. N. Charter. We owe it to humanity to ferret out these weaknesses and to repair them. Secretary of State Dulles in his testimony before this committee has pointed out six major questions which he feels should be reviewed. Because of the limitation of time, I shall not attempt to cover all six,

but shall concentrate only on one grand aspect-that of veto and its related problem of voting, not implying thereby that the others are not of equal importance.

THE VETO POWER

It appears that the greatest weakness in the operation of the charter is that any one member of the Security Council, by its veto, can block the performance of the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." Russia has done so, time and time again. Mr. Dulles asks, "Can charter changes better enable it to discharge that responsibility?" The answer is that the charter has not been able to do so under its present provisions; thus, it seems logical that a change should be sought.

REGIONAL PACTS

As for regional pacts, they are better than nothing. But they are in essence contrary to the spirit of universality, and result finally in group versus group versus group, the antithesis of a onement. Regional pacts, then, would not seem to be the ideal answer, but only a stopgap.

PHILOSOPHY OF UNITING FOR PEACE RESOLUTION

Mr. Dulles asks further: "Or should greater responsibility be given to the General Assembly where there is no veto?" Yes. I approve of the philosophy of the 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution. It has served to bypass some of the evils of the improper use of the veto power.

There should be room within that concept to enlarge its utility toward fulfilling the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."

WEIGHTED VOTING

This would seem to require reexamination and revamping of the voting procedure of the General Assembly. I reply to Secretary Dulles that the voting of the General Assembly should be a weighted vote, combining number and responsibility. Answering his question, I approve a "combination vote whereby affirmative action requires both a majority of all the members, on the basis of sovereign equality, and also a majority vote, on some weighted basis, which takes into account population, resources, and so forth."

My lawyer husband assured me that weighted voting has established precedents in our bankruptcy law, and there creditors vote by number as well as by amount in the collection of assets in a bankruptcy estate.

Last summer my husband and I were privileged to travel around the world. We saw the sun shimmer on Pearl Harbor and its silver airships. We greeted the United States 7th Fleet in the morning mist of Tokyo Bay and the hundreds of tattered sampans in Hong Kong Harbor. Our eyes were filled with the glory of the tropical sunsets, of jade Buddhas and star sapphires-marred by bomb-strewn rubble and the misery of refugees, everywhere. When we had put Gibraltar and the Azores behind us, I lay in my deck chair and thought about the

world. It was so beautiful-it would be a pity to destroy it in mushroom puffs of smoke. True, the world is full of various peoples, of assorted colors and ideas and ideals-but are we not all cut out of the same fabric of humanity, all children of one Father?

As the skyline of New York appeared before our grateful eyes my heart leaped at sight of the slim groping rectangle of the U. N. Here was the answer-the United Nations! We must strengthen it, so that all God's children can live in peace-so that all God's children can live. Senator HOLLAND. Senator Sparkman?

Senator SPARK MAN. No questions.

Senator SMITH. I appreciate the very fine reference to the Senator from New Jersey.

Senator HOLLAND. May I say one of the finest things that comes out of this series of hearings is knowledge of the fact that the good women of this country are not all of one opinion, and we would be surprised if we found them of one opinion, and are thinking seriously on this vital question.

Call the next witness.

Mr. SNODGRASS. Mr. Thomas R. Reed, of Atlanta, Ga.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. REED, ATLANTA, GA.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I have been preceded by so many much more able speakers on this subject that I feel as though my appearance here was almost superfluous. However, I have a good deal in common with many of the views that have been expressed, and particularly with those questions that were recently asked by the Senator from New Jersey, with whom I have more than one thing in common.

I don't refer to physical appearance, but I do envy the two other Senators who appear to be much younger.

Senator HOLLAND. May I break in to say that I, too, flew under Billy Mitchell, so we cannot be too much different in age.

Mr. REED. That is another thing I have in common with the Sentor from New Jersey. I can remember back as far as the League of Nations, and I was right with him at that time. In fact, I didn't wait to be drafted. I enlisted and got into the Air Force, because I was so firmly convinced that we had to have a League of Nations. But apparently I have grown up, and aside from the top of the scalp by way of different ages, I disagree with the Senator, much as I respect him, on this question of the United Nations.

I do not feel that we can afford to sink our identity, our freedom, our mores and our wealth in the morass of a world government, where we would be hopelessly outnumbered, outvoted and marked for pillage and prostration. I am sure no member of your committee would ask for such a fate, much less permit it, any more than would many sincere proponents of world government such as the dear lady who just preceded me.

But it is, nevertheless, the goal of influential and designing plotters that we are confronted with a world conspiracy, not with people like ourselves. We have to make that distinction constantly in thinking about this problem. It is against the machinations of these that we must be constantly on guard. One of the most distinguished of the

latter, for example, and probably the one most influential in drafting the U. N. Charter, has just been paroled from a United States penitentiary.

Incidentally, it was that same man, according to my information, who wrote the brief for the association-American Association of the United Nations-in behalf of obliterating the California alien land law. That was the first case, I believe, in which the supreme situation of the United Nations over our entire national law was demonstrated in this country, and being a native Californian, I was very much interested in it.

