such tampering with our domestic laws in the future. Not only should articles 55 and 56 be rewritten with American interests in view, but the same treatment. should be accorded article 2, paragraph 7, the domestic jurisdiction clause.

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.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARION C. REED

I am Mrs. Marion C. Reed of Atlanta. Although I am proud to be counted as one of the vigilant Women for the Bricker Amendment I speak as an individual and 100 per cent American.

I will say forthrightly that my earnest desire would be to see the United States get out of the United Nations and the United Nations definitely to get out of the United States. Pursuant to this I would call attention to the following:

"Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it." We know that the Lord had nothing to do with building the United Nations: it is a Tower of Babel. Field Marshal Montgomery's comment on the United Nations was, and I quote, "The United Nations has no strength and it does not seem to me to have any great unity." Precisely so, because strength is born of unity. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." To try to strengthen the United Nations by amendments is fruitless unless there is unity, and how can you have unity between Christian and Pagan? "What concord hath Christ with Belial?"

The grand and noble purposes stated in lofty language of the preamble and the first four articles of the United Nations Charter would capture the heart of any peace-loving person, but sound reasoning must temper the emotions and logical and cold appraisal of events since the United Nations has tried to function exposes its utter weakness. Now since it can't express strength for lack of unity there are those who would try to strengthen it by giving it legislative powers; in other words making it over into a world government. Instead of being willing to admit it is a failure and should be abolished they would impose upon the already properly functioning governments of the nations a supergovernment embracing the whole world; a stupendous adventure boding no good for anyone.

Certainly our country, the Republic of the United States of America, should never surrender its Constitution and Bill of Rights to any form of world government since we already have the best form of government the world has ever known. But even our Government would not serve the pagan nations who have no understanding of nor appreciation for Christian principles. Witness their attempts to overthrow it even after they become beneficiaries of its laws.

There have been many statements made relative to amending the present Charter of the United Nations with respect to the veto power, tax power, military power, etc., I would say the only one which should be kept intact would be the veto power. Every nation should have the right to say "No." All others should be amended to conform to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, so far as we are concerned, but I would like to speak specifically of this particular provision in the charter-article 2, section 7, which reads, "Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter." [Emphasis supplied.] There is an implication that at some future date and change in the charter this provision could and would be changed. But even so-the provision as it stands has no meaning or weight since the one weakness of our Constitution provides that a treaty becomes the "supreme law of the land," and therefore you had the California alien land law and the Idaho marriage law set aside by judges because they held the United Nations Charter supersedes the law of the land inasmuch as the Congress has ratified it, to their everlasting shame. This is a direct rebuttal to and rejection of the statement of a member of your committee: "So the United Nations does not dictate to our Government" (Milwaukee hearings, p. 241).

It is just this obvious intent of all proponents of one-world government which should put every Congressman, regardless of party affiliations, who has taken the oath to defend our Constitution, on the alert and on record as opposed to our subservience to any such form of government.

Let me call attention to chapter 9, articles 55 through 60, and chapter 10, article 63, entitled, "International Economic and Social Cooperation” and “The Economic and Social Council", respectively. I assume that it is through the provisions embodied in these chapters of the United Nations Charter that the International Bill of Rights, the Genocide Treaty, and possibly the infamous Status of Forces Treaty came into being along with many others. The unprecedented and inhuman conduct of the Congress in ratifying the Status of Forces Treaty has already abrogated the constitutional rights of our men in uniform; and if the Bill of Rights and Genocide Treaty were to be ratified they would indeed "cut across" our constitutional rights, as Mr. Dulles has said. This shows that the fulfillment of Lord Macaulay's prophecy made in 1857 is already upon us. Writing to the author of a biography of Thomas Jefferson, Macaulay said, "Your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste in the 20th century as the Roman Empire was in the 5th; with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions."

This is why it were better to chuck the whole unholy business instead of trying to amend it and also why we need the Bricker amendment to prevent the utter destruction of our Constitution and our country. It is patent you can't "trust" the Congressmen always to uphold our rights, with all due respect to another statement of a member of your committee; for treaties have been ratified when only six Senators were present to vote. Merely changing the rules for voting will not do. The amendment is obligatory.

I thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. Next witness.

Mr. SNODGRASS. Dr. C. Mildred Thompson of Athens, Ga.

STATEMENT OF DR. C. MILDRED THOMPSON, ATHENS, GA.

Mrs. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I speak on my own today. I am a student of American history, and for many years I was a professor at Vassar College, a professor of history, and dean of the college, and after Vassar was through with me I taught; I was a member of the faculty and taught history at the University of Georgia. But please let me assure you that neither Vassar nor the University of Georgia has any responsibility for what I have to say today.

I shall confine my remarks, gentlemen, to one single question that has been in my mind about the United Nations. I speak as an ardent supporter of the United Nations. I have been ever since it was thought of, and I am still in strong support. My faith is strong in it but I want it improved and I want it brought up to date, so to speak.

COMPOSITION OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

As a student of history, I see change, always. There is a law of life and that, if the United Nations is to be effective it must catch up with change and it is in one respect only and that is in regard to the composition of the Security Council that I would ask your attention in these few minutes.

The five permanent members of the Security Council in 1945 when the charter was drawn up, were the states which presumably were powers great enough to ensure the fulfillment of the purpose of the United Nations. Two of those states, France and Nationalist China, are not in that position today. Changes in the past 10 years in the relative power of the 5 permanent members indicate the necessity of review.

The greatest problem is China. Today there are two Chinas, not one great power. One of these is still a permanent member of the Security Council, not a great power in any sense of the word, with no actual power today other than that supported by the United States. Membership of Communist China in the United Nations and its relation to the Security Council are problems which must be dealt with, difficult as they will be, in any conference of review.

Then there is India, which since 1945 has become a great, independent, national state, wielding wide influence among the Asiatic

states.

The relation of these two powerful Asiatic independent nations, India and Communist China, to the Security Council, must be determined in accord with the realities of the world situation in 1955, not 1945.

Will it be to the best interests of the United States as a great power, and this, of course, is the thing which must determine our position, to act in a minority of one in facing these vital questions. It is this, then, gentlemen of the committee, that I would direct your attention to, the place of the great Asiatic nations in our United Nations and in the Security Council as its central agency. I thank you.

GERMANY, ITALY, AND FRANCE

Senator HOLLAND. Dr. Thompson, you have spoken of two nations in particular which pose real problems relative to the membership of the Security Council. If that question be approached in connection with the amendment of the charter, is it possible to overlook the fact that Germany, Italy, and Japan also must be considered as potentially great powers which are entitled to some real consideration as to the place they should play in the ultimate picture?

Mrs. THOMPSON. I think, Senator, you are quite right that they are potentially great, and must be considered. But it would seem to me that now, the two that I mentioned, India and Communist China, are already great in power. I am not saying whether I like them or I don't like them, but I mean just as facts.

Now the greatness of Germany and Japan today, Italy, is still in the realm of potentially great powers, are they not? Perhaps 10 years from now there may be another revision, and it may be one of those other powers that would be great and would deserve a place in the Security Council.

Therefore, it would seem to me that in examining this question of membership, the composition of the Security Council, there ought to be some flexibility of membership, not just naming a country as if it would be permanently there, one to be considered chief above the others, but some flexibility by which there could be room for changes as one power would rise and another diminish in greatness.

QUESTION OF PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP ON SECURITY COUNCIL

Senator HOLLAND. Is what you are saying that you doubt the wisdom of any frozen arrangement under which there are permanent members of the Council set up regardless of what may happen to them as to their own power?

Mrs. THOMPSON. Mr. Senator, if we say permanent, there is no such thing as permanence, is there? Anything that is permanent is subject to change because life itself changes.

Senator HOLLAND. So there is the criticism that you are making of the present setup?

Mrs. THOMPSON. Yes, that there is not enough room for growth and for change as the situation in the world itself changes.

MEMBERSHIP ON SECURITY COUNCIL OF NATIONALIST CHINA

Senator HOLLAND. And you make a strong point out of the fact of the present weakness of Nationalist China, which, as you say, has no power except such as it sustains from us and other friendly nations, which still remains a member, a permanent member, of the Security Council?

Mrs. THOMPSON. A permanent member, and it is, well--

Senator HOLLAND. I think you have made your point well and strongly.

Senator Sparkman?

VETO ON MEMBERSHIP

Senator SPARKMAN. As a matter of fact, Dr. Thompson, I think you have put your finger on the most critical point of the whole United Nations setup. If there is a difficulty that we cannot get around, I think perhaps it is the one that you pointed out. If you were here this morning, you may have heard Mr. Hugh Grant refer to the fact that Mr. Jan Masaryk told him in 1945 at the San Francisco Conference that it would be impossible for a world organization to work as it was dreamed it should work, unless there could be harmonious action among the great powers.

The Security Council was set up on the theory and the fond hope that the five great powers, great allies that they had been, would be able to work together harmoniously. We know that has not been true. We know also that the veto power lies there, with reference to any such change as you propose.

What do you say to that?

Mrs. THOMPSON. I would say it is true, but there are a great many things that are true that we do try to remedy, try to get something better, do we not?

Senator SPARKMAN. Of course this would all be brought out in a conference.

Mrs. THOMPSON. Yes.

Senator SPARKMAN. It would be your hope that maybe if we started trying to get further flexibility into the membership of the Security Council that eventually we might be able to get that accomplished, is that right?

Mrs. THOMPSON. I would say get something better. I do not look for perfection in the workings.

Senator SPARKMAN. In this world?

Mrs. THOMPSON. In the constitution or in this world.

Senator SPARKMAN. Don't stop short of infinity. Or eternity, I suppose?

Mrs. THOMPSON. No.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one word. It gives me great pleasure to see Dr. Thompson again.

Mrs. THOMPSON. I remember Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. As I recall, she was the distinguished dean of Vassar College and I think it was about the time my own daughter was there. I want to express my appreciation at seeing you again, Dr. Thompson, and for your vigor and keeping your mind alert in dealing with these things and giving us the benefit of your thinking. Mrs. THOMPSON. I was very glad to see our Senator here today, Senator Smith, one of the very nicest, most intelligent fathers that I ever had to deal with.

Senator SMITH. I thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. I don't have to assure our distinguished guest from New Jersey that that is not southern hospitality. It is just generous, sincere

Senator SPARKMAN. Reality.

Senator HOLLAND. Reality.

The next witness, please, is Mrs. H. Benson Ford, of Atlanta.

STATEMENT OF MRS. H. BENSON FORD, ATLANTA, GA.

Mrs. FORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Mr. H. Benson Ford, of Atlanta.

Speaking as one greatly concerned about some problems which confront our country and the fact that this is the year when the Charter of the United Nations comes up soon for possible revision, I would like to urge that the powers of the Charter of the United Nations not be expanded so that any of our sovereign rights as a nation are taken from us.

The United Nations should be a Council of Nations, not a body with any powers of a legislative, judiciary, taxing, or international army or police-force nature. The present United Nations Charter must be restated to protect our Constitution in its entirety.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH. No questions. Thank you very much.

DISARMAMENT

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me ask you just one question and I ask it because the point was brought up a while ago: One of the great problems confronting us today is the development of a workable program to control world armaments; in other words, I think we all agree that sometime, somewhere, somehow, we must find a plan to stop this terrible armaments race in which we are all engaged, and we speak often of a plan that would provide for inspection and would be enforceable. Now there is a plan that the United States has proposed in the United Nations. It is a plan that was proposed, I believe, under the Baruch atomic plan. It was restated by President Eisenhower in the early part of 1953, and it has been repeatedly stated. How are you going to get an enforceable plan if some powers are not given to the United Nations somewhere? In other words, how are they going to have power to enforce disarmament if they have no police force or no powers of enforcement of any kind?

42435-55-pt. 8- 8