not weaken, we must not wreck, we must not destroy the United Nations. That is precisely our own view. There was no other purpose or desire in the minds of anyone except to strengthen it.

Too many people have felt there are only two alternatives, that we either had to yield to Russia or go to war with her.

We say there is a third alternative. We should, with all nations if possible-if not possible, then with as many as we can-build constructively an edifice of world law, world order, and thereby world peace. Not go to war, on the one hand; not appease and succumb, on the other; but work for order under law and justice. That is what we must keep ahead of us. That is the objective of the American people. We do not want to yield to aggression; we do not want war. There is no other method except world order based on world law and with world force.

Mr. LODGE. Some of the language used by the sponsors made it appear to be an attempt to set up another United Nations.

Mr. JUDD. But the authors of it disavowed that interpretation from the outset.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Thank you for a very, very constructive statement.

It has been suggested we meet at 2:30 instead of 2 o'clock. We will meet, then, at 2:30 and adjourn at this time.

(Whereupon, at 1:05 p. m., the committee adjourned until 2:30 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reconvened, pursuant to the luncheon recess, at 3:10 p. m.)

Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). The committee will be in order. Our next witness is Mr. Holliday.

STATEMENT OF W. T. HOLLIDAY, VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED WORLD FEDERALISTS

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Mrs. Bolton, and gentlemen of the committee, my name is W. T. Holliday; my residence is Cleveland, Ohio. For 20 years, from 1908 to 1928, I was an attorney, engaged in general practice of law in the city of Cleveland. Since then, for the past 20 years, I have been the president of the Standard Oil Co. of Ohio. I happen also to be a vice president of United World Federalists.

The views which I give are personal and are not given in any representative capacity.

For the past 2 years I have been devoting most of my spare time and energy to writing and speaking about world peace, and the only way in which the prevention of war can possibly be attained. Perhaps as an individual citizen I might not have had the temerity to do this, but I felt compelled to do so because of my responsibilities as a business executive.

I feel very strongly that there is no group of citizens in this country who should be more concerned about prevention of war than the American businessmen. They have all of the usual emotional pulls of concern about country and their families, their children, and grandchildren. But they have, in addition, a specific obligation.

They are, as it were, the trustees of our economic welfare, concerning which they must be ever alert. It is their duty to insure against every possible hazard, and to a very large extent they perform this duty. But there is one loss against which they cannot take out insurance. They cannot insure against the consequences of modern war. There would probably be no one from whom to collect the insurance. The only thing which they can do in the way of insurance is to try to help prevent war.

Businessmen, like everyone else and especially statesmen today, have many immediate problems with which they must grapple, but they must do two things at once: They must deal effectively with the immediate problems, and they must also deal with the long-run and more fundamental problem of the survival of the very environment in which they operate. Solution of short-run problems will be of little consequence if there is no decent civilization left within which to operate. I am not talking about business enterprises which may have investments or businesses on other continents which they wish to preserve; I am talking about enterprises like my own company which have not investment or business in the Eastern Hemisphere, and I am talking about preservation of civilization and the American way of life here in the United States.

This same principle applies to our Government. It, too, must do two things at once: Concern itself vigilantly with the immediate problems but at the same time, continuously and with undiminished vigor, keep in mind the long-run point of view and fundamental objectives.

From the short-run view, our Nation must strive to keep itself, militarily, politically, and economically, the strongest nation in the world. It must strive on the economic front to restore the economy and social structure in western Europe. We must seek on the political front to encourage and help the political unification of western Europe.

But these things, imperative as they are, are short run in viewpoint, and negative. They cannot indefinitely postpone war. They must be accompanied by an ultimate objective, a goal. If we are to have world peace they can only be a shield behind which we may hope to gain time for the accomplishment of a worthy ultimate objective. So far, I regret to say, the United States appears to me to have evidenced no ultimate objective, but it rather appears to rely permanently upon the maintenance of peace by power. The original concept of the United Nations appears to have been the maintenance of peace by power enforced through the unanimous agreement of the three strongest nations. I do not believe that we can properly blame our public officials for this. The fundamental responsibility rests upon the people of the United States. A democratic government such as ours cannot, with confidence, go beyond what, it clearly appears, will be supported by public opinion. Likewise, foreign nations will not have confidence in the representations of our Government while there is doubt as to its popular support. Over all international negotiations of the United States hovers the shadow of the Senate's two-third ratification.

If the world is to take the only road to peace, the American people themselves must take the lead through their elected representatives.

The executive department will never make the offer to substitute an international system of security for its war-making power unless it clearly will be supported in such a change. And only when the United States moves for the necessary amendments to the UN Charter, declares its willingness to go along with the other nations through a reasonable period of transition, and clearly has the support of Congress-only then will the world, including the Soviet Government, have its first chance to make a choice in favor of world peace.

That is why I believe it is of the utmost importance for the Congress of the United States to adopt a resolution along the lines of Resolution 59 now being considered by your committee. These resolutions in my judgment do not constitute "back-seat driving." They do not attempt to interfere with the responsibilities of the execuive department of our Government. But they would say to our Government and to the world that courageous action by our Government, offering to take the lead in the strengthening of the United Nations into an organization of world law and order, would have the necessary support of Congress. Not only would it encourage our Government to take the lead down the only road to abiding peace, but it would assure the world that our Government was speaking authoritatively and would have the necessary support from the legislative branch of our Government.

We do not know how much time we have; but the time is relatively short. If we wish to survive, not only as a nation but as a civilization, we must determine very promptly what possible way there may be of preventing war, and act promptly in accordance with that decision. Historians tell us, and it has been pointed up by Toynbee, that in known history the twenty-odd civilizations which have fallen did so because they were confronted with some fundamental and revolutionary change in their environment, and their people were not able to change their habits of thinking to meet that fundamental challenge. They could not meet a new world with a new point of view.