I think it was Alger Hiss who wrote the brief for the AAUN in that case, and I will tell you why: According to my information, it was because the AAUN pointed out that the matter was one of extraordinary importance "particularly with reference to good faith of this country in observing the intent of this charter."

We are all aware that the Devil can quote Scripture to his purpose, but in this case it appears to have been Alger Hiss.

Incidentally, the articles under which the annulment of the California law was accomplished, articles 55 and 56, would have equal bearing on our own segregation laws. I am not pleading for or against segregation. I am simply pleading for the retention of States rights, and the respect for our National Constitution.

NEED FOR REVISION OF CHARTER

I have cited this particular instance to illustrate the poignant need for prompt and effective revision of the United Nations Charter to prevent any recurrence of such tampering with our domestic laws in the future, and since to do such a job and do it well may require much time and much debate, even if it does not turn out to be utterly futile in the end, may I be permitted to express the hope that the present Congress will see fit to permit the American people through their State legislatures without further procrastination to declare whether they want such protection or not. To this end I plead for prompt passage of the Bricker amendment.

I thank you very much, gentlemen. It has been a pleasure to be here. Senator SMITH. Mr. Reed, just one question:

I understood you to say you disagreed with me because I was for world government. I never took any position like that; I have been against it as much as you are. I am definitely opposed to world gov

ernment.

Mr. REED. Good for you, Senator. I was so happy to hear you say that-so happy to hear you say that.

Senator SMITH. I am glad to be classified with you so far as our bald heads are concerned.

Mr. REED. You can still see the back of your neck.

Are there any further questions?

Senator HOLLAND. Senator Sparkman?

Senator SPARKMAN. I have no further questions.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Reed.

(The prepared statements of Mr. Thomas R. Reed and Mrs. Marion C. Reed follow :)

STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. REED

I am Thomas R. Reed of Atlanta. I speak as a private citizen, although before retirement I was engaged in public service in various parts of the United States and Hawaii, and situated in the islands at the time of Pearl Harbor. I served for 2 years as a flying officer in the AEF under Billy Mitchell, and both of my sons served as aviators in the Second World War.

I come before you to plead for the preservation of our Nation, its institutions and above all its Constitution, for without its Constitution there would have been no nation and no institutions. At the time of its drafting there were grave doubts in the minds of its framers whether it would be acceptable to the American people, there was such divergence of opinion among them. Three things were in its favor, a common language, common customs, and a common Bible. Whether even with these for a nucleus they could weld a nation that would endure was the question. That it did endure has been the wonder of the age.

Now we are asked by certain members of our Government and Legislature, with the apparent approval of the Chief Executive, to explore means by which this unique and glorius structure may be brought to what appears to me a gradual and certain end. Its end is certain if we submit our internal affairs to the dictation of a miscellaneous group of foreign peoples among whom there is no common language or custom, nor even a common religion. On the contrary, the races and peoples to whom we would be subjecting ourselves present every variety of conflicting racial, religious and political prejudice. In only a few has there been exhibited either interest in or capacity for self-government. In only one point do they present much agreement, and that is in their envy of our prosperity and power.

Our people comprise only 6 percent of the world's population. It would be a disaster more terrible than devastation by atomic warfare if this numerically small but singularly favored 6 percent were to submerge their identity, their freedom, their mores and their wealth in the morass of a world government where they would be hopelessly outnumbered, outvoted and marked for pillage and prostration.

I am sure no member of your committee would ask for such a fate, much less permit it, any more than would many sincere proponents of world government, but it is nevertheless the goal of influential and designing plotters, and it is against the machinations of these we must be constantly on guard. One of the most distinguished of the latter, for example, and probably the one most influential in drafting the U. N. Charter, has just been paroled from a United States penitentiary.

And speaking of Alger Hiss, it may be pertinent to mention in these Atlanta hearings the part he played in one of the early adventures of the United Nations in which was declared their deliberate intention to invade the domestic affairs of our citizens. Many of you will recall the circumstances. It was when the California Court of Appeals declared invalid the California alien land law-a law which had always been upheld by the United States Supreme Court before we became entangled in the United Nations. This was the first case in which the supremacy of the U. N. Charter over internal American law was argued. The American Association of the United Nations (which maintains, I am told, a distributing center for information at the University of Georgia) intervened in this case because of its "extraordinary importance ** particularly with reference to the good faith of this country in observing the intent of the charter." We are all aware that the devil can quote Scripture to his purpose, but who do you suppose appealed to our "good faith" in the remark just quoted? The same skilled manipulator who assisted so ably in presenting half of Europe and all of China to the Soviets in the give-away orgies at Yalta-the pal on whom Dean Acheson declared he would never turn his back. Yes, the brief for the AAUN for invalidating the California alien land law was written and signed by none other than Alger Hiss, as general counsel for the AAUN.

Incidentally the articles under which the annulment of the California law was accomplished-articles 55 and 56-would have equal bearing on our own segregation laws.

I have cited this particular instance to illustrate the poignant need for prompt and effective revision of the United Nations Charter to prevent any recurrence of