civilization we now know. In the light of these facts, I hope the committee will exercise its influence toward the end that the United Nations will be revised in such a way as to become an international authority in the area of arms production together with the necessary power to enforce its authority. Such a system is no more than an extension of the Federal system under which we have thrived since the birth of our Nation 179 years ago. I think I can safely say that we have an increasing number of well-informed men and women in Macon who share this point of view and are actively working to give it expression at the national level. The legal details incident to such a world institution can best be worked out by the legal minds of the Nation but the philosophical basis for this point of view need not be confined to so limited a group.

The essential problem of our day is to integrate the individual and the group in such a manner that each can make its maximum contribution to the other. Whatever individuality and free enterprise we enjoy must occur within the framework of this balance between personal and social liberties. The framework of the world organization must be a cooperative enterprise while the activities inside the framework may be free and competitive so long as they do not disturb the balance of the framework which is and must be all inclusive.

This statement is probably longer and more elaborate than you care to consider, but I want to demonstrate that this point of view is no hasty conclusion on my part. I hope you will find enough popular support of this point of view to present it as a definite suggestion to the proper authorities.

Very cordially yours,

JOHN W. LEWIS.

To: Subcommittee, United States Senate.
Subject: The United Nations.

Witness: Ruth McMillan, chairman, Georgia State Public Affairs Committee, National Federation, Business & Professional Women's Clubs. Also, identified with numerous women's groups in Atlanta: currently president, Presidents Council of Atlanta representing 16 social and civil women's organizations; active YWCA ; civil defense women's executive committee, others.

To work toward international peace and good will, we should continue to support and increase our efforts through the United Nations, as well as through the United States Government, for the improvement of the standard of living of people in underdeveloped areas through long-range and expanding programs of technical cooperation and assistance as well as economic development.

The U. N. recognizes that the banishment of war involves the creation of peace by improving social and economic conditions; and the preservation of this peace through some instrumentality. The U. N. is an agency not only to suppress war. but provides ways and means to eliminate causes. It recognizes social and economic problems and has many agencies with great scope dealing with them.

The Economic and Social Council is concerned with the development of economic and social progress, specifically, higher standards of living and full employment with the solution of international social, economic, health, and related problems; with international cultural and educational cooperation and with the observance of human rights and freedoms.

The technical assistance program for underdeveloped areas has opportunities no other agency is organized to handle. This program permits technical experts to go to countries that are interested in improving some aspect of their economy. The program also furnishes fellowships and scholarships to underdeveloped countries for specialized study at foreign institutions.

Our fate is bound up with that of these hungry, needy countries. If we want them to stay non-Communist, if we want them to be interested in our problems. we must be interested in their problems too.

There is more to the U. N. than political activities. The system is heavily engaged in an attack on the root causes of war: poverty, disease, repression, and unrest. The ultimate objective is to establish a more secure peace by improving standards of life for all.

Agricultural, health, international labor organizations, international civil aviation organization for standardizing safety regulations at international airports, the U. N. educational scientific and cultural organizations fighting illiteracy are some of the productive avenues for worldwide betterment not generally stressed that are sponsored by the U. N.

The cost to each United States citizen in 1952 was about 62 cents per capita. We are all cognizant of the military aspects of the U. N., how wars have been prevented and/or through it cease-fire commands were issued. The above angles are frequently overlooked and the public as a whole is ignorant of the overall program.

What would we do if we did not have the Nnited Nations? The world is too small for any nation to live alone.

It is recommended, that we support our Government in fostering the U. N.; that now is probably not the time to change the charter, but perhaps it can be strengthened; that the general public be educated more on the accomplishments of the U. N. in problems of war as well as economic, social, health betterment program. Perhaps there are phases which should be improved, but time will make this possible. The U. N. is fundamentally right for a close-knit world. It is up to each of us to support our Government and through it the United Nations.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY A. RAMBO, MEMBER OF CONGRESS OF FREEDOM, VIGILANT WOMEN FOR THE BRICKER AMENDMENT, AMERICAN REAL PROPERTY FEDERATION

I, Mrs. Mary A. Rambo, 1337 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, a citizen intensely interested in the preservation of purest Americanism, believe that our Congress should rescind and revoke membership of the United States in the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Among the major reasons, I submit:

The un-American principles of the architects of the United Nations Charter who worked under the direction of those whose aim is world domination under communism have prevailed throughout the 10 years of United Nations existence. The proposed revised charter as set up by the proponents of the United Nations organization indicates not only continuation of those principles, but a trend toward world government. Loyal citizens cannot conceive an America under subordination.

This Republic of America is a Christian nation, yet in all the proceedings of United Nations business the Sovereignty of God has never been recognized.

