should be removed from the circle of the Big Five, or it should be occupied by one whose size and strength could more nearly equal that of the other four.

Besides, conditions which existed in 1945 are no longer present. The strong wartime unity of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States prompted them to jointly advocate proposals which placed primary authority in the Security Council and stipulated that the great powers permanently represented on that council must be in agreement. Now we see the inadequacy of an organization whose effective functioning depends upon cooperation with a nation which is dominated by an international party seeking world domination.

There are shoulder shruggers among us whose solution to the Russian problem and their celebrated use of the veto power would be: "Russian abuse of the veto has paralyzed the U. N. Let's kick the Russians out, bolt the door against the Red Chinese, and get down to the serious business of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our real friends and allies." But whether we choose to call ourselves realists, or idealists, the Russians and all of their little Red brothers are our problem. They are one of the world's problems, just as disease, land erosion, famine, hunger, illiteracy, prejudice, distrust, and fear are our problems-they cannot be erased by simply ignoring them. So long as the Soviet Union remains in the United Nations, there is always an opportunity to talk-and some day to negotiate. The issues exist, whether the Soviet Union is inside or out. Meanwhile, the policies of both East and West can run the same gantlet of world opinion.

Concerning the Chinese problem, I submit that in the review conference appropriate action should be taken to remove Nationalist China from the ranks of the Big Five and that India be assigned that place as one of the Big Five. Asia, being the largest of the continents, should be recognized and should share in the major decisions of the Security Council. If such an agreement cannot be reached, then the fifth chair should be removed, and the Big Five should be the Big Four. As for the "Two Chinas," my solution would be to make a trusteeship of Formosa and give the Peoples' Republic of China U. N. membership through the regular channels of admission, if and when the U. N. should decide that the Chinese Peoples' Republic meets the charter requirements for membership.

Second, the charter should be revised to overcome the veto block on membership. It is inconsistent with the primary aim of the U. N., to promote world peace and understanding, that more than 20 nations have applied for membership and are still on the outside, looking in. Such a condition makes yet another division among the many others which keep the nations of the world divided. The world's issues remain whether nations are inside the U. N. or out. They will be easier to solve when all nations meet at the same table.

Third, the U. N. should be ready for military action-so that its very readiness might be a deterrent. It should work out a plan for military forces on call— either the article 43 plan for agreements through the Security Council's Military Staff Committee or the Acheson plan alternative through the Assembly's Collective Measures Committee. It should start with whatever forces it can get, at least it should make a start-to demonstrate readiness to go further.

Fourth, the U. N. Charter has a basic weakness in its indefinite reference to international law. The charter requires the General Assembly to promote "the progressive development of international law and its codification." However, it has thus far made but little progress in this respect.

The late Senator Taft voiced this weakness of the U. N. Charter when he said, "The fundamental difficulty is that it is not based primarily on an underlying law and an administration of justice under that law. I believe that in the long run the only way to establish peace is to write a law, agreed to by each of the nations, to govern the relations of such nations with each other and to obtain the covenant of all such nations that they will abide by that law and by decisions made thereunder."

If we had such a covenant among the members of the U. N., it would be unnecessary for them to seek other channels for settling their disputes; it would be unnecessary to journey to Geneva, Manila, or some other place for settlement outside the U. N. channels. Such action has tended to make the U. N. lose prestige. It should be remedied. We are constantly weakening the U. N. by permitting and supporting such conferences.

This world law would, in essence, underlie a limited world government, limited to the objective of peace. Each nation would in fact surrender one and only one of its national rights-the right to make war. We may possibly consider

such a proposal as too visionary, too difficult. We have an alternative—we can do nothing, we can permit the Russians and their statellites to play the game with their own rules until they get the kind of world federation they would like, a federation dominated by their own philosophy of government. Or we can waste the precious little time left to us until some incident sets off the atomic and hydrogen warfare that can mean total destruction and elimination of mankind.

No one can guarantee that even a world order based on world law can come in time to stop war, but now is the logical and psychological time to promote it and to support it. There is a hope for the U. N. even amid apparently irreconcilable ideologies. For centuries Moslems fought Christians in what each side deemed holy wars, and Catholics and Protestants murdered each other in unforgiving frenzies. Yet today, religious tolerance has found Moslems and Catholics and Protestants and Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists-working side by side in the United Nations.

