tial outlaw nations would think twice before resorting to arbitrary violence which would ultimately result in their own annihilation.

It is true that Russia has repeatedly indicated opposition to charter revision. However, like many individuals, nations, particularly politically unstable nations, have been known to change their minds, even on important issues. Whatever Russia's faults, she cannot be so blind as to favor the continuance of a costly and suicidal arms race. At any event, I do not think that we should let the current party line deter us from taking the initiative and acting upon our own convictions should we agree to the necessity of charter revision.

CHARTER REVISION URGED

It is my understanding that if those who formed the present charter had conceived of the devastating efficiency of improved nuclear weapons, they would have made more explicit provisions for disarmament in that charter. Now we have a chance to remedy the defects of the preatomic charter before it is too late. I realize that there are persons better informed than I who oppose charter revision at the present time. Their reasons undoubtedly have a certain validity, but I believe they are tragically shortsighted. They fear that if the foundational charter is seriously questioned now, the entire structure of the United Nations may topple, so precarious is its present state. It seems to me that the opponents of revision who share this view are entirely too confident in the temporary security of a United Nations which is now said to be united in name only. The United Nations has been notably ineffectual in handling the problem of aggression in Indochina and Formosa. If the charter is allowed to remain as it is, the United Nations will soon be obsolete, and when this happens the blame will rest squarely upon the people who thought they were protecting the U. N. by discouraging timely charter revision.

Those who optimistically believe that things can go on as they are indefinitely are only deceiving themselves. There will be no security in the United Nations as long as the balance of power is maintained by threats of violence.

I do not want my child to go through life in a world that is governed by fear and insecurity. Continued international tension is bound to have profound repercussions upon the mental and emotional stability of our children. Under the strain of ever-impending atomic destruction they may abandon all respect for our moral and civil laws and choose to live dangerously from day to day, sensing that each day may be their last. Or they may lose all desire to work for a better world and become blind conformers, using up their youthful energy in attacks upon minority groups and helpless individuals. If the world is to be an abiding and creative community it must be governed not by fear, not by violence, but by enforceable law, and to this purpose the United Nations Charter must now be dedicated. Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Knowland?

Senator KNOWLAND. No questions.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. French.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mrs. Erwin C. Sage, followed by Mrs. John Church.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ERWIN C. SAGE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SAN FRANCISCO

Mrs. SAGE. Gentlemen, I am Mrs. Erwin C. Sage, president of the League of Women Voters of San Francisco, and speaking for that organization.

The League of Women Voters has supported the United Nations from its beginning-indeed it was one of the few national women's organizations which was invited to send a representative as a consultant during the conferences which framed the charter here in San Francisco in 1945. Since the United States was represented at that conference by a distinguished bipartisan delegation largely drawn from the Congress and since it was ratified almost unanimously by the Senate, this charter represented the thinking and the desires of the American people.

INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHARTER WITHOUT REVISION

In spite of the fact that all of our high hopes of that day just 10 years ago have not been realized, the league believes that the United Nations has an impressive record of contribution to the establishment of world economic and social stability. Unfortunately, however, war is not abolished by a stroke of the pen, but by the willingness-the dedicated willingness of nations to settle their differences by means other than those of barbarism. We cannot assess the costs of war in terms of human sufferings, tragedy, and waste; but in dollars and cents, over 75 percent of our total national budget goes to pay for past wars and for present defense. Contrast that figure with the one-tenth of 1 percent of our budget which is our contribution to the United Nations to improve our chances for peace.

The United States' position of world power gives it a special responsibility within the United Nations and also a special obligation to contribute to its successful functioning. The manner in which we accept that responsibility and obligation is the measure of our maturity as a nation. Much as we might like to retreat to childhood with its freedom from responsibilities, we cannot do so. We cannot be isolated and alone in a century in which loneliness can mean extinction. Intelligent American patriotism calls for American leadership toward a world dedicated to meet the problems we know we must face.

The League of Women Voters supports the United Nations as essential to the conduct of foreign relations today. We believe that its success depends not entirely upon organization and procedures, but on the very real desire of the member nations to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

The member nations can do much to increase the effectiveness of the organization without amending its charter. The Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950 which gave the General Assembly responsibility for considering threats to the peace is an illustration of this possibility.

The League of Women Voters believes that any changes which might be made in the charter should be limited to those which would strengthen the United Nations' ability to fulfill its twofold purposethat of preventing war and of promoting peace.

Senator SPARK MAN. Senator Knowland?

Senator KNOWLAND. Yes, I have a couple of questions, Mrs. Sage. To be of value to the Senate and the country, there are some specific problems which it seems to me that we should mutually explore in order to try to find the answer, if indeed there is an answer.

FULFILLMENT OF OBLIGATIONS TO THE U. N.

When the United Nations was formed in San Francisco some 10 years ago, the question was raised as to whether it should be a universal organization or whether it should be an organization of member states willing to assume certain obligations under the charter. And I believe it was this latter concept which was adopted.

Under the United Nations Charter, then, each of the members assumed certain obligations. On June 25, 1950, the United Nations Security Council called upon its members to resist the aggression which had taken place in Korea.

Of the 60 member nations, only 17 of them, including the United States of America, responded to that call. We furnished about 90 percent of the manpower, or roughly 450,000 men to carry out the request of the United Nations. The other 16 nations furnished about 45,000.

The Republic of Korea, which was the victim of the aggression, furnished about 600,000.

Now, the Soviet Union, as a specific example-I am coming now to the point of my inquiry-furnished no forces whatsoever, though it had assumed an obligation under the charter, though it was a permanent member of the Security Council. During the 3 years of the Korean war they refrained from supporting the action taken under the charter. While the war was still going on and before the Panmunjom negotiations had been completed, Mr. Vishinsky, who was representing the Soviet Union before the Assembly, admitted that his Government had not only been giving moral support to the Chinese and North Korean aggressors, but also had given material support in the form of planes, tanks, guns, and ammunition to the aggressor.

Has your board or your organization given thought as to whether a nation which violated the charter and the resolution should be allowed to continue in membership? Do you think under those circumstances the Soviet Union had made a prima facie case for being expelled from membership? I was wondering whether that matter had been given any attention.

Mrs. SAGE. Senator Knowland, I am sorry, I am speaking for my organization and can only express the result of the members in the whole United States of the conclusions that have been reached by the member organizations, by our local leagues. We have not at the moment given specific attention to the point that you raised, and I can only speak within the framework of what our league has said. Senator KNOWLAND. Thank you.

Senator SPARK MAN. Thank you, Mrs. Sage.

Call the next witness.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mrs. John L. Church, followed by Mr. Treat.

Mr. SPARKMAN. We are glad to have you, Mrs. Church. Proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JOHN L. CHURCH, PASADENA COCHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIANS FOR THE BRICKER AMENDMENT

Mrs. CHURCH. I am Mrs. John L. Church of Pasadena. I represent Californians for the Bricker Amendment, with a paid membership of 700 and a mailing list of about 5,000.

I want to thank the members of the committee for permitting us to be heard.

We are particularly concerned with preserving the sovereignty of the United States. The Senators who ratified the United Nations Charter were assured that article 2, paragraph 7 of the charter, was ample protection. Since then, a body of opinion has developed in the United States which holds domestic and foreign law to be identical; that national sovereignty is a silly shibboleth, and that UNESCO, viewed in its historical context, is a halting, painful, but real progress toward world government.

In the United States, the individual citizen is sovereign and he is protected against encroachment by the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, the rights of a minority, even to a minority of one, are protected by the first amendment.

DANGERS TO CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES CITED

Obviously the United States cannot embrace world government and at the same time retain United States constitutional government. The transition can be made by reinterpretation of the charter from a treaty to a constitution.

The treaty loophole makes this possible without Americans being able to make their wishes known. The actual violations of sovereignty are too numerous to list, but I shall cite, to focus the attention of the public on the United Nations Charter, interference with the Constitution, first, our entrance into the Korean conflict without congressional approval, and second, the NATO Status of Forces Treaty which denies American servicemen the protection of the Constitution.

In the specialized agencies, the entrance of Russia and her satellites into the International Labor Organization destroys the original intention of a separation into three groups, government, employer, and employee.

I cite the vote by the Commission on Human Rights on March 3, 1954, not to include in the covenant on human rights any provision recognizing the right of an individual to own property and be secure in its enjoyment against arbitrary seizure by the Government. There are other threats to the sovereignty of individual Americans in proposed treaties which I haven't time to list.

In all discussions concerning the transformation of the United Nations into a world federation, the success of our 48 States in a Federal Union is cited as evidence that it can be done worldwide. Overlooked is an extremely important provision of the United States Constitution, article IV, section 4, part of which reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government.

We have seen no suggestion from the advocates of world government that nations involved in it should have a uniform type of gov

ernment.

REPEAL OF CHARTER URGED

We feel the repeal of the charter is imperative because of the role of Alger Hiss in the formation of the United Nations Charter, and believe the whole subject should be thoroughly explored. We feel that the ability of the Soviet Union to control and dominate over 600 million more people while the United Nations has been functioning, belies the claim that it has preserved the peace, unless we mean to equate peace with the extension of tyranny.

We know we are on their timetable for destruction.

We believe the citizens of the United States have the finest government ever devised, and indeed, we have grown to be the colossus of the world under its protection of freedom for the individual.

Since no other nation has chosen to adopt our form of government, we are convinced that no form of world government could possibly afford us the protection we enjoy under our Constitution.

We therefore respectfully request that the attention of our elected representatives be focused on protecting and defending our sovereignty under the Constitution.

Thank you.

Senator KNOWLAND. No questions.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Church. (The prepared statement of Mrs. Church is as follows:)

CALIFORNIANS FOR THE BRICKER AMENDMENT

(A Nonprofit, Nonpartisan Organization), Publishers of Californian U. S. A., Pacific Palisades, Calif., Submitted by Mrs. John L. Church, Pasadena cochairman Californians for the Bricker Amendment

Californians for the Bricker Amendment are virtually interested in the proposed review of the United Nations Charter, looking toward the amendment of the charter.

We are particularly concerned in the area of preserving the sovereignty of the United States. As spokesman for the group, I wish to address my remarks to the Senators on this subdivision of the subject.

When the ratification of the United Nations Charter was being debated on the floor of the Senate in 1945, this particular issue was the subject of discussion. A letter from the then Secretary of State, Edward Stettinius, laid special emphasis on the guarantee against interference in our domestic law which is incorporated in article No. 2 (7) of the charter. Californians for the Bricker Amendment have maintained a continuing concern in this area because of statements by prominent Americans which indicate a willingness on their part to surrender this protection of our sovereignty.

In 1950 Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared in State Department document No. 3972 that "There is now no longer any real difference between domestic and foreign affairs." Obviously, that statement nullified the supposed protection we enjoyed (or thought we enjoyed) under article No. 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter. Because of the treaty loophole, that is recent decisions of the Supreme Court have declared that treaties are the supreme law of the land, the American people were faced with the possibility that treaties made under the United Nations Charter could become domestic law. Mr. John Foster Dulles stated this very clearly in a speech in Louisville, Ky. on April 12, 1952 before he became Secretary of State. He said, "The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the State and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights."