war? That, it seems to me, is the $64 question, insofar as approval by Congress of Resolution 59 is concerned.

Mr. LODGE My answer to that is that any amendment which would be agreed to by our representatives, and would be approved by the United Nations in accordance with the Charter, would thereafter be referred to the respective governments of the several countries in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Of course, the Congress would have the right to pass on those amendments-just as they passed on the Charter.

Mr. VORYS. Would not the passage by both Houses of Congress of Resolution 59 give our Executive and our representative carte blanche in advance commitments of Congress to ratify whatever they propose? Mr. LODGE. I had not considered that. Would you believe that was so, Mr. Ambassador?

Ambassador AUSTIN. You are asking me a question of law in interpreting this?

Mr. LODGE. Yes, sir.

Ambassador AUSTIN. Of course, this is an estoppel if it is adopted. It is an estoppel upon the sense of propriety of the same Congress at least. Of course, any act of Congress can be changed by a subsequent act, but for the time being the Congress would be bound by such a resolution.

Mr. LODGE. You think it would be bound in advance to any amendments proposed under this resolution which might be adopted by the United Nations. That, as I understand it, is the interpretation of the gentleman from Ohio.

Ambassador AUSTIN. What the Congress is bound by in this declaration is that it is the sense of the Congress that the President should immediately take the initiative in calling a conference under 109, for a specific purpose. That is what it is bound by. It says what is the sense of Congress, and what it ought to do for that purpose.

I should think that would have some pretty strong effect upon Congress.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Ambassador, you say that you think the action Would be futile. Do you think it would be worse than futile, or do you think it would be dangerous? Do you think it would tend to disrupt the United Nations?

J

Ambassador AUSTIN. I cannot help but believe that it would be angerous. I think that the discussion would become so bitter that it would lead to trouble. We have so far been able to discuss warmongering and various other charges and come out whole; nevertheI believe, there is no need of stirring up this question.

Mr. LODGE. I think your opinion is of enormous value to us and is one hat should be considered very seriously.

It occurred to me before I heard your testimony that you might Telcome the opportunity to cast the pitiless light of publicity upon "y further recalcitrance upon the part of certain members of the United Nations.

Mr.VORYS. Would the gentleman yield once more?

Mr. LODGE. I am glad to yield.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Ambassador, you used the word "estoppel" with ference to the action which passage of Resolution 59 might have.

Is it not something like the distinction between the legal and moral obligation which was discussed at great length with reference to the foreign-aid program? While no Congress can legally bind a succeeding Congress, a Congress can create an extremely heavy moral obligation on a succeeding Congress, and on the Government of the United States. Is that not the distinction?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Oh, yes.

Can you not see that if you induce other countries to change their position by virtue of a statutory provision or a concurrent resolution that you have passed, that you have done something that binds you morally?

Mr. VORYS. I do concede that, and I say this is not a specific instruction to the President and to our representative, but a very broad one, in the whole field of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to prevent war.

It is quite conceivable that the Executive and his representative might take steps which a succeeding Congress would find it very embarrassing to be committed to in advance.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Ambassador, you are familiar with the specific recommendations included in 163?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes.

Mr. LODGE. The fact of the matter is, it seems to me that even if we were sure in advance that such amendments would be accepted, there is a grave question in my mind as to whether we should advance them, and I would like to ask you this.

Under the amendment proposed in Resolution 163, there is a 20-percent heavy-armament-quota plan. Would you feel that that heavyarmament-quota plan might be penalizing this country in the very field in which it has an advantage, by not restricting other people in things which they have the advantage?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes; we know that is so.

Mr. LODGE. In other words, with respect to 163, there are a number of questions that do not exist with respect to 59 and one of them is that even if Russia were to agree to them they might not be the sort of amendments of which you would approve.

Ambassador AUSTIN. I had hoped I would not have to get into a discussion of the detail on any of these bills. My relationship to you gentlemen, you know, is too harmonious for me to disturb it by discussing proposals before you in definite form. We are working for the same cause. We are trying to strengthen the United Nations. Now it is enough, is it not, from the viewpoint of the United States' Mission to the United Nations, for me to say to you that no matter what the detail of the bills may be, that this is an inappropriate time to have them. You know I welcome the debate that you can carry on, and tell the world of your support for the United Nations and how much you wish to strengthen it instead of destroy it. That is as far as I ought to go, it seems to me.

Mr. LODGE. I am willing to withdraw that question Mr. Ambassador, but I am sure you understand that I, as a member of the committee, have to addres myself to details. The motive which prompted my question was that I was naturally interested in what your opinion might be on any part of this program. But I quite understand your feeling.

Ambassador AUSTIN. I am willing to say this: I have studied these two resolutions. The one pending in the Senate is called the Ferguson resolution, I think, and the one here is the Judd resolution. I think it would be unwise to pass them.