The success of the whole United Nations structure will be guaranteed only when the people and their leaders really expect it to succeed.

Dean NARMORE. Mrs. Chapman, from Atlanta?
Senator HOLLAND. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MAY F. DUFFEY-CHAPMAN, ATLANTA, GA.

Mrs. CHAPMAN. I am Mrs. May Frank Duffey Chapman, 78 Lindbergh Drive NE., Atlanta, Ga.

I am a War Mother, a grandmother, an American nationalist and if the United States Constitution is guilty of being an isolationist, then I am guilty too.

I work for the U. N. O., and saw what happened in 1945 in San Francisco. In dealing with any revision of the U. N. Charter we patriotic Americans are aware of such startling things as these. First, quoting from the publicity of this meeting:

These hearings represent the first attempt by the Foreign Relations Committee to take a major foreign policy question directly to the people for discussion.

We do thank you gentlemen for helping us get the opportunity to tell you what we grandmothers think.

Second, in the creation of the United Nations the causes of war were not even discussed.

Third, Federal civil defense is usurping the duties of our State militia, local police, and of our troops abroad, thereby gradually throwing the United States Republic under U. N. control without any consenting vote of the American people.

Here is document No. 128 that proves that.

Fourth, the United Nations has not prevented any war at any time. at any place on earth.

At the same time, the United Nations robs American soldiers abroad of all constitutional protection by their own American Government. Fifth, the United States Senate ratified the U. N. Charter making unwilling world citizens out of Americans without even getting the consenting vote of the American people.

Sixth, Americans from coast to coast are fighting the World Federalists and the Atlantic Union Committee as conspiracies against the American Republic.

Seventh, the tax-free United Nations Foundation favors America's enemies, at home and abroad, while Americans pay the bills.

Zeus is the only god welcome in the U. N. since our God seems to have no place in the United Nations.

Do we have any place? I would like to hear from the State of Georgia, who has passed a law against the United Nations, and I hope there is some representative here that can give you the legal side of that thing from our State.

So I say get the United Nations out of the United States, raise Old Glory to the top of the mast, and God bless us all.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much. (The document is as follows:)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS To U. N. CHARTER, JULY 1955

(By Mrs. J. A. Rogers, Tucson, Ariz.)

Slightly less than 10 years ago a meeting was held in San Francisco with the avowed purpose of bringing the nations of the world together, that they might better understand each other and their common problems; that through such close association and mutual understanding, disturbing problems might be solved, living standards, raised, war abolished and peace established throughout the universe.

The time for such action seemed propitious. Thousands of men of one generation, who had worn the uniform of two world wars, were still living— living with ineradicable memories of what they had been, had seen and had done. Other thousands had been left in shallow graves, in crowded trenches and even under the sea. And still other thousands were then, as they are, even now, the in-betweens-not going the whole way, nor coming the whole way back-the inmates of hospitals the world over. All these and the families they represent, were lifted out of the day by day minutiae of ordinary life, and our hearts and minds and hopes were turned to the promise of a new day.

However, in our buoyant expectations, we took much for granted. We did not make ourselves familiar with the personnel of the convention; with their ideals and aspirations-or lack of them; nor with the actual content of the document they formulated there. Neither did we follow up the work of the convention. We have not made ourselves familiar with the contents of the U. N. Charter. We have simply straggled along with the crowd, without realizing the import of the journey. No doubt there were many of the same type following the Cross up the slopes of Calvary.

We have so long enjoyed our freedom, our prosperity, our human liberties under the doctrine set forth in our Declaration of Independence, and our National Constitution, that we have become too complacent-even blind to the threat of our national destruction. And I mean just that. Our national life will be utterly destroyed if these proposed amendments to the U. N. Charter become effective. Already a part of our national liberty has been lost. This was done when the Senate of the United States ratified as a treaty, the document called "The Charter of the UN Organization." Late Senator Pat McCarran, of Nevada, stated publicly that his vote to ratify the UN Charter was something that he would regret to his dying day. And why? Because a treaty, once ratified by our Senate, becomes the supreme law of the land.