Through the United Nations organization we are losing the sovereign rights we have heretofore enjoyed under our Constitution. It has grown into a monster threatening our domestic affairs; it is jeopardizing our system of separation of · Church and State; it is demoralizing our schools; it has created racial disturbances; it has influenced our courts: it has impaired our honor and integrity. It has never truthfully presented its aims and purposes.

The United Nations organization misrepresents "democracy" the “establishment of human rights" and their plaint of "man's last best hope of peace" is entirely wrong. The truth about democracy as conceived by this group is that it is bedlam, chaos, mob rule; the next step to communism. Human rights are

ordained by natural law; they existed before we had formal government and are superior to it. We cannot be granted by decree the rights which are implanted in the soul of man at birth. The only function of government relative to human rights is to defned those rights. World peace will not be brought about by any man-made superstructure. There will be peace on earth in God's own good time. If participation of the United States in the United Nations organization is to be continued, retention of our own constitutional rights is the only basis upon which it should be considered. Only an amended character with that end in view and the passage of the Bricker-American Bar Association bill to further safeguard our existing Constitution can assure us of that status.

Senator HOLLAND. I wish to apologize on behalf of the subcommittee for our slight delay, but the well-known hospitality of Atlanta and the mayor's luncheon detained us longer than we had expected. All I can say is it was a lovely party, and I wish you could all have been there.

The next witness, Dean, please.

Mr. SNODGRASS. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, Dean Narmore had a meeting at 2: 30, and I will pinch-hit for him.

Mrs. Elmer Stover was unable to be here this morning, and she is now here.

Senator HOLLAND. Mrs. Stover, please proceed.

Mr. SNODGRASS. The time limit for each of the witnesses is 5 minutes. There will be a signal given at 4 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ELMER F. STOVER, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS CHAIRMAN, ATLANTA DEANERY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN

Mrs. STOVER. I had a very short statement to make.

I am Mrs. Elmer F. Stover, international relations chairman of the Atlanta Deanery, which is the local chapter of the National Council of Catholic Women.

The National Council of Catholic Women has always supported the work of the United Nations and its specialized agencies.

At the local and State level our work has been to bring accurate information as to the activities of the United Nations to the membership, and study of the charter.

MEMBERSHIP

We feel that one of the difficulties with the U. N. organization is that its membership falls far short of including all the free nations of the world.

We are not, at this time, in a position to make any specific recommendations as to ways of improving and strengthening the charter, as we are still at the study stage.

I am also a member of the League of Women Voters, and the U. N. Council of Atlanta.

Senator HOLLAND. Mrs. Stover, I take it from your statement that while you have no specific recommendation personally, or on behalf of your organization, you do favor the extension of the membership of the United Nations among the free nations of the world, whether that be accomplished by amendment or by different administrative procedures under the present charter.

Mrs. STOVER. Yes; I do. And I mention that because, so far, from what I have been able to study, I understand that they have not been able to find any way to accomplish that under the present charter.

Senator HOLLAND. You refer to the veto power with reference to the admission of a member?

Mrs. STOVER. Yes; and their having had advisory opinions from the world Court.

Senator HOLLAND. Senator Sparkman?

Senator SPARK MAN. No questions.

Senator SMITH. Just one question, Mrs. Stover:

You say the free nations of the world. I am interested in your definition of the free nations. You would seem to imply that the nonfree nations, as the satellites and Russia, you would not admit?

Mrs. STOVER. Well, personally, I have never been able to make up my mind whether we should accept that package deal. I feel that we are called upon to be moral herders and that they have disregarded their treaties, and that was the reason I put the emphasis on the free nations, who would be admitted, if it had not been for the veto.

The others have never, as I understand it, received the necessary votes.

Senator SMITH. Yes.

Thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much.

There were two other witnesses who did not appear in this morning's session when their names were called. Mr. Philip Hammer. Is he here?

(No response.)

Senator HOLLAND. And Mrs. George S. Obear, Jr. Is she here? (No response.)

Senator HOLLAND. If written statements are furnished by either of those, they will be included in the record of the hearings, unless there is objection.

(The prepared statements of Mrs. Obear and Mr. Hammer follow :) ATLANTA, GA., March 14, 1955.

SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE.

DEAR SIRS: I respectfully submit some suggestions for your investigation of United Nations Organization.

First. Investigate thoroughly all of the specialized agencies with particular emphasis on whether or not they lead to world government.

Second. Oppose everything leading to world government and giving up the sovereignty of the United States or the armed services.

Third. Pass the Bricker amendment so that the 200 or more treaties proposed by the United Nations and the specialized agencies will not become the supreme law of the land-our United States of America.

Fourth. Cut drastically appropriations to the United Nations and give nothing to the dangerous specialized agencies, especially the Covenant of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention, and UNESCO.

Fifth. In revising the charter remember that Alger Hiss and his associates wrote it and in investigations rely on men and women who have no affiliation with Russia.

