Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

I think that we must face up to the bold thing that we must do if we want to save the free way of life. I think that the half measures that are suggested now are simply worthless. The European recovery program_alone, must not you gentlemen agree, cannot resuscitate western Europe when Europe has no hope of security. She has no assurance that when she builds up her industry that she will realize anything from it, and that it will be hers.

Now, what are being suggested are military programs for these 16 nations. I would be sorry to see the United States enter into a military alliance with 16, 15, 12, or 3 European nations. Such alliances are notoriously unstable, they are notoriously the subject of disputes as to how you integrate your defense forces, how you conduct your wars. We know what we have been through in two wars, in such alliances as we have had. Now, it will not do.

Now, I am just thinking, if we are going to try these half measures, ERP, the military alliance, and so forth, I am just wondering how long the economy of the United States is going to stand the strain of our internationally propping up European nations in the most wasteful way that it can be done, without the economies of a single defense force, without the economies of a single foreign policy, without the economies that come from over-all direction of industry, and what have you, doling out money to nations and attempting to control how they dole it out, propping up their military machines, and then trying to direct them how they will integrate them with us. The troubles, disputes, and difficulties are simply enormous.

I think that we must discard these half measures, and get beyond them by a bold stroke at once, or lose possibly the whole game.

I do not know whether there has been much discussion before your committee on the federation of European democracies. It is a step in the right direction, of course. A federation of European democracies would be a fine gesture, but where would we be? We would have to prop it up, just as much as we are propping up the 16 nations. We would have to make an alliance with it, just as much as we have to ally with the 16 nations to give them security, and why decide to divide the freemen of the world into two camps when the ideology that is against us lives on division and thrives on division, just as did Hitler.

Now, I think that the way to promote economic recovery in western Europe, and the remainder of the world, is to form a union of peoples whose nations provide freedom under law. The nations who have held the brunt of spiritual, material progress for 100 years. Weld them into a common society, a society which as a federal unit carries some respect for their common defense, and promotes their common welfare. A society governed by peoples' law, a society that protects the individual liberty which is the essential of man's welfare, prosperity, and progress, if we know anything about the lessons of history.

As Mr. Dulles pointed out, there is a small group of people who could be united just that way. I was greatly heartened by the fact that though he was not for that program now, he did point out that there were people who practiced the free way of life who could unite in a very close form of union, and, as he put it, not stretch the rubber band, but allow it to remain a small rubber band that really binds them together in some real sense, and binds their potential into one.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. BLOOM. Would that be under the Charter of the United Nations?

Mr. ROBERTS. There is nothing in the Charter I can find, Mr. Bloom, that forbids it.

Mr. Bloom. How about the preamble? I am interested in that because I had something to do with writing it.

Mr. ROBERTS. . The preamble?
Mr. BLOOM. The preamble of the United Nations, yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think there is nothing in the preamble concerning two nations wanting to form themselves into one.

Mr. BLOOM. I refer to the item of freedom.

Mr. ROBERTS. It says, “The 'peoples' of the United Nations are determined"-and so on. If you will permit me to say so, I will say that I think this was a mistatement. That was a treaty of nations and not people.

Mr. BLOOM. The preamble starts off the same as that of our Constitution, “We, the people.”

Mr. ROBERTS. That was a constitution ratified by people. This was not.

The United Nations is a great treaty, Mr. Bloom, you cannot deny that. If it was not a treaty, why was it ratified by the Senate as a treaty? It is a treaty. It preserves all sovereignty to every one of the nations in it. It says so in the charter. A union of people, like that under our own Constitution, is ratified by the people of the nations that go into it, and not otherwise.

Now, there are nations that can go into that kind of a union, and see what you get: The whole British Commonwealth can do it. The Low Countries can do it. The Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and France can do it, and I think the Philippines can do it because they have a constitution like our own at the moment.

You would take the Philippines in simply to show there is no question of race or color in this thing, or geographical location, but I would take those nations first because the crisis is in Europe today, and nowhere else. It is among those people. If you resuscitate and restore them, you have some chance of resuscitating and restoring the economy of the world. Without them, and we alone, I say, "No."

