The federal union policy I urge is also in full accord with State Department policy in seeking to strengthen the UN in all the major ways Ambassador Austin recommended by: (1) hastening European and world recovery, (2) strengthening our military posture and that of our friends, and (3) promoting associations of like-minded states within the framework of the UN.

This federal union policy requires no change in the structure of the United Nations-for there is nothing in the Charter to forbid any two or more nations from voluntarily forming an organic union. Like the Benelux customs union, it runs no risk of being delayed by a Soviet veto. It avoids a head-on collision with Soviet Russia at Lake Success when tempers are tense. Like the western European pact, and the project for real European union, it involves no secession from the United Nations. Like the United States itself, the union of the free could form a security pact with other nations under article 51 of the Charter.

Clearly the State Department sees no danger to the United Nations in a few European nations strengthening the power behind peace and production by forming an association together, backed by ourselves. What danger then can there be in a few democracies, including our own, achieving this still better by federal union, and tying it tightly to freedom?

UNION ACHIEVES PRESENT UNITED STATES POLICY

The main differences between the federal union policy and the official United States policy presented to you are merely these two:

1. By federating the freest men, instead of merely associating their governments, the policy of union of the free puts much more power, decisive material and moral power, far more swiftly, effectively, safely and enduringly behind world recovery and peace, and does it at infinitely less cost in money, materials and men.

2. The policy of union of the free is not a confused mixture with little spiritual tone; it is a clean-cut, creative philosophy of freedom and union, a faith that holds and teaches that equal individual freedom leads to prosperity and peace, that puts freedom first, and keeps freedom first through federating the free. It is heart and soul in the American tradition. It is the American Revolution, the Revolution stained by no reign of terror, the Revolution that has brought more individuals more freedom, equality, fraternity, peace, and prosperity than any other in history. The policy of union of the free is the kindly, hard-headed American Revolution alive again, and marching peacefully, courageously on.

Surely none can object to federal union because it puts more power behind production and recovery, achieves the most armed power at the least cost. None can object because it puts the bulk of world power decisively behind the Charter without changing its structure. And who can object to federal union because it gives the best guaranty that this overwhelming power will be governed by all the safeguards of individual freedom? Who can object because it keeps freedom first, makes it again a living, articulate faith?

UNION ADDS PRESTIGE TO FREEDOM

True, some fear that by putting freedom first, making it the test of federation, we may offend nations who are not invited to help found this union. But the more immature or partial democracies that you invite, the harder it will be to form any strong union, the less chance you will have to succeed, and the less you will be doing for freedom. The more you identify federation with freedom, the better your chances to federate firmly, and the more your success will give prestige to freedom.

Nothing, we know, succeeds like success. Think of how the success of our 13 little States in forming the first free federal union encouraged the Latin American colonies to revolt and model their governments on ours. Consider how many nations sought to copy the parliamentary institutions of Britain in the nineteenth century when Britain was the strongest of powers.

We must take our risks one way or another, risk temporarily hurting some feelings or risk fatally weakening freedom. We must put our faith primarily in one thing or another, in principles or in numbers, in a strong federal union of the world's freest people, or in another loose league of as many dictatorships and immature democracies as we can assemble.

The more we put our faith clearly in freedom, then the more clearly we can prove by the results that individual freedom is the best way to prosperity and peace, and the more rapidly other nations will seek not only freedom themselves, but union with us. The more clearly we demonstrate, not only here but, more important, in western Europe where doubt is most dangerous, that freedom works when coupled with federal union, then the more we shall find other nations imitating our institutions."

Identify freedom clearly with power for peace and production, prove it by the fruits of your union, promise to admit to the union, those who best practice freedom, and you irresistibly stimulate this human imitative instinct. Carry out this promise once the union is made and even the Kremlin cannot forever resist this peaceful pressure toward freedom and union.

THE RESOLUTION NEEDED TO START UNION NOW

What do you need to do at this stage to launch the policy I advocate? You need only make your resolution one that requests the President to invite the nations most experienced in governing themselves on a basis of equal individual freedom to send delegates to meet in convention with our delegates to explore how best they can advance their freedom, and therefore world peace and prosperity, by framing a constitution to unite their people in an organic federal union. You already know the list that I would name as having the most experience in this field.

The resolution should, I think, specify that the union shall guarantee all its citizens no less individual liberty than the United States Constitution guarantees us, shall remain open to membership by other nations willing and able to meet its standards of freedom, and shall uphold the United Nations and its ideals. For the benefit of other peoples who are not as familiar with federal union as we Americans

are, and who might think we meant merely another collective alliance such as the British, French, and Benelux diplomats recently made and miscalled a union, I believe your resolution should also define the essential characteristics of the federal union type of government. This defining section might be drafted as follows:

By "federal union" is understood an interstate republic in which the citizens are equally sovereign and divide the powers of government between the representatives they elect to their federal and their national governments. Only such political, military, economic, monetary, fiscal or other powers are granted a federal government as will advance the freedom, welfare, prosperity, and peace of citiAll other powers are reserved to the nations, respectively, or to the people. A federal government is so constituted in its legislation, executive, and judicial organs as to safeguard equally the more populous and the less populous nations in it against domination. A federal government is also so constituted as to resemble the national governments in being directly responsible to the people, and in operating directly on the citizens through its own law-enforcing agencies in the few fields where they gave it jurisdiction.

It would also seem wise to me to insert in the resolution some general principles as regards the voting power in the convention, to reassure both the American people and their invitees that no nation or group of nations would be in position to dominate the convention. The resolution might also make sure that the American delegation would be not only bipartisan but would represent both Houses of Congress and a broad field of interest and ability outside them.

Should you desire, I would be honored to put in a concrete draft my idea of what this resolution should contain, and how it might best be presented to the world so as to prove that the proposed union of the free was to the substantial advantage of all mankind, save its dictators, and thus insure maximum sympathy for this great undertaking.

THE ONLY ISSUE: SHALL WE CALL A FEDERAL CONVENTION?

I would stress that there is no need whatever to work out now, or even consider at this stage such details as how the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the proposed union should be organized, and precisely which powers should be transferred to the new federal government and which should be guaranteed to each member nation. That is the convention's job, and I would expect the constitution it framed through debate and compromise to be superior to any plan that any or all of us could draft by ourselves, just as our own Constitution was to the plans that Virginia, New Jersey, and Hamilton proposed to the Philadelphia convention.

The only question this federal union policy asks you to answer now is simply this: Is it, or is it not, wise for your committee to request the President to convoke this new federal convention? Shall we, or shall we not, begin at long last to explore the one way out of our difficulties that we have not yet even explored, though all our history teaches us to put our trust in it? Shall we begin this exploration now, while we have time to explore carefully, or take a chance and defer it? That is the only issue, and the surprises we have suffered the past 12 months suggest that a year from now we may congratulate ourselves

on our forethought if we have a carefully considered federal union constitution then ready to put in force against the grave economic or political dangers freedom may face in 1949.

OTHER WAYS TAKE MORE TIME AND FAILED BEFORE

It will take time to work out this federal constitution. But it will also take time to work out any solution worthy of your consideration. It will take time to get a UN conference assembled on Charter revision. When it fails, as many of its supporters expect it to fail, you will have to hold another conference, and the more nations you invite the more time it will take to agree. And what will you get for your time?

I have some experience in this field. I had to cover for the New York Times all the years of attempts at Geneva to reach agreement with Japan, the Nazis, the Fascists. When this ended in all three rising aggressors leaving the League of Nations, the rest of its members met in conference to revise the Covenant and abolish its veto. I had to cover, day in and day out, that long story, too. Some gentlemen, who were not then in Geneva, seem confident now that when the Kremlin's away the other nations will soon agree. So let me report again, that when the aggressor was gone from Geneva, to loom even larger on certain frontiers, nations that talked bravely before began sneaking to cover.

When that conference adjourned in 1937 those who set out to strengthen the League were consoling themselves that they had at least kept it from weakening the Covenant's commitments. But events proved, only 2 years later, they had really failed to do even that.

Now it is proposed that a conference fix quotas for arms and ratios in power. I have some experience also in that, for I reported the efforts to do that before in Geneva in a less difficult way, and I must warn you that this way out takes the most time of all-it took 10 years at Geneva-and it, too. ended in nothing, but war.

There were efforts then, too, at collective security, such as those now proposed under article 51. Geneva boiled for years with Mediterranean pacts, Balkan pacts, Danubian pacts, western Europe pacts, over-all pacts. But all that they boiled down to was an Anglo-FrenchPolish alliance and a Franco-Belgian alliance. When the Poles most needed help, there was phony war in the west. When the French most needed the Belgians, the pact fell to ruin. And when the British most needed the French, they had ashes to eat-ashes not merely of paper, ashes of London, ashes of Empire.

All the proposals before you take time, even more time than the few freest peoples will need to draft a federal constitution. But when they have drafted it, we shall have something solid in hand, something that will grow ever stronger with time, something that does not split when a Pearl Harbor comes but unites men then more strongly than ever.

As Congressman Judd has told you so well, the measures on which the country has already embarked, to resist tyranny, rebuild Europe and rearm ourselves, are essential measures-but they "merely buy time-give us a last chance to get the world organized on a better. sounder, basis." The question is, How we can best use this last chance?

75921-48- -23

and I submit that the best way is to begin now to work out this constitution.

HOW TO GET MOST FOR THE LEAST COMMITMENT

Even the stopgap measures we have taken require time to work out, and involve much more commitment to start with than does a decision to convoke this convention. This resolution commits us only to this: To make an honest, earnest effort to work out a sound federal constitution with other democracies. To issue the invitation does not commit us, nor any democracy that attends the convention, to accept the constitution it drafts. Nor does it commit any of you who vote for the invitation to vote for whatever constitution results. Certainly Iwho have worked for 15 years to get this convention convoked-would not feel bound, even if I were a delegate at the convention, to sign its constitution if it were not strong enough to meet our needs. Let us remember that George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph, all of whom contributed greatly to the drafting of our own Constitution, refused to sign it because they held the finished document was not good enough.

The time when we must commit ourselves for or against this constitution comes only after the convention has submitted it for ratification. Only then can we reasonably judge whether the proposed federal union will work, or is worthy of trial. All that you need now commit the United States to is simply to explore with the most experienced democracies how we may best apply between us the federal principles the United States pioneered. You could hardly commit yourselves to less and yet the effect of this little commitment would be more immense and immediate than anything else you might do.

There is only one way that we can immediately affect the whole world situation. That is on the psychological side, by the awe we inspire in the Kremlin, by the respect we inspire throughout the world, by the faith, hope, and love we inspire in the free peoples, especially the freest. Test the policies before you by this simple test, and you will find none can approach the awe, respect, faith, hope, and love you would inspire if your committee decided to invite the free to a federal convention-now.

I stress the word now, for if you delay, try to nibble and gnaw your way to this move, wait until events force you to make it, then you will have also nibbled and gnawed away nearly all its effect on the hearts of men. And if you wait until you have to beg others to federate with us, then your invitation will have no more effect than did the frantic offer of union to France that Britain made after Dunkirk.

But if your committee, which represents the House that is nearest the people, should propose this convention now-in this election yearyour act would strengthen our country overnight more than 50 divisions and 70 air groups and a hundred pacts and alliances and UN conferences thrown in together. By this decision you would make men catch their breath-not least the men in the Kremlin. For then all would know that freedom's great expeditionary idea was again peacefully marching ahead.