noticed one from Mr. Grenville Clark who is one of the great lawyers of the United States. [Reading:]

With us it is too commonly assumed that it is Russian perversity alone which stands in the way of world order. I do not minimize their obduracy, born of many elements, including deep fears and suspicions.

At that point I believe the Secretary of State indicated there had been somewhat of a change in understanding in the Office of the Secretary of State, of the reason for the attitudes and the obstinacy. of Russia in instances, first believing that it was born of fear and suspicion.

However, the conclusion probably substantially arrived at, that it is a determination along the lines of unyielding aggression, and to gather unto themselves many more nations.

I rather agree with Mr. Clark that we have not reached the point where we can say that that is true and abandon the idea that there is yielding on the part of Germany and on the part of Russia.

I thought and made a talk about it in July 1947, that possibly we might give consideration to the question of whether it is not possible that Russia was gathering these states about her because of what appeared to be an attitude of the United States to immediately rebuild Germany which would, however much we might deny it, result in rebuilding Germany militarily, and to make them not only the economic center of all activity in a great part of Europe, if not all of it, but they may have thought that it would result in Germany again, not many years from now, driving into the back door of Russia and repeating that which was done in World War II.

I cannot say who is correct about it, but I am not willing to disorganize the United Nations Organization and accept the idea that war and nothing else is inevitable in the adjustment of the affairs of the world on account of Russia's disposition.

I quote again from Mr. Clark [reading]:

I do not even know-no one does-that the Russian rulers will not try for world domination. How foolish to deny that this may be so! But how foolish and also irresponsible to assert that it "must" be so and that the cause of peace is hopeless until after the atomic war!

In any case, however grimly we choose to view the Russian attitude, we ought to recognize that it is not merely the Russians but also ourselves whom we have to persuade.

While we somewhat deny it, and profess with probable sincerity that we are paramounting efforts toward peace, we must admit also that right now and for some time our action has been toward a high preparation for war. Sometimes people cannot understand differences of that sort.

I think we have done well to make ourselves strong militarily. I voted for ERP. I voted, against the opinion of some of the military people, for a 70-group air force. I think the matter of war hereafter, whether it comes in 1 month, 1 year, or 5 years, will be technical and mechanical to the largest degree, but while we are doing that we ought to quit talking about it, and boasting about it, and heralding to the world that we are very, very busy in that line, but, on the other hand, go ahead and do what is necessary, in our opinion, for our security, if the worst should come to the worst, but devote ourselves to the building of peace.

I feel these resolutions which have been offered are fine. They offer us an opportunity to direct ourselves toward a practical and, I think, a sensible effort to the accomplishment of peace in the world. I do not think there is any time for us to discuss and debate whether Russia will come in or will not come in. We hope Russia will come in. Many of these resolutions, conceding that her failure to come in is a possibility, leave the door open for any nation to come in at a later date.

I believe my own State hesitated a long time to come into the Union, demanding that the Bill of Rights be made a part of the Constitution.

I rather think that it was an error, and believe that they should have come in, believing and hoping that this Bill of Rights would be made sometime a part of the Constitution, which did occur.

Here is an excerpt from a book written by Fritz Sternberg. The name appears to be German. I do not know his nationality, but that is immaterial here [reading]:

The price of an American victory over the Soviet Union would be staggering losses, gigantic costs, barbarism in Europe and Asia.

One of the chief aims of war with the Soviet Union is allegedly to preserve the American economic and social system.

That is a right disturbing situation, that we might get into paramount disputes on ideologies. One side will insist that the whole world will accept a certain form of government.

Of course we believe that a democracy is that form of government which offers the greatest individual liberty to every man, and is one compared with which there is no other.

But to undertake to order the life of every other country, whether we want them to be not Socialists or some other thing, is taking on a right smart burden. It comes pretty near being as fanatical as a religious war. [Continues reading:]

Actually war with the Soviet Union, while saving the world from Russian totalitarianism, would hurl it into barbarism. It would destroy the foundations on which the United States has built its economic system and democratic institutions.

