It seems to me that it would be presumptuous for our Congress at this time to attempt to decide this question.

It seems to me that General Marshall's remarks addressed to your committee must have been directed to House Concurrent Resolution 163 now being considered by your committee.

He said to your committee:

In general, the proponents of these projects recognize the probability that the proposals would not be accepted by at least one of the major powers and by a number of other governments now members of the United Nations. They advocate that in this case the respective projects be put into effect among such nations as would accept them.

I submit that there is no such proposal in the identical joint resolutions Nos. 59 to 68, inclusive. These resolutions simply express the approval of Congress for

calling a general conference of the United Nations pursuant to section 109 for the purpose of making the United Nations capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to prevent war.

These resolutions do not presume to tell that general conference or constitutional convention what it should do, either as to specific provisions of the constitutional amendment or as to the method of ratification. All the resolutions ask for is the calling of the conference, very properly leaving to that general conference all of its prerogatives.

It is proper, however, to consider at this time in a general way what such a general conference would have to do if it sought to "make the United Nations capable of enacting, interpreting, and inforcing world law to prevent war."

If the United Nations is to be strengthened into an effective instrument for peace, it must be radically changed from its entire concept of a league. It must become a government of limited powers.

I feel that too much stress is being laid upon the veto power, so that there seems to be a good deal of opinion to the effect that the UN would be sufficiently strengthened if the veto power were eliminated. However, if the veto power were eliminated the UN would still be a league-a form of organization which history has proved incapable of preventing war.

If the UN is to be converted into an effective organization for peace, it must have the quality of juridical order: A constitution limiting its powers; a lawmaking body, empowered to enact laws within its constitutional limitations for the prevention of war; an executive department for the execution and enforcement of the laws, with an adequate police force; and a judicial department with jurisdiction to interpret the constitution and the laws and to decide disputes between nations, between citizens and foreign nations, and between citizens of different nations.

In my judgment such a form of organization should be federal. A federal form of government is the only one which has proved its practicability over any great area with diversity of economic and social conditions. Such a world federal organization should be strictly limited in its jurisdiction and, as to all matters not included in its jurisdiction, the sovereignty of the constituent states over their citizens and political subdivisions should be undisturbed.

Personally, I think that federalism is one of man's greatest inventions. It was first implemented on any extensive scale by the Constitution of the United States.

There are two peculiar and essential qualities of federal form of organization.

In the first place, it is given jurisdiction, an exclusive jurisdiction. only over those matters as to which the constituent states are unable to deal effectively by themselves. The one great problem which individual nations are unable to deal with by themselves is the problem of war. This is the jurisdiction as to which there is imperative need for transference to a federal organization.

The other peculiar quality of federalism is that, within its delegated and exclusive jurisdiction, it has direct authority over the citizens of a constituent state. It does not have to go to war against the constituent state to enforce its laws; it can proceed directly against citizens.

We are thoroughly familiar with this system in this country. As citizens of the individual States, we bear allegiance to those Statesbut, without any confusion of thought we also look upon ourselves as citizens of the Federal organization and obey its laws.

All that a league organization can do is to make recommendations to the constituent states, and its only remedy of enforcement is to apply force to the disobeying state.. As Walter Lippmann has pointed out, this presents the anomaly of asking nations cold-bloodedly to go to war against an aggressor nation for the avowed purpose of preventing

war.

Under a federal organization the procedure is against individuals. The Federal authority has courts and marshals within the constituent States, and if under an international federalism individual citizens within a nation begin to foment war in violation of law, the procedure would be arrest and trial of those fomenters. We have already applied this principle. This is simply having Nuremberg trials before instead of after the event. This may seem a pretty radical departure, especially the idea of letting an outside institution exercise such jurisdiction over citizens who may happen to be public officials. The system, however, has worked in federalisms of less than world-wide scale, and here is presented simply as one of the points as to which we need to change our habits of thought.

One of the interesting qualities of federalism is that it is not necessary that its constituent members have the same form of government. Germany before World War I offered an example of federal form of government having constituent States with different types of local government. If a limited world government is confined simply to jurisdiction over maintenance of the peace, there is no reason why the nations having entirely different ideologies may not successfully be constituent parts.

Now, of course, comes the $64 question: Would Russia join such a world organization? We do not know. We should not, however, proceed upon the assumption that it will not. We will never know what Russia will do until the issue is put up to her squarely.

By following the procedure under section 109 of the UN Charter, which I have outlined, the issue would be placed upon the highest ethical plane: The proposal of an organization to prevent war and maintain peace. It would be no anti-Russia movement. It would be no effort toward coalition. If any nation should refuse to go along, it would be writing for itself on the pages of history a low order of morality.

It is being suggested that the United States should proceed under section 51 and following sections, to form some sort of federal organization with nations bordering the Atlantic. It would seem to me that that would be a distinctly anti-Russian movement, a coalition, the old expedient of power politics, which would give us a very low rating indeed in history.

Another suggestion is that we proceed to take the lead for a revision of the United Nations Charter under section 109 and follow through under the ratification required under section 109 which would require Russia's approval. Then it is suggested that if Russia fails to ratify, the United Nations should be retained in its present form and we should thereafter proceed to attempt to organize the rest of the world under section 51. This would improve the ethical standard, if the new organization set up under section 51 were a real judicial order, federal in form, the door of which would be open at any time for the entry of nations willing to conform with its requirements.

Frankly, however, I do not see why we need consider this proposition at this time. Resolution 59 before your committee recommends that the United States take the lead toward the calling of a conference for the strengthening of the United Nations. That, it seems to me, is as far as we need to go at the present time.