Mr. LODGE. Thank you.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Ambassador, the committee thanks you again for your constructive statement and your very patient attitude in answering our question.

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 a. m. Thursday, May 6,

1948.

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee adjourned.)

Ambassador AUSTIN. I must say I am not ready to take the position that article 108 is an appropriate basis for proposing an amendment to the Charter in the General Assembly on which there has been no prior agreement.

Mr. LODGE. I was not suggesting necessarily that we proceed under article 108. What I was trying to point out was that it seems to me that under the Charter, the Charter can be amended without proceeding under 109, and that therefore I wondered why you objected so strongly to the calling of the conference under 109, since the mere calling of this conference would not bind us to any disruptive activity within the United Nations.

But, if we proceed under Resolution 163 there might be cause for grave misgiving.

Ambassador AUSTIN. All I am called upon as a witness to do in this regard I think is to express an opinion. I cannot do more than that. I have no feeling against this resolution, you know. As a matter of fact, my private ambition has always been to see the United Nations develop into a real world government, and I want it to get there as reasonably fast as it can. I do not want, however, to destroy it on the

way up.

What I have expressed here is an opinion that this concurrent resolution will be a futility, so far as getting a convention goes.

Mr. LODGE. That is, so far as achieving any amendments is concerned?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes; that is my opinion about it. All these resolutions are aimed at the veto. The last action I had was the meeting in my office of the five permanent members on January 19, 1948, at which amendment of the Charter was discussed pursuant to General Assembly resolutions which I have put in the record here. It was a formal and solid matter, and there was only one country there willing to accept amendment and that was the United States.

Mr. LODGE. In other words, what you are saying, Mr. Ambassador, is that we have already attempted to amend the Charter, outside of 109, or we have started and have not succeeded.

Ambassador AUSTIN. No; we have not attempted to do that. We have attempted to discuss amendment of the Charter with respect to chapter VI, and with respect to admission of new members. It has not been with respect to chapter VII.

Mr. LODGE. I did not mean any specific amendment, Mr. Ambassador. I meant that we have considered for some time amending chapter VI of the Charter?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Oh, yes.

Mr. LODGE. You do not have to proceed under article 109 to do it. You can proceed as we have proceeded. My only point is that since we have favored certain amendments I wondered wherein there were dangers of any great damage in calling a conference under 109 and submitting these amendments to that conference.

Mr. VORYS. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. LODGE. Certainly.

Mr. VORYS. Would the gentleman tell me whether he is willing to commit Congress in advance to any proposals that the President, our representative, and our Secretary of State may wish to make with reference to enacting, interpreting, or enforcing world law to prevent

war? That, it seems to me, is the $64 question, insofar as approval by Congress of Resolution 59 is concerned.

Mr. LODGE. My answer to that is that any amendment which would be agreed to by our representatives, and would be approved by the United Nations in accordance with the Charter, would thereafter be referred to the respective governments of the several countries in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. Of course, the Congress would have the right to pass on those amendments—just as they passed on the Charter.

Mr. VORYS. Would not the passage by both Houses of Congress of Resolution 59 give our Executive and our representative carte blanche in advance commitments of Congress to ratify whatever they propose? Mr. LODGE. I had not considered that. Would you believe that was so, Mr. Ambassador?

Ambassador AUSTIN. You are asking me a question of law in interpreting this?

Mr. LODGE. Yes, sir.

Ambassador AUSTIN. Of course, this is an estoppel if it is adopted. It is an estoppel upon the sense of propriety of the same Congress at least. Of course, any act of Congress can be changed by a subsequent act, but for the time being the Congress would be bound by such a resolution.

Mr. LODGE. You think it would be bound in advance to any amendments proposed under this resolution which might be adopted by the United Nations. That, as I understand it, is the interpretation of the gentleman from Ohio.

Ambassador AUSTIN. What the Congress is bound by in this declaration is that it is the sense of the Congress that the President should immediately take the initiative in calling a conference under 109, for a specific purpose. That is what it is bound by. It says what is the sense of Congress, and what it ought to do for that purpose.

I should think that would have some pretty strong effect upon Congress.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Ambassador, you say that you think the action would be futile. Do you think it would be worse than futile, or do you think it would be dangerous? Do you think it would tend to disrupt the United Nations?

Ambassador AUSTIN. I cannot help but believe that it would be dangerous. I think that the discussion would become so bitter that it would lead to trouble. We have so far been able to discuss warmongering and various other charges and come out whole; nevertheless I believe, there is no need of stirring up this question.

Mr. LODGE. I think your opinion is of enormous value to us and is one that should be considered very seriously.

It occurred to me before I heard your testimony that you might welcome the opportunity to cast the pitiless light of publicity upon any further recalcitrance upon the part of certain members of the United Nations.

Mr. VORYS. Would the gentleman yield once more?

Mr. LODGE. I am glad to yield.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Ambassador, you used the word "estoppel" with reference to the action which passage of Resolution 59 might have.