Mr. Bloom. How many nations did you figure on?

Mr. ROBERTS. If I were the Congress of the United States, I would adopt a resolution inviting the delegates from the members of the British Commonwealth—that is Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Great Britain, and Eire.

Mr. Bloom. Do you mean individually?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, and I would invite France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and Switzerland. I think I would invite the Philippines. There is the focus now of the economic area of the world. There is the focus now of the military deficiencies of the world. Let us get together and see if we can form a union, a union something on the pattern of the United States of America, then let us put in the fundamental law that the parliament of that union shall admit other nations as they find them fit to come in. That is what the Congress did with all but the Thirteen Original States. They applied for admission, and the Congress passed on it.

Mr. Bloom. That charter goes back to the people, and the people vote on that charter; is that your idea ?

[ocr errors]

80 on.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the delegates could devise something like the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 did, and would refer it back to the Congress, the Congress would examine it, and then refer it to the people for a referendum; and the people of other nations would vote on it by popular vote. Then you get the individual units as the basis of your union, just as you do for the Federal Government of the United States.

Mr. JUDD. Was our Constitution ratified by popular vote, or was it by the legislatures? Mr. ROBERTS. The Constitution required that it be referred to conventions of the people of the States, and each of the States elected conventions.

Mr. Bloom. There was no specified number of delegates that you could have. Some States had 40 and some only 10. The delegates roted on it. Mr. ROBERTS. They were elected by popular elections. Mr. JUDD. They were called for that special purpose ? Mr. ROBERTS. The people voted for their representatives on the question of whether they would be for it or whether they would not be for it. Mr. Bloom. Your Bill of Rights was voted on the same way: Mr. ROBERTS. The Constitution required that. I do not think you can found any lasting government except on the will of the people. There is the idea of the United Nations, there is the idea of the League of Nations, there was the idea with the old Articles of Confederation. States were the constituent members. States had each one vote, and Mr. Bloom. Would you make that a unanimous vote? Mr. ROBERTS. No; by a majority vote. Mr. BLOOM. Of the States?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; I would refer it for majority decision, like everything is decided democratically in this country by a majority. Mr. Bloom. Do you mean of the States? Mr. ROBERTS. A majority of the States, and a majority of the people in the States that vote to ratify, certainly. No, it takes more than a majority of the States to ratify an amendment to our Constitution. Any country if it had a popular vote could conduct its referendum as it saw fit, to ratify this constitution. Mr. Bloom. How long did that take us, Mr. Roberts? Mr. ROBERTS. It took the delegates in Philadelphia, who were faced with a perfectly new thing, and who created a great invention, about 3 months. Mr. BLOOM. That is, to write the Constitution. Mr. ROBERTS. And send it back home for approval. Mr. Bloom. However, it took from September until June of the following year.

Mr. ROBERTS. It was provided that it should become effective when nine States ratified it. I think nine States ratified it within 8 months.

Mr. BLOOM. It was June 17 or 27 of 1788.
Mr. ROBERTS. Then they submitted it about September or October.
Mr. Bloom. It was September 21, 1787.

Mr. ROBERTS. It took less than 12 months for the nine States to ratify.

However, think of the hope, think of the uplift among all these people in these nations, if this were under way.

The thing that you are trying to do by the European recovery program–I do not say “you,” particularly—but what we are trying to do by the European recovery program is to resuscitate a hope that you are not going to resuscitate by standing over here and feeling that you will pull the string when you are ready. That will not resuscitate hope and reconstruction in Europe, and it will not help to make a military alliance, in my judgment.

Gentlemen, I have had my say.

Mr. Bloom. What would have happened, in your judgment, had we not passed the European recovery program?

Mr. ROBERTS. I said for this fiscal year I thought it was an essential. We must keep these nations propped up until some permanent solution is found.

Mr. BLOOM. We are laying a foundation for them to build a superstructure on; is that the idea?

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, what are we going to do, we are going to let them build a United States of Europe, and then stand up here and be called upon to help them out again.