If that conference is called and held, the delegates to the conference would go there, as did the delegates to our own Convention in 1787, with fair and open minds, without any specific blueprints, and through the process of debate and compromise would hammer out something that would be vastly superior to what we now have. I do not think that any of us should attempt to draw a blueprint in advance, I think we should have faith and reliance in the delegates to that conference.

The important thing at this most critical time in the world's history is to have the door opened for revision of the UN Charter. That door will never be opened unless and until the United States takes the lead, and offers to go along with the rest of the world down the only road that offers any hope of leading to world peace: The road of law and order. In contrast to this, the United States Government has never expressed anything but the desire to stake the world's peace upon a mere league, supported by unanimous cooperation of the great

powers.

The Federalist Papers, in 1787, had this to say of such a theory:

* * *

To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of the ages. To reason from the past to the future, we shall have good ground to apprehension that the sworm would sometimes be appealed to as the arbiter of their differences.

All history proves that there can be no peace, no security, under a league.

If we really want abiding peace and freedom, then we must accept and act upon the only thing which has ever brought peace and security upon this earth: Law and order under government.

Chairman EATON. Thank you, Mr. Holliday.

We will now have questions under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Chiperfield.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EATON. Mr. Colmer?

Mr. COLMER. I have no questions.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Vorys?

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Holliday, in this very thoughtful and eloquent statement of yours, you suggest that the United States simply call a meeting under article 109, for example, and the delegates go there as did the delegates to our own convention in 1787, and we should have faith and reliance in the delegates to that conference.

You are probably familiar with the fact that under the United Nations Participation Act, our delegates are instructed, under the terms of the law, by the President, and could only act as the President would determine, so the only open mind that would exist would be that of the President of the United States. The others would merely be spokesmen under his instructions.

Do you think that would make any difference in the type of discussion that would go on?

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Of course the delegates from a different country would go there with some general policies in mind, but not even the President of the United States can draw that charter. It must be agreed upon by the delegates to the convention. Each group of delegates would go there and would go there with some general policies, but a constitution has to be hammered out in a hard way through debates and compromise.

Mr. VORYS. I wondered if you were familiar with the fact that a meeting of the Assembly of United Nations is not a deliberative body where the delegates argue back and forth and compromise, but our own delegation is subject by law to instruction on every point from the President, and the Soviet delegation is subject to such stringent instructions that they do not even discuss or ask questions or answer questions until they have specific instructions.

That is the fact so far.

Mr. HOLLIDAY. This constitution would not be adopted by the General Assembly. It would be adopted by this conference for review.

Mr. VORYS. I do not believe I understood who would form the conference for review.

As I understood it, article 109 proposes a meeting of delegates of the United Nations Assembly.

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Yes, but they would meet as a convention and not as a general assembly.

Mr. VORYS. That is all.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Jonkman.

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Holiday, I am interested in a statement that has been made repeatedly. I will not say it was made today, but it was inferred that if these resolutions do not do any good at least they will do no harm.

Do you feel they will do no harm if they do no good?

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I think that would be a rather negative approach, sir. I do not know that they would do any harm, but I would not be in favor of doing something because they would do no harm. I think they will do good in giving some encouragement to our executive department. It would have been a rather radical departure for our executive department 3 years ago, let us say, before all this public education had been going on, to launch forth into a proposal for a

world federation. They would have had no confidence that the Senate would approve it.

The good that this does, as I see it, is to give courage to our Govern

ment.

Mr. JONKMAN. I am quite in accord with you on the fact that we should not utilize our time in accomplishing something that just would do no harm and would have no definite beneficial results. On the other hand, I wonder if we should not consider possibly our putting ourselves in worse condition than we are in at the present time.

For instance, the Little Assembly has been charged with the same problem and it is now considering possible revision of the Charter to eliminate some of the evils that have been disclosed in the 3 years of its operation.

Do you think in the first place that if we compete with them, that this Nation which has been already accused by the world as being imperialistic, and a number of other things, that that coming from us, it might do more harm than good?

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I feel as did Mr. Finletter in his explanation this morning that it would give quite a lift to the morale of the rest of the world to know that the legislative branch of this Government was willing to go down the only road to peace. I think it would give a great uplift.

On the other hand, we entered into a contract with the other United Nations 2 years ago with a charter. It has been in operation less than 3 years. The Little Assembly now is considering the very things we are discussing here.

I did not know they were considering converting the United Nations into a federation.

Mr. JONKMAN. I do not mean to say that they go as far as you do. The point I want to make is, should we live up to our word and give this a fair trial before we break a contract we made 2 years ago with an expression that we want something different now?

Mr. HOLLIDAY. Section 109 was a part of that contract, and it by itself, and its very terms, contemplated this possibility. It can be called any time before 10 years expires.

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you feel, along with Mr. Finletter, that by creating something of this kind, a club within a club, where the club within the club consists of world-wide organization, that that can be properly constituted as a regional organization?

Mr. HOLLIDAY. I have suggested two or three different ways. For a long time it has been my thought that the proper procedure was to follow the precedent set by our own founding fathers and reconstruct the United Nations, even if we could not get the unanimity required by the restrictions of section 109. There has, however, been a good deal of sentiment expressed lately that the United Nations ought to be preserved as a talking forum. I do not know if you preserved the United Nations in that way Russia would ever go to it. If that is desirable, the procedure would then be to try to operate through 109. If that was knocked down, we would have made our record of having tried to do the fine and honorable thing, and then proceed under section 51.