But regret is not enough. We must be alert to danger, and positively active in fighting it. One of the chief dangers threatening our national life, and all the freedoms and liberties embodied in it, is the carefully laid plan to revise and amend the UN Charter. This, by a provision of the charter itself, is to be done this coming summer-less than half a year away-while, I am sure, millions of our citizens know nothing about it.

The facts presented here are taken from the report of the Second London Parliamentary Conference on World Government. Please let me repeat: This is a report of a conference studying world government. This plan is to be considered next summer in connection with the revision of the UN Charter.

The first recommendation concerns membership; and I quote, "Membership in UN should be open to all nations of the World, and all must be urged to join. Once membership has been accepted, continued membership must be compulsory. There must be no right of secession." Of course we know who would be the first to be found on the doorstep; Red China! And we know why withdrawal is to be forbidden; and why membership is to be urged; the One-Worlders, once they get the reins of government in their own hands, mean to keep them there. No diversity of thought or action to be tolerated. The freedoms guaranteed us in our Bill of Rights would be lost forever.

Quick on the heels of the compulsory membership amendment the plan provides for "complete, simultaneous, universal and enforceable disarmament." This is to be carried out by UN police with atomic-weapon-production prohibited. The UN Police would owe exclusive allegiance to UN. The UN Police should be strategically placed. No member nation could refuse the presence of UN Police within its borders; neither could it request a certain type of police on its soil,that is, police of its own nationality, or language group. Result: We "free" Americans would find ourselves policed by Red Chinese, Russians, or other communist soldiers-right here on what we now call the free soil of the United States of America. Think that over, while some of our national leaders talk of strengthening the UN.

The next phase of the plan has to do with the Court of International Justice. It would give this court jurisdiction over all disputes between member nations, especially disputes involving the UN police. It would also have complete jurisdiction over any matter concerning the interpretation of UN Charter, including the validity of laws passed by the World Legislature. Right here is where the Constitution of United States of America would be dumped into the International garbage truck.

A World Legislature would be established, having unlimited power of debate; power to enact legislation for the whole world, of course; power to elect and dismiss members of the executive council; and power to raise revenue for UN purposes, with the recommendation that taxation be levied in accordance with the member nation's ability to pay. (That last phrase is right out of Communist tip-top philosophy.) Remember the days, way back, when every child in school ambled around the school-yard with a blob of hard candy on the end of a small stick, the whole thing called an "all-day sucker?" Well, under this provision for taxation, that will be US-U.S.-U.S.A. Further, with regard to world legislature, it shall have two chambers with the members of the upper being appointed, one by each nation, instead of being elected. The reason given is "that this would tend to secure the representation of some valuable men and women who might not be willing to submit themselves to popular elections." Now, this is clever, even slick. A wobbly left-wing administration could appoint to the legislature of the world, such characters as the Alger Hisses', Judith Coplons', Harry Dexter Whites', etc., etc., ad nauseam. The plan further provides that "the lower chamber should consist of representatives of the member nations in proportion to population." United States of America has about 160 millions; U. S. S. R., alone, without her satellites, about 207 millions; India, about 360 millions; and Red China more than 500 millions. The figures give us a most enlightening picture of ourselves as to the matter of voting: One peanut in a bag of Idaho potatoes. Couple this with the plan for paying the bills, outlined above, and you get the knockout blow. And, this allocation of power-andpayment is not accidental, by any means. A spokesman for the London Conference is quoted as saying: "We have got to show that such a federation would not necessarily be dominated by the United States of America."

In return for all this we are to have conferred upon us something called "world citizenship." The plan says, "Every person in the world should be a citizen of UN, and the charter and UN laws should bind each individual." This provision is designed to insure that international law can be enforced by the UN against individuals who would otherwise be sheltered by National allegiance. Just how blind and stupid can we be? We know, or should know that our sons while performing military duty in foreign lands, no longer carry with them the protection of our Constitution. On the contrary, they are subject to the laws of any foreign country in which they are forced to do military duty, no matter how unjust, cruel or inhuman such laws may be. In all common sense I ask you, are we going to accept further degradation by submitting to this world citizenship bondage?

Now to the executive Department: The legislature would have power to elect and dismiss the executive council, or individual members thereof. Members of this council would be subject to the legislature, though having no power to dissolve it, and no power of veto. Yet they are subject to dismissal by the legislature. Note closely in this connection, that the lower house of the legislature is elected on the basis of population. There you have it. The heavily populated countries of the world would control the legislature; the legislature holds the purse strings, and controls the executive department. And, where does that leave the United States? Think it over; then over again.