Mr. BLOOM. Did not Clemenceau use the term “United States 'in' in Europe” and not “United States 'of' Europe ?” Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know.

I have given all the thought I could give to this ever since I left the Supreme Court, and I have not seen cause to change my mind on how to start world government. I think you have to start some time. I do not think you can start with a lot of highly advanced-spiritually and industrially—nations, and a lot of backward nations that you have to drag along. I think you have to start to resuscitate the world, resuscitate world trade with nations who understand this sort of thing, and who practice it, who have the know-how and who have the assets. The nations I mentioned have 80 percent of all the assets and potential in the world today. Start with them and then call in these backward nations, as one and another will qualify in the view of the international parliament to come in and take their part in the federation. It will be a slow process, and it will be a difficult thing to set up.

I do not blink the difficulty. We did not blink the difficulties in 1787. They were terrific. They were in a sense a different kind, but I think they were just as great then as anything that faces any union of democracies now.

Let me say that the net of what I have said indicates that I think neither of these resolutions should be adopted.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VoRYS. Mr. Justice, I feel precisely as you do, that I want to see a union of the free as large and as fast as it is humanly possible to have it.

Now, what concerns me is how to go about it. I cannot see how we can draft up an invitation that would not be instantly construed all over the planet as dividing the world into two camps. "Your criticism of these present proposals could be applied to your proposal.

As Mr. Judd said, those who drafted these others did not intend to divide the world into two camps, but it is interpreted that way. How in the world can we get something down on a piece of paper and invite a fraction of the world to join in a separate camp?

Mr. ROBERTS. My position is that I would accept the United Nations and Russia, and I would have all these constituent nations retain their membership in the United Nations. Please recollect that Russia has three members in the United Nations because they represent three federated states in her nation. There is no reason why they should be not represented in the United Nations. That does not divide the world.

Second, is there any reason you can think of why two nations, for example, Pakistan and India, if they should draw together into a single federation, is there anything in the United Nations Charter to prevent it? Is there any reason why if that was their preference that it should be felt that they had offended the other nations because they had not asked them in? Why should we not, if we feel we can better protect our people—and, mark you, this is for the protection of our welfare—we cannot go along in a divided world and have an economy of plenty in this country; you know that as well as I. Can we not say, for our protection, and they think it is for theirs, we elect

art a federation of people whom we think can work together for their common and mutual advantage? Why should a certain nation say, “That is an insult to me; why did they not ask me?"

Mr. Vores. I do not think it is helpful for us to compare our status to either Pakistan or India.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to see the Asian nations try a federation.

Mr. Vores. I would, too, just as I like to see this federation in Europe forming, but I am talking about our proposing to set up an exclusive group within the United Nations.

Mr. ROBERTS. Is not Benelux an exclusive group?

Mr. Vores. Under our legislation, so far as we can influence the European union, we have attempted to state that it is open to participation to those who adhere to the principles of the thing, so that when we do proceed it would be open, let us say, to Spain and other nations who qualify under the rules.

Now, suppose we do this: Suppose instead of having a brief paragraph destribing our proposal, which is full of general words, which could be misunderstood with reference to taxation, armament, and so forth, suppose we got up a proposal for an organization, and we set forth in advance some of the requirements that we would insist That is, there is our veto. We will not join it unless the nations have a bill of rights, and practice it, and so forth.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is all right by me, Mr. Vorys. If we are to decide whether we need the test, that is all right, but there you run up against the same attitude of jealousy.

Now, for instance, Great Britain has no bill of rights. Yet Great Britain has the right of habeas corpus and the right of the individual to defy power has always been there. Canada has no bill of rights, and there are freemen in Canada.

Then suppose some dictatorship comes along. Suppose that Russia pulls out the constitution they have, which is awfully good on paper, but they have never put it into force, and they say, "There is our constitution; we are coming in?"

Mr. Vores. My point is this: I have never heard given by yourself or Mr. Streit a precise definition of what this thing will look like, so that I can say on behalf of myself and the people I represent : “Surely,

upon?

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »