Mr. LODGE. My second question is this: As these nations consolidate into one nation, then they only have one vote, I assume, in the General Assembly, and on the United Nations Security Council?

Mr. ROBERTS. I should think not. Russia has three because she says she has three separate nations represented there. Britain has five. Mr. LODGE. The union would be a union like the Russian union ? Mr. RCBERTS. I should think so.

Mr. LODGE. They call it a federation, of course.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. LODGE. You would call this a federation, too?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. LODGE. In what sense would your federation differ from the federation proposed by the World Federalists?

Mr. ROBERTS. The World Federalists want to federate central Africa and China, and the people who do not understand representative process, and could not exercise it.

Mr. LODGE. Then the only difference between your idea of the world federation and the idea of the World Federalists, is a question of what nations you would include?

Mr. ROBERTS. It is a question of where you start.

Mr. LODGE. There would be no difference in the structure?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; I think there would be, because in order to federate the kind of nations they want to federate, they would have to water down their government until it would not look like a federation at all. They feel that if there is a dictator, let him send his representatives to the parliament. That is all right with them. I do not see how you can put a dictatorship and a democracy together. They just do not work together. The autocracy, first of all, will vote all its representatives in a bloc, which we hope would not be true in the union. It has not been true in this union or any union I know, South Africa, Switzerland, or any of them.

Secondly, if the laws do not suit the dictator, he will put the national wall up again when you come to enforce them. Mr. LODGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Justice. Mr. VORYS. Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts. We will next hear from Samuel R. Levering.

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL LEVERING

Mr. LEVERING. My name is Samuel R. Levering, of Ararat, Va. I am an orchardist. I am chairman of the Peace Board of the Five Years of Meeting of Friends and a vice chairman of the Friends Commitee on National Legislation.

I was in Germany in the summer of 1930, and decided that peace was the largest issue in my lifetime and I have spend most of my time on it ever since.

I appear before you in behalf of these and other Friends organizations to support House Concurrent Resolution 59, or similar resolutions, and to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 163.

We congratulate your committee for the constructive leadership shown in holding these hearings and honestly seeking the best way to build a world of peace under just law. Your efforts offer much greater long-run promise of durable peace than preparation for war, universal military training, and selective service.

I agree with Secretary Marshall's statement of May 5 that [reading]:

It is a misconception to suppose that domination of the world by a single system is inevitable.

We agree also that every effort should be made to unite the world for peace, including the Soviet Union, not to divide the world, and that the United States should not attempt to revise the United Nations as an anti-Russian policy. The United Nations should be supported in all its constructive efforts for a peaceful world. Efforts already in progress to strengthen the United Nations through developing its functional agencies, limiting the scope of the veto, and broadening the activities of the Assembly should be supported.

Yet the proposals made by Secretary Marshall appear inadequate to prevent war. He envisioned maintenance of peace through restoring "the balance of power relationships required for international security." Durable peace has not been, and cannot be, built on such a military power balance. This is emphasized now that new scientific discoveries can quickly upset the balance. Nor is drifting along, hoping that something will happen to improve the United States-Soviet relations a realistic policy, in the face of mounting tensions as both nations quicken their preparations for atomic war. United States foreign policy should be positive, constructive, directed toward effective world government.

The United Nations, as now constituted, is not adequate to build or maintain peace. Fundamental changes are needed to give the United Nations real powers of government, of enforceable law, to control armaments.

What are the basic principles of successful government over diverse areas? There are three Federal principles, first developed at Philadelphia in 1787 and since used successfully in federations over the world, which should now be applied to the control of armament through the United Nations:

1. Division of powers: One level of government has real authority, real sovereignty, in some fields, leaving all other sovereigns to other levels of government. The United Nations should be given real authority to control armaments, leaving authority in other areas, initially at least, to the nations.

2. Both levels of Government make laws applying to, and enforced on individuals: Laws, either as agreed in conventions setting up armament control, or as passed by the United Nations, should apply to individuals. Primary reliance for enforcement should be upon individuals by a United Nations international civilian police rather than on enforcement upon nations by war.

3. Both levels of Government have dependable revenue, including the power to raise revenue directly if necessary: The United Nations should have the power to raise revenue for control of armaments directly if necessary, for example through collecting customs and keeping the needed percentage. The rates, of course, would be set by the

nations.

Effective world disarmament, under law, will require other changes in the United Nations. The veto must be eliminated, but three problems must be dealt with simultaneously. Primary reliance for enforcement of all decisions should be changed from enforcement on

nations by war to enforcement on individuals by police. Representation should be weighted, instead of the present one nation-one vote basis. The area in which the United Nations will have the power of law should be defined. Only then will the great nations seriously consider giving up the veto.

And that would take into consideration, not only population and education, but economic development. I might add at this point, the necessity of defining the area in which power operates is one that Mr. Robert Taft has been making with very great effect in his speeches in the last few months and I agree with him.

These changes in principle imply changes in the United Nations' structure. The Assembly should become a real legislative body. The Security Council should become an executive board, responsible to the Assembly. The World Court should be given compulsory jurisdiction in cases involving nations and individual violators of world law, and should be supplemented by district world courts.

Supporting such changes in the United Nations constitutes a morally valid and practically workable United States policy for peace, offering all nations, including the Soviet Union, security and justice under law. I believe that the Soviet Union might very likely participate. This policy is possible under House Concurrent Resolution 59, and should be supported.

House Concurrent Resolution 163, however, is much more likely to prove a war policy. It differs both in spirit and content. In my opinion, it is unworkable. Some major reasons follow:

1. Heavy armament remains national: By leaving 80 percent of heavy armament in five national armed forces dominant military power would remain in these few nations with smaller nations having no heavy weapons.

These might well prove only another balance of national power, as unreliable for the United Nations as national armed forces proved for the League of Nations. The national quotas also might be hopelessly upset by new scientific discoveries. Instead of such national quotas of heavy weapons, nations should disarm to approved minimum levels required for internal policing.

2. Enforcing against nations by war: Resolution 163 calls an international armed force "police," does not provide for an international civilian inspection and police force, does not stress enforcement against individual violators, and contemplates enforcement against nations by war as normal procedure.

Experts from Hamilton to Walter Lippmann, I also might add Mr. Dulles, have pointed out that enforcement, if it is to be carried out at all, must be primarily against individuals. Enforcement against nations is so suicidal, so brutal, so unjust that in practice it will be postponed until too late, and then not used. Therefore, it is little or no deterrent.

3. Representation: Resolution 163 reduces small nation representation on the Security Council from six to two, raising the "Big Five" from five to eight. It ignores the Assembly.

This plan could hardly be acceptable to smaller nations. It is no real solution to the problem of representation.

4. Revenue: Resolution 163 makes no provision for dependable revenue for the United Nations to finance the control of armaments. De

75921-4822

pendence would still be placed in voluntary payments by national governments.

This system bankrupted the Continental Congress, contributed to the weakness of the League of Nations, and keeps the general budget of the United Nations at about the same level as that of the street cleaning department of New York City.

If you did not have the money, you could not do the job.

5. Inflexibility: Resolution 163 provides for no legislative body to adapt laws for armament control to new conditions. It makes no provision for amendment. It leaves the veto in effect in peaceful settlement of disputes, amendments, and so forth.

It is extremely unlikely that such inflexibility could long maintain peace.

The proposals contained in Resolution 163, in my opinion, would not prove workable nor maintain peace. War still would be possible, since the United Nations would still lack necessary governmental powers, even to control armaments. The Soviet Union almost certainly would refuse to participate, also many other nations, even outside Soviet control.

The United States should sponsor our time-tested successful principles of Federal Government for world control of armaments through the United Nations. And by that I mean the three itemized earlier. We should not again attempt an experiment based on balance of power and enforcement against nations by war.

I travel widely among Quakers and church people generally. For example, in March of this year I made 61 speeches in 7 States. Everywhere I find a realization that nations must pool a small part of their sovereignty to maintain peace.

Indicative of the growing interest in this subject among Friends, or Quakers, are actions taken this year by three widely representative groups of Friends--the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the United Society of Friends Women, and the Peace Board of the Five Years Meeting of Friends. Statements from these groups and from a recent meeting of churchmen are here. I will request to have them included in the record.

Mr. VORYS (presiding). The documents referred to will be included in the record at this point.

(The documents referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENTS BY FRIENDS BODIES AND A CONFERENCE OF CHURCHMEN

The Friends Committee on National Legislation in February 1948 adopted the following statement on the United Nations and federal world government, as part of its 1948 legislative policy:

"We believe that the United States should support the United Nations in all its constructive efforts for a peaceful world. The United States should unfalteringly and consistently support the fullest possible use of the United Nations for social, economic, and political cooperation among nations. However, we recognize that the United Nations, as now constituted, is not adequate to build or maintain peace. Therefore, we urge that the United States take the lead in strengthening the United Nations either by calling a conference to revise the Charter as provided for under article 109 of the Charter, or by other methods.

"We believe the United Nations should be developed progressively toward the establishment of genuine world government based on law enforceable upon individuals. Among the major questions requiring study and action are provisions for representation, methods of enforcement, and disarmament.

"The Charter of the United Nations now provides for a system of collective security inherent in which is the threat of war against nations. We should strive for the development of a new body of international law with enforcement upon individuals. When enforcement is upon individuals rather than nations and where there is weighted representation in the Assembly, then the veto can be eliminated. Effective control of disarmament is the first area in which international law should be established with responsibility of states defined, but with inspection and enforcement upon individual violators.

"Building these sound principles of federal world government into the United Nations would help to make possible effective internationally controlled disarmament, would constitute the beginning of just, enforceable world law, and would assist in broadening the powers of the United Nations to promote justice and to bring about changes peacefully. Such action would not automatically solve the problems of human need, differences between peoples, and the will to power, but it would make the United Nations a much more effective instrument for solving them peacefully.

"We call upon the schools of America to encourage the study and appreciation of the Charter of the United Nations and its activities, as recommended in a recent United Nations Assembly Resolution."

Only last week, Wednesday, May 5, the United Society of Friends Women passed the following resolution:

"(1) We reiterate our determined opposition to universal military training, and/or the draft, to the military control of scientific research, to the military domination of American foreign policy, to the militarization of the schools, and to the ever-increasing Federal military expenditures.

"(2) For security we urge instead, the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 24 and House Concurrent Resolution 59. This would initiate steps for changing the United Nations into limited federal government, and make laws regulating armament, enforceable upon individual violators.

"(3) We urge that the United States strengthen the UN through more active participation in its valuable agencies such as UNESCO and the International Trade Organziation. We call upon Congress immediately to join the World Health Organization."

The Peace Board of The Five Years Meeting of Friends at Richmond, Ind., on April 23 adopted a resolution that "nations must give up their 'sovereign rights' to arm, and to threaten, to intimidate, and to destroy other nations. * * This means disarmament under law, federal world government."

A representative churchmen's conference attended by individuals from 12 Protestant denominations and 20 States, which met in Washington April 6 and 7, asked for “patient, persistent development of the United Nations in the direction of some form of world government."

Here are two paragraphs from their statement, which was mailed by the eminent radio preacher, Dr. Ralph W. Sockman, to every Member of Congress:

"PEACE THROUGH CONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS

"We believe the foreign policy of the United States should be based upon the determination to achieve peace through developing the United Nations rather than upon unilateral diplomacy based upon national military might. World peace demands that nations limit national sovereignty in a world system under law. We believe, therefore, that American policy should have as its objective the patient, persistent development of the United Nations in the direction of some form of world government."

"UNITED STATES LEADERSHIP FOR WORLD-WIDE DISARMAMENT UNDER LAW

"We call for the bold leadership of the United States in promoting plans for world disarmament through strengthening the United Nations, including the world-wide abolition of peacetime compulsory military training. Nations must transfer sovereign control of armaments to the United Nations, including inspection, enforcement on individuals, and adequate funds for control."

Mr. SEVERING. Here are some examples of the rapidly swelling tide of opinion among church people. In my home town of Mount Airy, N. C.-7,000 population-an education program led by Methodist Church people resulted in 8,725 signatures on petitions calling for