You have been given a brief outline of what is called Blueprint for national suicide. Now, briefly, are mentioned some of the major results which have already fallen to our lot, as a result of our having ratified the UN Charter as a treaty.

One, Americans have been drafted without the constitutionally required consent of the Congress to fight in foreign wars, under UN command and under UN flag. Two, American forces engaged in combat have been prevented from achieving victory on the battlefields, by order of the UN Command. Three, the United States under the direction of UN, has suffered its first military defeat. Four, Korean battle casualties, as reported by the United States Department of Defense, July 1953, are: Dead, over 25,000; wounded, more than 100,000; and missing, near 10,000. Five, Establishment of UN headquarters on American soil provides a base for foreign espionage agents, who may operate freely, and with immunity from our domestic laws. Six, American taxpayers through the years, 1946 to 1954, inclusive, have been assessed a total of more than $124 million for UN operating costs. In addition to this, it is reported that the various agencies and bureaus of UN have such diversified ways of getting and spending, that it would take the best accounting office in the country months to find out what is really going on. At any rate, we know that as one of more than 60 nations, we are paying well over one-third of UN's operating costs.

What is the matter with us, anyway? Are we a conglomeration of sleep walkers? Arguments to the contrary, notwithstanding, we have nothing on the credit side. There isn't a single thing being done by the much advertised agencies, any or all of them, from UNESCO on down, that couldn't be better done by our own governmental agencies, international trade, educational institutions, religious organizations, and travel bureaus.

On a recent radio program discussing the questions of administering foreign aid, the question was asked: which-the United States or UN-could better administer such aid. The reply was that, due to the differences between the nations themselves, between them and ourselves, in respect to their economic status, their standards of living, their levels of education, their national traditions and cultures, their religions and their aspirations in general-the United States could do the better job. This statement was made by a strong adherent of UN policy. Haven't we already proved what we can do? Whenever and wherever disaster strikes, whether it be fire, flood or fever, the United States is right on the job. Without the spur of disaster, we are still on the job with grants-in-aid; Marshall plan; loans on terms of the borrower; with trained technicians in all fields of industry; and with teachers, missionaries, doctors and nurses. And within the last four decades we have shown great willingness to fight in foreign wars, three times, to be exact; then rehabilitate the ravished combatants, both friend and foe. It's about time to consider both sides of the street.

Let us wake up to what is about to happen to us; and see that it does not happen. Communists have a slogan: "Workers of the World, Unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains." Let's have one of our own-something like this: "Americans, Unite, lest you lose your God-given liberty, for nothing in return but world-dominated slavery."

Now, what about religion in the UN? At present, no expression of religious belief, such as we had here today, at the opening of this meeting with prayer, is permitted at UN, lest we, Christian people offend non-Christians. However, The plan provides that "Religious expression shall be exercised only as provided by law." Compare that with the first article of our Bill of Rights. I hold in my hand a picture of the statue of the Greek God, Zeus. The inscription beneath it is most interesting. I quote: "The first thing noted upon entering the general assembly building (at UN) is the image of the Greek god Zeus. The most profligate of all ancient mythological creations. This is the only religious symbol found at UN headquarters." As any high school student who has had a broad course in literature knows, Zeus, Jove or Jupiter, as he is variously called, wasis the epitome of all the sordid characteristics of man or devil-his influence all the more devastating because of the extensive power ascribed to him-the most powerful, the revered, the most feared and possibly the most hated of all mythical figures. One is impelled to ask: Can it be design, or mere accident that placed this figure above all that might have been placed in the entrance of the hall that is supposed to be the symbol of the highest aspirations of all the nations of the world? Your guess is as good as mine.

Normal man has a tender love for his own family, that cannot be extended to his community, no matter how benevolent he may be. This, truly is devotion. He also has a distinct feeling of attachment to, and obligations toward, his own country above that which he feels toward other countries, singly or collectively. This, truly is patriotism. Our flag is our symbol of this devotion to our families and our homes, and of our patriotism to our nation. Let us keep it at the top. of the mast.