« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
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 to start 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. VORYS. 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 upon? 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. Vorys. 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,
I will join that,” and so a Britisher could take a look at it and say, “Well, yes, I will join that. You might have to change certain paragraphs."
The proposal always is, “Let us get together and talk it over."
Now, I think we must go at it differently than they did in 1787, because in this cruel world the people we want to get into it are not even going to meet and talk unless they know in advance, not what Pakistan or Costa Rica stands for, but what the United States stands for, and what they will insist upon.
Mr. ROBERTS. I would vote against adherence to any union if it were referred back to me as a citizen of the United States, any union which did not preserve a representative system of legislation based upon free elections. Second, against any union which would not guarantee the kind of civil liberties we practice, I would close the door. I would not say the nation had to have a bill of rights like ours, but that they practice that freedom, that right of the individual to challenge the action of government in the interests of free speech, freedom of enterprise, and so on. That is enough for me.
But the difficulty is, if you issued the invitation in those terms you might have a swarm of nations which are in fact dictatorships coming in and saying, “We are fit to come in here, and we want to come in, and they come in and break it up.
Mr. Vores. Very well. So you are going to need something that we have never had. We guarantee to every State a republican form of government, not a democratic form, but a republican form of government.
Mr. BLOOM. I prefer the word "democratic."
Mr. ROBERTS. They meant a representative form of government where the people in free elections elected their representatives, who were in theory to be wise men and do their best for their constituents.
Mr. Bloom. I still prefer the word “democratic."
Mr. VoRys. While we have that, we have no implementation for it, but it seems to me that right at the outset
Mr. ROBERTS. The Supreme Court held that was a political and not a judicial question, and would not pass on whether a State had a republican form of government, but I think you in Congress could do it tomorrow.
Mr. Vores. I do not think we can guarantee substantially a republican form of government, in the sense our forefathers used the word, to these nations without a provision for inspection and enforcement right from the kick-off for the very reason you mentioned, that nations will come along and say, “Yes; we will join"; but we suspect their good faith; and we set ourselves up, or we set a group up as a blackballing society to say, “We do not believe what you say, and we have no machinery to make you prove it."
Mr. ROBERTS. What do you propose to try as an alternative-chaos in the world ?
Mr. VORYS. No.
Mr. Vorys. What I am wondering is, if we are not seeking a meeting—for the United States to seek a conference under 109 for that kind of a union of which you speak; if that is vetoed by an action of five, or an action of a little over one-third-five in the Security Council or
one-third in the Assembly—then we go ahead and say, “Let us have it, anyhow”; but we do not in advance pick and choose whom we are going to invite to the party. We let them invite themselves to the party.
We, the greatest nation on earth, should set down in advance on paper some of the things we are going to insist upon, which may cause some of them not to come.
Mr. ROBERTS. You take a nation with which we are very friendly and sympathetic at this moment, China. Now, how can China come in now to a representative democracy! How can the Chinese people vote? Most of them will not understand what you mean when you talk about a ballot. I should hope that some day China will be a great republic, but I do not know when.
I would say in the United Nations I would have the people in the federation deal with China through the United Nations in the same sympathetic manner we are dealing with her now, but I would not see how she could qualify to come into a representative government with a guaranty of individual liberty now. Her people have not had, either.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Bloom.
Mr. BLOOM. Following what Mr. Vorys has just said, when we called a convention, which we call now the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, we had nothing before us at all. We had no kind of a constitution. In fact, what the meeting was called for was nothing like what was brought out. They were called upon to amend the Articles of Confederation.
Mr. ROBERTS. They violated their mission.
Mr. Bloom. I have always said it is one of the most unconstitutional things ever written.
As Mr. Vorys said, if you call a convention of these different states for the purpose of amending or improving the United Nations Charter, why would not that be on all fours with what we did when we wrote the Constitution? We had no right to write it. We were called upon for one purpose, and we did something else.
I believe Mr. Vorys wanted to call some kind of a convention to decide on what you would like to do.
Mr. ROBERTS. Call the Assembly to pass on an amendment.
Mr. VORYS. A conference. It is a little different from the Assembly in article 109.
Mr. Bloom. Now, there were only 10 States represented at one time in the convention at Philadelphia. There were never 13.
Mr. ROBERTS. Rhode Island never had any delegates.
Mr. Bloom. New York never had one. They sent one, but they took him right away.
Alexander Hamilton signed personally and not for the State of New York.
Why can you not do the same as Mr. Vorys suggests? Mr. ROBERTS. If you call this, of course, Russia will come. She always comes. If you talk her into that, I will be surprised. It may take you 2 years in the convention, and then you will get nowhere.
Mr. Bloom. I do not see why you could not call the convention under Mr. Vorys, there, just the same as we did.
Mr. ROBERTS. You will form a federation of everybody who is in the United Nations now, which cannot be much stronger than we have it now; you will get another group that has all weak sisters in it, all
the backward governments, and you have to carry them all on your back, and you cannot do it. You will break down again.
Mr. CHIPPERFIELD (presiding). Mr. Jonkman.
Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Justice, a number of years ago we discussed this matter at a forum. I wonder if your ideas are about the same as they were then?
Mr. ROBERTS. I have not changed them.
Mr. JONKMAN. Would you propose a united federation of comparative limited powers?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Common defense, common currency, a common voting system, the regulation of commerce between the States, and the right to tax to support armies.
Mr. JONKMAN. How far would you go in the taxing power? Would you have an income tax?
Mr. ROBERTS. I would let them have any kind they want, but I think you could raise all the money that the Federal Government needed by an impost on importations and exportations.
Mr. JONKMAN. You would not begin with income taxes immediately? Mr. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. JONKMAN. If that were the case, of course, we would be carrying the burden.
Mr. ROBERTS. That is right. It is a difficult tax to collect; it is an expensive tax to collect. You want a tax that is easy to collect and that the public does not feel like it does the income tax. If I paid an extra cent on mail, I would complain about it a little bit, but I would forget about it after a while.
Mr. CHIPERFIELD (presiding). Mrs. Bolton.
Mrs. Bolton. Whenever we discuss the Constitution of this country as the sort of center of our life, that is true, but we had a civil war afterward.
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; we had a civil war because a great many people in the South felt that they had a right corporately, or as individuals, to dissolve the tie; and the reason they did that was because a very unwise compromise was written into the Constitution, a compromise that every man who signed that Constitution thought was wrong, but they did not know how to abolish slavery, so they had a compromise about it.
You may have a civil war in such a union as I suggest. You may have insurrection. Who can say?
Mrs. BOLTON. In your statement of the countries who would be interested, are they those countries which you feel are more highly developed than other countries?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes. They are countries, first of all, who have the greatest spiritual advancement, they are the countries who have the greatest industrial advancement, and I think that is only because they have been free countries. In other words, my theory is that peace follows freedom, and that you do not impose peace to get freedom.
Mr. Dulles put that beautifully this morning. We can have peace under Joe Stalin, of course, but we will have no freedom. That is not the point. We want to preserve the freedoms of the world.