produced, a decreasing proportion of the stockpiles would suffice to give an aggressor the power of a "knock-out blow," and hence the permissible error of the inspection system grows ever smaller.

In fact, this is already so far advanced that the rapid development of a U. N. military arm of unchallenged strength, with appropriate executive controls, will probably be required.

We believe that the establishment of enforcible disarmament and effective international control will require modification of the United Nations Charter. We recognize that the United Nations has been of great value and, even in its present form, definitely deserves our continued support.

The present U. N. Charter has many worthwhile features which should be preserved. But we believe that as soon as possible the charter should be strengthened to give the United Nations the powers necessary for effective international control of weapons and for the prevention of war.

Secretary of State Dulles has stressed that the elimination of war will require some important alterations of the U. N. Charter. In his address to the American Bar Association last year he explained:

* When we were in San Francisco in the spring of 1945, none of us knew of the atomic bomb which was to fall on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The charter is thus a preatomic age charter. In this sense it was obsolete before it actually came into force. As one who was at San Francisco, I can say with confidence that if the delegates there had known that the mysterious and immeasurable power of the atom would be available as a means of mass destruction, the provisions of the charter dealing with disarmament and the regulation of armaments would have been far more emphatic and realistic.

In the discussion of specific proposals for U. N. Charter amendment, we must recognize that much negotiation and compromise will be necessary before agreement can be reached.

The United States attitude should be flexible, showing willingness to modify any details that will not destroy the effectiveness of our suggestions. We should accept agreement on any steps which increase our chances of preserving peace.

GENERAL FEATURES OF CHARTER REVISION

We will mention next some general features which we believe the U. N. Charter revision proposals should include.

CHANGES IN WORLD COURT

An important body of international law will have to be developed for the system of international control and inspection. In particular, a court must be given the power to decide disputes arising under the international control rules. We recommend that the U. N. Charter be modified to give increased recognition to a World Court, with jurisdiction over all questions of atomic inspection and control. In particular, the World Court could be the judicial body which decided on all appeals from the Disarmament Commission or international inspection authority. Clearly some court must be charged with this function, with the power to assess violations and to impose penalties. For the successful enforcement of the inspection system, a new principle should be developed under which individual citizens would be directly accountable to the World Court. The judicial system

would be ineffective if it could only impose penalties on nations for the infractions of individuals.

It is clearly desirable for the World Court to be able to assign penalties to individual violators, which could not be frustrated by national governments. This direct accountability of individual citizens to the world disarmament authority could be strictly limited to only those matters affecting international peace, such as the control of atomic weapons; and basic human liberties or other essential national powers would not be endangered.

Scientific problems, ranging from decisions as to the danger to other nations of weapons tests by a particular nation to calling of conferences to discuss technical matters of general interest, require the formation of a specific organization to handle such scientific problems.

INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION COMMISSION

An effective and enforceable system of world control of atomic weapons and other means of war requires that clear authority be given to an international inspection commission.

We support Secretary Dulles' suggestion that the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations should be given a status of equality with other permanent U. N. bodies. The power of the Disarmament Commission must be clearly defined: they must include the right of unannounced inspection anywhere in the world of any facility where substantial armaments might be produced or stored, this inspection to be made by inspectors appointed by the international authority and not subject to veto or interference by national or local governments.

The Disarmament Commission must have sufficient police authority to enforce its inspection rights against any local resistance. These minimum powers are essential, yet they are so great that the inspection rules must be carefully drawn to prevent abuse.

The composition of the inspection authority should be balanced to assure a representation of many nations so that no one group could gain control of the international authority.

Clearly an extensive code of laws and procedures will be required to govern the international control of armaments. Since new developments cannot be fully anticipated, an effective system would require some provision for the establishment of new rules as required.

The U. N. Charter amendment establishing the Disarmament Commission would define the broad outline of powers and the limitations within which the General Assembly would later legislate new control laws to meet new threats to international security.

MINIMUM CHANGES

The general features we have mentioned represent minimum changes that should be made in the U. N. Charter in order to establish international control of atomic and other weapons. We realize that it may be difficult to obtain agreement on required changes, but we feel that in any case it is greatly in the interest of the United States to present clear proposals for U. N. Charter amendment which, if adopted, would be adequate for the elimination of war. Even if our proposals are not accepted, there will be a definite improvement in our diplomatic position. By taking a positive stand in the presen

tation of specific amendment suggestions and by demonstrating our willingness to accept any reasonable changes, we would win the confidence of many other nations which are now neutral or hesitant in supporting us.

By thus rallying the world to the goal of a stronger United Nations capable of enforcing international control of weapons, we would be better able to deter aggression and thus at the least would gain more time to work for a constructive solution.

Your subcommittee stands at the crossroads in human civilization; we hope you will use courage and leadership in drafting your report to the Senate. Your proposals must be valid and sincere, for in the public discussion that will follow, any inadequacies will be revealed. In your deliberations we hope you will be guided by the advice which George Washington gave to the writers of our Constitution and which seems especially timely for the task before you today:

It is too probable that no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest con repair. The event is in the hand of God.

That concludes the formal testimony as it was carefully discussed point by point and adopted by the National Council of the Federation of American Scientists.

EINSTEIN GOAL OF WORLD LAW

However, I feel I must mention briefly Albert Einstein's conviction that atomic suicide can be prevented only by international disarmament under a strengthened United Nations.

In his book, Out of My Later Years, Einstein wrote :

* * * there is, in my opinion, only one way out. It is necessary that conditions be established that guarantee the individual state the right to solve its conflicts with other states on a legal basis and under international jurisdiction. It is necessary that the individual state be prevented from making war by a supranational organization supported by a military power that is exclusively under its control * *

Our situation is not comparable to anything in the past. It is impossible, therefore, to apply methods and measures which at an earlier age might have been sufficient. We must revolutionize our thinking, revolutionize our actions, and must have the courage to revolutionize relations among the nations of the world. Clichés of yesterday will no longer do today, and will, no doubt, be hopelessly out of date tomorrow.

A tremendous effort is indispensable. If it fails now, the supranational organizations will be built later, but then it will have to be built upon the ruins of a large part of the now existing world. Let us hope that the abolition of the existing international anarchy will not need to be brought by a self-inflicted world catastrophe the dimensions of which none of us can possibly imagine. The time is terribly short. We must act now if we are to act at all.

Courageous leadership by this committee toward Einstein's goal of world law would be a fitting memorial to this greatest scientist of our time whose recent death we all mourn.

Senator MANSFIELD. Mr. Toll, you have said an awful lot in 10 minntes flat.

The committee will be glad to consider your recommendations, and the committee thanks you very much for coming before us this after

noon.

The next witness will be Mr. Samuel Levering, chairman, executive council, Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Mr. Levering, will you take the chair, please.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL LEVERING, THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Mr. LEVERING. Thank you, Senator Mansfield.

I have written testimony which has been placed before you. I believe, however, it would be more useful if I simply spoke the convictions and point of view that we in the Quakers have on this problem.

Senator MANSFIELD. That will be all right, Mr. Levering, and the committee will receive your prepared statement.

Mr. LEVERING. Thank you, sir.

SUPPORT EXPRESSED FOR THE U. N.

As you know, we are strong supporters of the United Nations, and do not wish anything to be done to weaken or divide or destroy it." We feel that the United Nations should be strengthened both by growth, by additional use, and by charter revision.

The United Nations has at least four functions. The security function is a very large one. A second is removing causes of war; a third is that of a forum.

We would like to speak today particularly to the question of charter revision and in the field of security.

CHANGE IN U. N. SECURITY SYSTEM IS NECESSARY

Now, basically, what we would like to say is that a new United Nations security system is absolutely necessary, that the present system in the United Nations is obsolete; that it depends on war, that is, the promise of nations to go to the aid of the victim of agression after the aggression occurs.

Now, that may have had some theoretical justification back in the past when land armies could hold an attack, but it would not be much comfort to the people of the country after they had all been killed to know that some United Nations force would come to its aid to restore liberty to a country where the people are gone.

In practice we think that the United Nations security system is dead, that it will never be used again; that you will not get nations to agree and actually to send troops to assist and the assistance of a victim of agression, since they will be exposing their own homeland to obliteration.

So what is needed is to base security somewhere else, not on war, organized in a different way, but on something much more fundamental; and we feel that security really must be based primarily on the disarmament of nations down to internal policing forces by carefully inspected stages, with enforcement by peaceful means, not by War either in the United Nations or anywhere else simply does not make practical sense any more.

war.

So we think the problem of enforcement of disarmament is really the key to any chance for security, and that enforcement must be peaceful.

INTERNATIONAL CIVILIAN INSPECTION AND POLICE

Now, peaceful enforcement means an international civilian inspection and police, and I emphasize "civilian," with the power to seize and, under court order, destroy prohibited weapons, if found, once, of course, a disarmament agreement can be obtained, and with the power to arrest and bring to trial to a world court, individuals, people, not nations, guilty of violating the agreement.

That would mean a change in the statute of the international court of justice, since now it has no power to deal with individual violations. It would mean obviously a different system of control over disarmament than we now have. We would think that a disarmament control commission, autonomous in most matters, but responsible, perhaps, to the assembly in case of the ultimate sanction of war, should be able to control an inspection and police force such as I spoke about, and to carry out the job of administering and enforcing the disarmament agreement.

With no power to make law, it would be amending and enforcing the law that was embodied in the disarmament agreement, which might very well be an annex to the Charter of the United Nations.

So what that amounts to would be law and order in the security field, with security dependent on the disarmament of nations and enforcement not on the battlefield, but by, and I use here Hamilton's words, "the general action of the magistracy," which is a very different thing. Hamilton said that the idea of enforcing against the States was an illusion, and a very dangerous and undesirable one, and that enforcement would have to be by the method of enforcing against individual violators which, of course, is the American idea, and the one that we use in our country.

I happen to come from Virginia, and I think it would be the height of nonsense every time a Federal law was violated down in my home State if the only way the Federal Government could enforce it was to send an army down there and drop bombs on Richmond and Roanoke.

In the first place, it would kill a lot of innocent people. In the second place, there would be war all the time because we are lawless down there in the mountains. You have heard of moonshiners and such.

The third thing is just as soon as the Federal Government started to make war against Virginia, with the exception of a few Quakers, the rest of the Virginians would grab whatever guns they had and would shoot every Yankee in sight, and there would be various adjectives applied to Yankees.

So whatever unity has been built up over the years in our Nation would be destroyed if we had to fight a war against Virginia every time a Federal law was violated down there.

It is just as absurd to require the United Nations to get disarmament by fighting the nations every time a violation occurs.