of the subcommittee, I would like very much to be able to serve at these meetings, especially in my own State. I find, however, that it will be impossible for me to be away from the Senate on the scheduled days because of official duties here in Washington.

May I prevail upon you, therefore, to act as chairman for these two meetings? I know that there is considerable interest in the subject of the United Nations in the Southeast region of the country and I believe the subcommittee will find the views of informed citizens in Georgia and Florida of great value in our work.

With every wish for successful and profitable hearings, I am,
Yours sincerely,

WALTER F. GEORGE,

SENATOR HOLLAND'S POSITION ON SUBCOMMITTEE

Chairman.

One word only as to my own presence on this committee: This is a special committee consisting of 6 members of the Foreign Relations Committee including not only the chairman, but the senior members and those who have served as delegates to the United Nations in behalf of our country, and it consists of 2 other members, 1 from each party, who are named for other reasons than membership on the Foreign Relations Committee.

I happen to be the one named from the Democratic side of the aisle. For what reason I was named I do not know, but I think that probably the fact that Florida is the crossroads of travel herein the Western Hemisphere, and that Miami is the hub of such travel and of such cultural and other contacts with all of Latin America, may have had something to do with that assignment.

I suggest also that the fact that my work has largely been in the field of agriculture may have had something to do with it because we find that the tremendous production of food in this country is something that gives us, perhaps, the strongest influence that we have in international councils.

Other nations of the earth can hardly conceive of a nation which, with over 160 million citizens of its own to feed, and feeding them at the highest standard of living known in the world, still has tremendous abundance to share with other free peoples of the earth.

At any rate, I am happy to be on this committee, and I am happy to bring it here to our own State, and to hear now the testimony of devoted Americans from our own State as to their several points of view with reference to the United Nations.

Senator SMITH. Might I just add that another reason for this distinguished Senator being on this committee is his recognized ability and his keen interest in the subject of international affairs.

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I certainly welcome him here in our group to carry on these hearings.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much.

Call the first witness.

Mr. JOHN DAVIS, Junior Chamber of Commerce, Miami. Mrs. Annelle Sterk of Tallahassee.

Senator HOLLAND. Mrs. Sterk, we are happy to have you. Will you proceed now in your own way to give your testimony on this subject?

STATEMENT OF MRS. ANNELLE STERK, TALLAHASSEE, FLA.

Mrs. STERK. Thank you, Mr. Holland and Senator Smith, and Congressman Fascell-I guess I said "Mr. Holland" because I have known you a long time.

In June 1954 I attended the United Nations Institute in New York City, most of the sessions held at the United Nations Building, and sponsored by New York University.

As a teacher I was attending NEA at the time, and taking advantage of an opportunity to know more about an organization that I had always believed in very deeply.

Throughout that Institute, I was deeply impressed with many things.

Primarily I was impressed with attending the Security Council session on Guatemala. There I saw the Soviet Union cast the 60th veto. There I saw the United Nations' participation cease in that incident.

I saw intelligent men who were working to the best of their abilities. It seemed to me they were more playing with international maneuvering than they were trying to find a just solution to a problem. They were playing fairly by the rules of the game at that time.

What we needed, and what we need was something more to go on than rules of the game.

THE VETO AND MEMBERSHIP

I propose that the veto be abolished. I feel that with the veto abolished, man can more rapidly and more efficiently seek a legal solution to conflicts between nations.

Very probably if the veto is abolished, universal membership in the United Nations will follow. This, I think, should be mandatory.

To me it is an injustice for certain nations to be excluded from the deliberations of the United Nations. It is somewhat like taxation without representation, for which we fought in the Revolutionary War.

Furthermore, it is the obligation of all nations which are so interdependent to carry their responsibility for the just functioning of national relationships.

The veto and partial membership in the United Nations I consider stumbling blocks to the further legal development of what the United Nations needs to solve problems between nations.

A further stumbling block, of course, is military armaments.

DISARMAMENT

I believe in disarmament. Disarmament will be difficult because it has to be on a total basis and on a universal basis.

However, since nuclear weapons, the whole world is saying too inhuman to be used, since we have those nuclear weapons, largely as a threat of retaliation against another nation which might use them against us, common sense surely is soon going to tell us that to manufacture something that we do not want to use except in retaliation does

not make sense. Soon all the nations of the world will come to that realization-that, I hope.

I was further impressed at the United Nations with the spirit that I saw evidenced there, a spirit which they express in these terms quite often, the people who are working there, when they refer to the dignity and worth of the human being.

That that great international body has as its core such concern for individuals, to me, I think, is tremendously encouraging; it is a healthy thing. To me it says that the United Nations is expressing the deepest aspirations of mankind.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much, Mrs. Sterk. The whole of your statement will appear in the record.

Mrs. STERK. Yes.

(The prepared statement of Mrs. Sterk follows:)

STATEMENT OF ANNELLE STERK, OF TALLAHASSE, Fla.

In June 1954, I attended a 3-day institute in the United Nations, sponsored by New York University, which included attending the Security Council session on Guatemala, when the Soviet Union cast its 60th veto. There U. N. official participation in the Guatemala incident stopped. There I witnessed the interplay of international politics in action, I saw intelligent men playing a game of chess, not primarily seeking a just solution to a problem.

I propose that the veto, as one stumbling block to the development of legal solutions to problems between nations, be abolished. As a result of the abolition of the veto, universal membership in the United Nations would probably follow. I propose that universal membership be made mandatory. The concept of excluding some nations from the deliberations of the United Nations repeats an injustice against which we fought our Revolutionary War, "taxation without representation."

The second stumbling block that I would have removed from the development of a legal code is military armaments. This will not be easy, because disarmament will have to happen on a universal basis. However, since the value of nuclear weapons lies not in their use, but only in their threat of retaliation, commonsense will some day dissuade the world from their manufacture. It will be more sensible to disarm and depend on legal codes for protection.

I feel condfident that with the veto abolished and with a disarmament process assured, men would rapidly develop a legal code for just and moral relations between nations.

During my stay at the United Nations Institute I was deeply impressed by the strong feeling that I saw so often evidenced for the "dignity and worth of the human being.' To see such concern for individuals at the core of this great international body said to me that the real aspirations of man are being expressed by the United Nations. And it seemed to me that this was possible because the Chinese humorist, the French priest, the Dutch economist, that all the people I met there were citizens of the world who did not have to be concerned about supporting tottering colonial empires or national ambitions, and so they could be interested in people. This is healthy and right. Let us all work together to unfetter this high-minded institution so that the United Nations can also express man's greatest urge, the will to live together in lawful peace. Senator HOLLAND. Senator Smith, do you have a question? Senator SMITH. Just one question : You are advocating the abolition of the veto. The question has been raised by different people at meetings we have attended, as to whether the veto should be abolished completely or only on questions of membership and aggression.

It is felt by many that the United States would be in danger in the present state of the world if we did not have a veto for our own protection in case of action by the Security Council that would be disadvantageous to us.

I am just throwing that out as a suggestion. There is a difference on what the veto should cover.

Mrs. STERK. Well, of course, in our own National Government we have a series of checks and balances, and checks and balances are very important wherever people work together, wherever there is unlimited power-there is that abuse of that power, in individual relationships and in group relationships.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much, Mrs. Sterk.

The next witness, please.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. John M. Murrell, Miami.

Senator HOLLAND. We appreciate the applause, but we are going to have to save all the time we can, so I will ask the witness to proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MURRELL, MIAMI, FLA.

Mr. MURRELL. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great privilege as an American citizen to appear here today and make a few remarks as to what I believe in.

I have devoted a great deal of time ever since the inception of the United Nations in studying and attempting to find how we would solve the great problem that this world has been confronted with, with war.

FAILURE OF THE U. N.

I have come to the conclusion, after 10 years of the United Nations, that it is a 100 percent total failure.

They can still make peace, and when I speak of peace, I speak of an honorable peace.

When I think of our American boys wearing the uniform in the Red Chinese prisons, and God knows what is happening to them, and our Government waiting for the United Nations to go and rescue them since when has our country, which was founded on bravery, ever gotten to the position we are in today, of running tagging to Red China through an emissary to try to get our boys in uniform released? It is the most disgraceful thing I ever heard.

Now, instead of bringing peace, I would need an adding machine to tell you gentlemen-and I am sure you are well aware of the fact— that behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain millions of people have fallen since the beginning of the United Nations.

I say that the word itself is fraudulent-"United Nations"-that is a misnomer.

You know what is going on in the United Nations' chambers, the arguments; you know what Russia has been doing. You know the guns and supplies that are being furnished the enemies of the free world; and yet we call it a United Nations.

I could not help but be impressed when this meeting was opened with a prayer. Do you know how many prayers are ever said in the United Nations, like in your Congress and your House of Representatives and your Senate?

Why should we lay down in the same bed with people who do not want peace except the kind of peace that they will insist upon and make us lose our freedom?

Now, this United Nations Charter, it is hardly necessary for me to remind you the part of it-part of this was the brainchild of one Alger Hiss who makes Benedict Arnold look like a great patriot compared to what he has attempted to do in the free world.

I say that ever since this United Nations Charter was organized, there is what is known as a domestic clause, which is article II, paragraph 7, which stated that 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 members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter.

Gentlemen, you are aware of the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided a case which, if there was one Justice less, we would probably have lost our sovereignty. This is in the case known as the Steel Seizure case. It is the most dangerous thing.

So, if we cannot stay out of the United Nations, let us get back and make it a peace organization with limited powers, and let us keep our sovereignty.

BACKGROUND OF THE CONGRESS OF FREEDOM

Senator HOLLAND. Your time is up. Thank you, Mr. Murrell. I have a question which, I think, would be of general interest. I note that you are testifying not only individually, but on behalf of the Congress of Freedom, Inc.

Mr. MURRELL. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. I think this is a proper occasion to say that each witness who testifies representing some organized group should make that clear in the record so that the hearers may understand it, and the record may show it.

Mr. MURRELL. Yes, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. What is the size of that organization?

Mr. MURRELL. Senator, I could not give you the size of it, but I will say this: that the Congress of Freedom on April 25-30, is holding a convention in the city of San Francisco, and it is being financed by citizens and not by the Government.

We are going as a grassroots organization, people from all over the Nation, and when we get through we expect to see that there is a record of that convention duly presented to this committee so that it can be considered, and with such recommendations as they feel should be made, and whatever change should be made in the present setup. Senator HOLLAND. For the record I am asking that you supply us, when you can obtain it, with a statement of the size and general nature of the organization with which I personally am not familiar. Maybe other members of the committee are.

Mr. MURRELL. Yes, sir. We have several distinguished gentlemen who are members, in this audience.

Senator HOLLAND. Senator Smith, do you have any questions? Senator SMITH. I do not have any immediate questions, but I would like to call the attention of Mr. Murrell to the fact that we do not all share the view that Mr. Alger Hiss wrote the Charter of the United Nations. We had in San Francisco when the charter was written, such outstanding citizens as the late Senator Vandenberg, with whom I was very intimately acquainted; Mr. John Foster Dulles, who is now Secretary of State; Mr. Harold Stassen, who is now a member of the present administration, and other men of that caliber.