The Americans would be compelled to enforce law and order in a world of Hiroshimas in Europe and Asia. Everywhere outside of the United States the sternest despotism would be needed even to make reconstruction possible.

He is calling that to our attention if that sort of an attempt is made. I think, in all these resolutions, there is the necessity along with the enlarging-maybe not enlarging, but defining definitely the jurisdiction to be given this Court; that its jurisdiction against nations, and as to nations and individuals and in matters of aggression and the attempt to make war; that there is carried with it the elimination of the veto right by a permanent member in the Social Council, but only in matters of aggression, armament for aggression, and admission to membership in the United Nations.

That, with the police force, must follow the defined jurisdiction of this International Court of Justice.

I want to read something else to you. I find myself compelled to go to other people for many thoughts and positions and have no apology for quotations from other sources. [Reading:]

In the interdependent world of today the drive for security has but two outlets: Law and conquest.

We, of course, would hope that that peace which would be lasting and just would evolve from good will on earth.

"Peace on earth and good will among men," which essentially is the only thing that can bring a universal, lasting, and just peace, but we do not have time, and we may apologize for not having devoted ourselves to it a little more religiously heretofore, but we yet have not time to put that into effect. It will be all right, and I hope we will remember that that alone will bring peace to the world.

But as we stand today, and as our present circumstances demand our early action, I think the statement here is correct. It has two outlets and two only: Law and conquest.

Within the Nation-wide structure the only course is conquest. The two most important powerful nations of the world are already resorting to this measure of self-defense

That is in quotations. It might have a question mark, also—

which have always led to materialism and conquest. The only hope for peace today lies in creating a higher legal order than the National State. It is utterly fallacious that the world is not yet ready for world sovereignty. The institution must be created before loyalty to it can be demanded.

Are we going to say we cannot do it and therefore we will not undertake it, and that we will go along with the United Nations as it is, without any amendment, the wisdom of which may have been impressed upon us by time, and I think has been to give this court ready jurisdiction and set up a machinery by which its edicts and powers may be enforced until we can reach that period of good will on earth. I think that is what he has reference to. [Continues reading:]

Sufficient experience has been had with Federal Government to draw up a detailed and workable Constitution in a short time. It is quite unnecessary that there should be uniformity of industrial ownership under a world rule of law. Each nation at present encompasses various forms of industrial leadership

Mrs. BOLTON. I understand what you are reading is on the basis of a world government rather than on the change of United Nations Charter.

Mr. FOLGER. Keeping ourselves, Mrs. Bolton, if we can, within the United Nations Charter.

Mrs. BOLTON. We are considering that Charter there rather than any world federation.

Mr. FOLGER. Yes. [Continues reading:]

The mark of a world government would be its direct mandate from the people. Yet no advanced nation need fear political government, merely because it is less populous than some more backward states. Representation will be based on population masses. The national level of government need not disappear. Nations will always retain appropriate functions but not those responsibilities for peace which they cannot control. Freedom and welfare which they have so far failed to produce in the world community. That is, it is impossible for the nation to do the job itself.

I believe we could have had it all fixed ourselves within about a week, but it is not done that way.

Mrs. Chairman, I do not go into the mechanism of details, but here are several resolutions. Many of them are similar at least to each other and some of them identical. The responsibility in that, and it is a fearful one, in my opinion, is to work out from these resolutions and any other thoughts that may be given to this committee or that the

committee may have, a plan by which the resolution may be adopted essentially as No. 50, and the Judd resolution, and others comparable to it. They call upon our President to undertake to implement the power and ability of the United Nations, through the amendment of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to make an effort, and a serious effort, and a determined effort, to bring about a world of law.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you, sir.

Are there any questions?