As one of our most distinguished Senators is quoted as saying, "The quicker the United States gets out of the United Nations and gets the United Nations out of the United States the better chance we have to preserve our country." Sincerely,

Mrs. GEORGE S. OBEAR, Jr.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP HAMMER, PRESIDENT, HAMMER & CO., INC., ECONOMIC

CONSULTANTS

At this critical point in world history, it would seem to me that there are only two practical approaches to revision of the Charter of the United Nationseither to keep the charter intact in order that the United Nations will continue its successful operations, or to strengthen the charter so that the U. N. can do a more effective job at its main objective, which is to keep the peace.

It is unthinkable to me that any revision would be made in the U. N. Charter that would weaken the role of the U. N. at this time. The United Nations is more than merely a world meeting place or a symbol, although each of these attributes is tremendously important. It is a vehicle through which positive steps can be taken, patiently and within the dimensions of time, to develop the necessary pattern of world law covering the fieldsof aggression and the use of armaments for aggressive purposes. If the U. N. were weakened or destroyed, the prospects for long-run peace would be sharply diminished.

A strong argument can be made simply to hold the line in the U. N. Charterto keep the charter intact without revision in order to give the free nations more opportunity to strengthen their ties and to press their fight against Communist aggression and dictatorship. In the face of Russia's recalcitrance, this seems to many people to be about all that can be done. Indeed, it would be more than merely a holding action because it would maintain the framework through which the forceful actions of the free nations-programs of economic

aid, military alliances, information programs and technical assistance can be pushed forward. Certainly the maintenance of the present charter and structure of the U. N. is the least that the democratic world must fight for.

In my opinion, however, this is still not enough. The basic aim of the United Nations as set forth in article I of the charter is to maintain the world's peace and security, and the crux of the problem of maintaining the peace in the international control of today's destructive weapons of war. The U. N. Charter revision conference provides an immediate opportunity to push ahead with new attempts to bring effective control mechanisms into the structure of the United Nations.

Many straight-thinking people, of course, oppose any attempt to strengthen the U. N. in the field of armaments control. Some maintain that a serious effort to push ahead with a plan such as the Baruch proposal would result in breaking up the U. N. altogether, as the result of the violent opposition of Russia and its satellites. Others feel that any effective system of international armaments control would give the U. N. too much power and reduce the sovereignty of the free nations. These points are well taken but I do not believe that they are finally persuasive or that they lead toward any constructive solutions in bottling up the war potential. Anything short of effective control of all weapons of aggression is really no effective guaranty against war.

Strong and firm efforts to give the U. N. enough power to control the weapons of war need not transform the charter revisions conference into a showdown session which will run the danger of destroying the U. N. itself. Instead, these efforts could become simply one more step in the process of realistic recognition of the facts of modern warfare. In this process, the great majority of the nations of the world would commit themselves to the proposition that these facts must be matched bymechanisms strong enough to be an effective answer. It is more than possible that these efforts to put teeth in the U. N. Charter would fail at the revision conference, and indeed they should fail if pressing them too far would jeopardize the U. N. itself. However, the process toward peace would be continued, and the backbone of the free nations would be stiffened through commitment to a long-run program that is both morally and practically defensible.

The sovereignty issue is extremely important, but not for the reason that many of the opponents of a stronger U. N. would seem to think. Actually, the nations of the world today have only limited sovereignty when it comes to deciding whether or not they will be drawn into war. The Japanese did not ask the permission of the United States before their attack on Pearl Harbor. The limited amount of sovereignty which the United States would give the U. N. under a system of international armaments control would in no sense jeopardize the internal sovereignty of our Nation and would be the most effective possible guaranty of peace over the long run. Certainly no clear-thinking American would favor transferring even that limited amount of sovereignty to the U. N., however, unless and until the U. N. security system is demonstrably more effective in bottling up the war potential than our present system of defense. There should be no reduction whatsoever in our own armed strength unless we can devise an international system that can give us the same security.

I believe that the United States should go to the charter revision conference with specific plans for strengthening the U. N. along the lines of the original Baruch plan. Through our efforts we might hope that eventually a practical and effective system of armaments control under enforceable world law might be realized.

Senator HOLLAND. Mrs. Charles M. Davis likewise did not appear when her name was called. Is she here now?

(No response.)

Senator HOLLAND. The same ruling will apply to her.

(The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. CHARLES M. DAVIS

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and gentlemen, I am Mrs. Charles M. Davis, 174 Peachtree Battle Avenue NW.. Atlanta, Ga., speaking as a citizen deeply interested in the affairs of my State and country.

The Charter of the United Nations comes up automatically for possible revision in 1955. It is the responsibility of the Congress not to accept any revised charter that takes away any of our sovereign rights as a Nation.