That is the condition which confronts the world today. The character and quality of war have been revolutionized, and whether our civilization survives will depend upon whether we, the people of the modern world, can change our habits of thought about war and bring a new point of view to a new world. The character and quality of war has been revolutionized, in its social as well as its physical aspects. Civilians and noncombatants, instead of being considered exempt, have become the prize object of attack, and in World War II we accepted without hesitancy the wholesale slaughter of civilians as a fundamental quality of war. For such slaughter we have developed scientific weapons whose potentialities dwarf the imagination.

War, I say, has become obsolete as a method of deciding international disputes. No one can win a modern war. If civilization is to survive, war must stop. At long last man has developed the instruments with which he can destroy his world, and you can depend upon it that he will try to do it, unless the power to do it is taken from him. How then are we to prevent wars? If we wish to try to prevent war, the first question naturally to be answered is, Why do we have wars? The answer is clear-we have wars to decide international disputes. Those disputes may be legitimate, or they may be illegitimate disputes tendered by thugs and brigands. Human nature be

ing as it is, disputes between individuals and between nations are bound to occur; and disputes have to be disposed of. Unless some orderly method of disposal is provided, those disputes inevitably are decided by force.

The most primitive men found this out when they first came out of the caves or down from the trees to live together. The most primitive men found that they could have no security, no freedom, no peace, in a state of anarchy. From the very beginning they found it necessary to establish government and law.

Similarly, family groups found that the same principle applied to larger groups into which they merged, and as such larger groups consolidated into clans and tribes. This process of expansion continued until nations removed the no-man's land of anarchy between duchies and principalities and city states, and the units of law and order became nations.

But today, when scientific warfare threatens the existence of civilization, we still have the no-man's land between great nations, in which there is nothing but the crudest anarchy, which people could not stand for one moment within the borders of their nations.

There is only one answer to the problem of war. There is only one road to peace. And that is the removal of the state of anarchy which exists in international relationships. All history proves that there can be no peace and security except under law. And there can be no law except under government.

Toynbee has shown that whenever a civilization saved itself from calamity it took a "great leap forward." If our civilization is to survive, we must take the last "great leap" in the extension of the domain of law and order. However much of a wrench it may be to our habits of thought, we must apply to the international zone the solution of law and order which has been applied within the national borders.

The United Nations offers us the road along which we may take that step. As the medium through which world juridical order may be obtained, the UN must be fostered and preserved.

There are a good many people, however, who think that criticism. of the United Nations in its present form tends to weaken the UN, and that therefore it is rather sacrilegious to criticize the present structure of the UN. They say that we must let the UN evolve into a juridical order.

Government, however, does not evolve. We either have a government or we don't have it. It is achieved only by a bold and single

step.

İf, therefore, we wish to strengthen the United Nations, we should consider what are its defects. Its defects are clear. The UN, unless strengthened, is doomed to failure because it is nothing but a league, a many-sided treaty. History is full of such agreements, from the leagues of ancient Greece down to the League of Nations. Every one has proposed to abolish war and every one has ended in war. If the league theory were all that history has to tell us upon maintaining peace, the human race might as well shut up shop.

But, as I have pointed out, there is a different fact of history that is equally proved; it constitutes the only way by which imperfect men

in an imperfect world can live in peace together. Throughout history men within domestic borders have been able to live in reasonable peace and security only under enforced law.

*

*

*

The UN offers the open road along which juridical order might be achieved on the international level. Under article 109 of the UN Charter, "a general conference of the Members for * * # reviewing the present Charter" can be called by two-thirds of the General Assembly and 7 out of 11 of the Security Council.

That "confidence" would be the constitutional convention-and no nation can veto a line of it.

At that conference, "any alteration of the present Charter" can be recommended by two-thirds of the nations represented. That "alteration" would be a federal constitution for the world-and no single nation can veto a line of it.

Now the final step is to submit that constitution to the nations themselves for ratification. Under article 109, the "alteration" shall take effect when it has been ratified by two-thirds of the nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council. This is the first place where the veto power can take effect.

Now it is a curious fact of history that our Thirteen Original States, as they approached federation, were restrained by exactly the same rule of all or none. Our Articles of Confederation said that any amendment must be ratified by all 13 States. The resolution of the Continental Congress in 1787 which called the Constitutional Convention provided the same restrictions.

When our Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, it was apparent that those restrictions could not be complied with. The State of Rhode Island had even refused to send delegates. It seemed almost certain that the great State of New York would not ratify.

How then did our infant Constitution manage to come into effect under conditions so stringent? The answer is that it did not. By a bold and wise stroke, the drafters of our Constitution cut themselves loose from their restrictions and wrote the provision into the new instrument that it shuld be established among the ratifying States when 9 of the 13 had ratified.

The two great States of New York and Virginia did not come in until the new Constitution had gone into effect. Rhode Island stayed out for over a year.

The delegates to a world constitutional convention under the UN Charter could follow the same procedure, if they chose, and provide in the new instrument for its own ratification.

If two-thirds of the nations can write a constitution, it would seem that two-thirds of the nations could establish it among themselves. Once this federation is established among a reasonable proportion of the world's nations, it forms an open and easily expansible system. For any nation that did not wish to come in at the moment, there would always be a vacant chair. Whether, however, a constitutional convention under section 109 of the United Nations Charter should follow that procedure adopted by our own founding fathers, or whether it should abide by the ratification provision of section 109 and submit the constitution for approval by all of the permanent members of the Security Council, is a question to be decided by that convention itself.