Mr. RICHARDS. I want to thank my colleague for that very informa tive statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEROY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. JOHNSON. My interest in this problem came about in this way: For 6 years I have been exposed to discussions and evidence on the matter of national security. Our national security and our freedom are tied up very closely with what we do in the international field. The particular phase of it that is presented by these resolutions came to my mind in 1946. A group of us went on a trip to the Orient and among other places we spent a week in Korea. When I saw what was going on in Korea I got thoroughly churned up over how we were going to make the United Nations work. The Russians were doing nothing in the way of cooperating with the Americans. They would not have joint administration of Korea. They would not cooperate even in little ways like permitting our troops to go into that area without a special permit We find out there, and I think it is public knowledge now, that a Soviet or a Communist paper near the capital of Korea was the one that printed a great deal of counterfeit money. Our intelligence traced that money right back to that press, conclusively.

It went through my mind, how can we have the collective security that we have to have?

I came to the conclusion after listening to the hearings in the atomic bomb control bill in our committee, that there was only one system of international security that was worth anything and that was one based on law, some way that you could adjudicate disputes through some mechanism, a board or court, or any other way and settle them, but to do that we had to have the power behind this court to enforce its decrees. In other words, the law had to have the respect it was entitled to by virtue of the fact that force was behind it.

Every one of you know that in the Charter of the League of Nations, President Wilson recommended a provision that provided for force. It was taken out of there and that is what made the thing impotent. The League of Nations went along without the United States of America and it might have done a lot of good. We lost an opportunity to learn a lot had we been a member of it. I wish we now had that 26 years of international experience as a member of that particular organization. I went home and talked to my people, and I outlined to them what I had seen and what I had been exposed to in the way of information.

I said this: "It is apparent that one member of the United Nations, on which we hang our hope is trying its level best to make it impotent. They have the veto power and by that means, and other means that have come under my personal scrutiny in Berlin in 1945, in Korea in 1946, in Trieste in 1947, it is obvious that they are planning and are determined to make the United Nations a worthless piece of paper." "When that becomes conclusive in my mind," I said, "it seems to me we should organize the rest of the world for our security, holding the door open to any power to enter and become a member."

I want to make a comment here in response to a question that the chairman asked Mr. Stockman. That is that I agree with her that we should not sever relations with Russia, diplomatic relations or trade relations. In my humble judgment, those kinds of steps are the first steps toward war, and no matter how thin the thread, we ought to keep contact so we can perhaps finally understand the Russians' mind. We should try to understand the outlook of the Russians. Perhaps we can solve the imponderables between us.

Several days ago there was a very provoking editorial in the Washington Post by Mr. Lippmann, and he brought this point out, that there are a great many people today who think another war is inevitable. Why? Because they say that the Communist philosophy and the so-called democratic philosophy cannot exist in the world together. However, he made this point, with which I heartily agree, that it is the duty of the diplomats and statesmen to find a way to make irreconcilable things get reconciled and get along. I believe if we hold the door open and do all we can to show our good faith and create the mechanisms that are necessary, that we can find a way, perhaps, to make the United Nations work.

What I have to say about the resolution of Mr. Judd, and the others introduced, is only to discuss the idea. I cannot go into details. I am not an expert on foreign affairs, but I have thought about that a lot, as have all of you. We expect you people who hold the hearings on these things to make the refinements and get adjustments, and the like, so that it will dovetail with all our efforts for peace.

I do not think that we should pursue this policy until we have exhausted every effort to make the United Nations work. But there is a precedent, or a partial precedent, in my humble opinion, for a step of that kind.

The American Nation, when it got its freedom, sat down and wrote the Articles of Confederation. They tried them out for 5 or 6 years. They found they were impotent. They were futile. The States were warring. The States were exercising their jurisdiction contrary to the welfare of their neighbors. So the Americans, with audacity that has not been matched in any experience in the world that I know of, sat down and deliberately wrote themselves a new charter of government called the Constitution of the United States. Just think of it, how revolutionary that was. They sat down and said, "We will scrap what we have built and we will write a new plan of government; we will try to get our States to adopt it, and live under it." They did exactly that.

We had a tempestuous career under that new document which we talked about as being the greatest that the world has ever known of its kind, because it took us 70 years and a bitter Civil War to finally get

75921-48- -9