way to make it work. We studied many theories and proposals and came upon a plan which we believe is the answer. It is practical, not theoretical. It presents a concrete and workable method of making the UN an effective organization capable of maintaining peace-it is the quota-force plan."

The quota-force plan decided upon by the citizens of Middletown is today basically the same plan for strengthening the United Nations that is before your committee in the form of House Concurrent Resolution 168. The citizens of Middletown still believe that this plan provides the promptest and soundest road to peace. We believe that if Resolution 168 is adopted, the United Nations will become the instrument for peace which has been the hope of all Americans since the Charter was first signed in 1945. We are equally convinced that if the Charter is not amended and strengthened soon, the people of America will lose faith in its ability to settle any problem, let alone stop aggressive warfare.

We have felt so keenly about this problem that we have done all in our power to bring the proposals of the Middletown plan (H. Con. Res. 168) before America and the world.

From the start we considered four alternatives. First, we can continue to drift into war by remaining unprepared in mind or in armaments. Section, we can play power politics which will lead, as in the past, to a world armament race. Third, we can use our atomic bombs to force an American peace of the world; and fourth, we can strengthen the United Nations and thereby make it an effective organization capable of keeping the peace.

Finding that the fourth alternative was unanimously adopted by our group, we decided to hold a town meeting in Middletown to see how the citizens of Middletown felt about it.

At our first town meeting on June 13, 1946, we offered the four alternatives to the people of Middletown. As a body, the 500 people present chose a strengthened United Nations.

But more important, the people attending this first town meeting showed such tremendous interest in international affairs and the United Nations that a committee was appointed on the spot to study proposals for strengthening the United Nations and to report back at an early date to the citizens of Middletown.

For another 6 weeks we studied many proposals. But none were so sound or complete or so immune to attack at the quota-force plan.

On July 11, 1946, we held our second town meeting. Over 1,500 people crowded into a hall with a capacity of 1,200 to debate the pros and cons of our committee's proposals.

After 3 hours devoted to talking and of questions and answers, the vote was taken. The citizens of Middletown wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorsed the Middletown plan. Not only did they vote, they stayed on to sign resolutions endorsing the plan. These resolutions with over 1,000 signatures were sent to Congress.

But Middletown did not stop there. or could act thousands of Middletowns night of our second town meeting our spreading our plan throughout America. Reader's Digest picked up our story. From letters from their article on the Middletown movement we obtained a mailing list in the thousands. Our first publication, Crossroads Middletown, was sent to 25,000 people.

We realized that before Congress would would have to be heard from. The very committee dedicated itself to the task of

Soon we were so busy on the Middletown movement that all of our jobs suffered. Our chairman at that time, George V. Hooks, took a year's leave of absence from his work so that he could guide the movement properly. All of Middletown cooperated in every way.

Our committee organized town meetings all over Ohio and Kentucky. We made speeches whenever possible. We accepted all requests for radio appearances. And, strangely enough, we found that wherever we went we found the same conditions. People were worried, scared. They were afraid of another war and of atom bombs. When they heard our plan they were usually just lukewarm to it. But when they would argue about its provisions they would become convinced of its soundness, effectiveness, and practicability. Everywhere we went we gathered more and more support.

Soon the citizens of Greensville, Ohio, adopted the Middletown plan, then Xenia, Ohio, and Glendale, Ohio.

Organizations of all types became interested, then enthusiastic, then eager to become a part of this movement.

Today 53 local organizations have adopted the plan. They have convinced their State and national affiliations to adopt this plan as part of their foreign relations or international program.

You might be interested in some of these State groups. The Ohio and Kansas departments of the American Legion; the Ohio Rotary Club; the Ohio State Legislature; the Ohio Kiwanis Clubs; the Kentucky and Ohio State Federation of Labor (AFL); the clergy of diocese of southern Ohio; the executive board, Federation of Women's Clubs of Ohio.

On the national level: The American Legion; the national order of AHEPA (American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association), National Association of Fire Fighters (AFL), National Association of Foremen.

The Middletown Citizens Committee corresponds with 1,600 people in communities in all of the 48 States. We are doing all we can to help these people organize town meetings in their communities.

Our committee corresponds with individuals in 18 different foreign countries such as Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, New Zealand, Mexico, etc. All these people indicate that their prayers are dedicated to the adoption of the Middletown plan.

Members of our speaker's bureau have given over 300 speeches-all of these at their own expense. The citizens of Middletown have contributed all the money collected which has been needed to carry on the activities of the Middletown committee.

The Middletown plan has received much national acceptance and acclaim. Some of these include articles in the Commonweal, June 1946; the Christian Science Monitor, October 5, 1946; Reader's Digest, November 1946; Ohio Magazine, November 1946; the Civitan, January 1947; NEA (Journal of National Education Association), April 1947; Magazine Digest, September 1947; Inside U. S. A., by John Gunther; the Kiwanis magazine, November 1947 and syndicated articles by Thomas L. Stokes, Dorothy Thompson, Peter Edson, and Jack Ramey.

Important radio appearances have included: The Herald Tribune Forum, World Front, In My Opinion, Canal Days, and all four of our town meetings.

All of these things are merely testimony of our activity. The important thing is that at each of our town meetings the people adopted the Middletown plan and urged Congress to adopt its principles.

We are naturally very gratified to feel that perhaps our committee has helped to bring to the attention of the American people the importance of immediately strengthening the United Nations. We are grateful to the 14 Representatives and 16 Senators who introduced into Congress House Concurrent Resolution 168 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 50.

We believe that all our work will not have been in vain if these resolutions now receive favorable action by your committee.

We believe just as strongly today, as ever, that the future of America, the acceptance of the United Nations by the American people, the prevention of World War III, depend upon the immediate strengthening of the United Nations as provided in House Concurrent Resolution 168.

These provisions provide the Christian approach to peace for it is a fair plan to all nations. It gives the smaller nations of the world for the first time, a strong united voice.

By limiting the vote only in matters of aggression or preparation for aggression, there is established an effective limited world authority able to act by majority vote to prevent aggression or preparation for aggression. Aggression is well defined as is preparation for aggression. It means that trouble can be detected and stopped at its earliest stages.

Such veto limitation also means that the veto, for the time being, will be retained in all other matters, such as tariffs or immigration laws.

The second provision sets up armament quotas which divide satisfactorily the armed power of the world. These quotas will be set by the Security Council. They will be just as satisfactory in times of disarmament as they would be now, if only the plan were in action.

The United States proposal for an atomic development authority would alleviate the terrible strain of atomic war which now hangs over the scalps of all peoples.

The establishment of an effective world police force as outlined in House Concurrent Resolution 168 would eliminate the terrible strains in present diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia. Think also of how effective such a force would be in Greece or Palestine or Berlin.

We have tested American public opinion. We know that the great majority favor such a plan to strengthen the United Nations. Most people wish that such proposals could have been effected earlier. But these same people do not cry over the past. They look to the future. And they want for their future a strong world authority. They want Congress to act now on strengthening the United Nations.

We, the citizens of Middletown, Ohio, urge you to assume the world leadership which is now rightfully ours by taking the lead in the United Nations to bring about the amendments proposed in House Concurrent Resolution 168.

To complete our testimony, I would like to conclude by repeating to your committee my letter to you of May 10, 1948:

"Hon. CHARLES A. EATON,

Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee,

Washington, D. C.

"DEAR MR. EATON: I am taking the liberty of writing to you because of Middletown, Ohio's, tremendous interest in the House Foreign Affairs Committee's present hearing. For 2 years now we have worked hard for congressional recognition of a plan for strengthening United Nations. The very plan we have struggled for so long is now before Congress in the form of House Concurrent Resolution 1€8. "We are convinced that it is our hope for peace. It is the most important single issue before the American people today. Your committee must give it your most serious and thoughtful attention.

"For 2 years we have held town meetings, given speeches in surrounding communities, appeared on over 30 radio broadcasts, urged over 50 organizations on local, State, and national levels to adopt the Middletown plan (H. Res. No. 168). We have pointed out why time is of the essence, why a preventive war is too un-American, why appeasement is impossible with the Politburo, why an effective, strong, and democratic United Nations can, and will, keep the peace.

"One of the strongest groups that became convinced of the fairness and practicability of the Middletown plan was the American Legion. They are now spearheading the movement to bring their and our plan to the attention of Congress, our State Department, and the world. As recently as May 3, 1948, the executive committee of the American Legion urged the adoption of House Concurrent Resolution No. 168.

"Recently Secretary of State Marshall appeared before your committee and urged a policy of appeasement. He wants the UN to remain as presently constructed.

"If this is allowed to happen you undoubtedly will be credited with the formal burial of the last great hope of the world-a United Nations. As now formulated, the United Nations cannot possibly maintain the peace. Examples are many. Greece and Palestine are ample eloquence.

"Our State Department never has been successful when following a policy of appeasement. I thought that with the Marshall plan they had finally realized that only by a strong offensive can you take the ball from the power-crazed Politburo. Certainly the Marshall plan has been eminently successful in Italy. It will bring future successes.

"But the Marshall plan is not a peace plan. It is a plan to rehabilitate Europe, to rebuild self-sustaining economies, to preserve free institutions, to thwart Communist expansion. With Europe thus revitalized, we will be free to join with other democratic and free nations in keeping the pease through a strong and effective United Nations.

"After the State Department's one forward move, they now want to retreat and return to appeasement of Mr. Wallace and of Russia.

"I hope you will not let this happen.

"Our committee believes that now is the time to push for the strengthened United Nations envisoned in House Resolution No. 168. With our victory in Italy we have a better chance than ever of convincing Russia that her desire for world domination has been stopped, that the world does not wish to live in slavery, that she must now decide if she will join with other nations to create a period of peace, or is her goal-her only goal-a world Communist state.

"Every fair-minded nation in the world wants a United Nations as charted in House Resolution No. 168. We know that most Americans want it, too. It is up to you and your committee to throw out, forever, a plicy of appeasement. We must go forward with firmness and fairness to create sufficiently strong world authority which can prevent future aggression and preparation for aggression. "The citizens of Middletown, Ohio, believe that there is such a plan. We strongly recommend adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 168."

Respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM VERITY,

Chairman, Middletown Citizens Committee.

STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATIONS OF THE FOUR SPONSORING GOVERNMENTS ON VOTING PROCEDURE IN THE SECURITY Council, June 7, 1945 Specific questions covering the voting procedure in the Security Council have been submitted by a subcommittee of the Conference Committee on Structure and procedures of the Security Council to the delegations of the four governments sponsoring the Conference-The United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of China. In dealing with these questions, the four delegations desire to make the following statement of their general attitude toward the whole question of unanimity of permanent members in the decisions of the Security Council.

I

1. The Yalta voting formula recognizes that the Security Council, in discharging its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security, will have two broad groups of functions. Under chapter VIII, the Council will have to make decisions which involve its taking direct measures in connection with settlement of disputes, adjustment of situations likely to lead to disputes, determination of threats to peace, removal of threats to the peace, and suppression of breaches of the peace. It will also have to make decisions which do not involve the taking of such measures. The Yalta formula provides that the second of these two groups of decisions will be governed by a procedural vote-that is, the vote of any seven members. The first group of decisions will be governed by a qualified vote-that is, the vote of seven members, including the concurring votes of the five permanent members, subject to the proviso that in decisions under section A and a part of section C of chapter VIII parties to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

2. For example, under the Yalta formula a procedural vote will govern the decisions made under the entire section D of chapter VI. This means that the Council will, by a vote of any seven of its members, adopt or alter its rules of procedure; determine the method of selecting its president; organize itself in such a way as to be able to function continuously; select the times and places of its regular and special meetings; establish such bodies or agencies as it may deem necessary for the performance of its functions; invite a member of the Organization not represented on the Council to participate in its discussions when that Member's interests are specially affected; and invite any state when it is a party to a dispute being considered by the Council to participate in the discussion relating to that dispute.

3. Further, no individual member of the Council can alone prevent consideration and discussion by the Council of a dispute or situation brought to its attention under paragraph 2, section A, chapter VIII. Nor can parties to such dispute be prevented by these means from being heard by the Council. Likewise, the requirement for unanimity of the permanent members cannot prevent any member of the Council from reminding the members of the Organization of their general obligations assumed under the Charter as regards peaceful settlement of international disputes.

4. Beyond this point, decisions and actions by the Security Council may well have major political consequences and may even initiate a chain of events which 1 Ch. VIII in the Dumbarton Oaks proposal became chs. VI, VII, and VIII in the Charter.

might, in the end, require the Council under its responsibilities to invoke measures of enforcement under section B, chapter VIII. This chain of events begins when the Council decides to make an investigation, or determines that the time has come to call upon states to settle their differences, or make recommendations to the parties. It is to such decisions and actions that unanimity of the permanent members applies, with the important proviso, referred to above, for abstention from voting by parties to a dispute.

5. To illustrate: In ordering an investigation, the Council has to consider whether the investigation-which may involve calling for reports, hearing witnesses, dispatching a commission of inquiry, or other means-might not further aggravate the situation. After investigation, the Council must determine whether the continuance of the situation or dispute would be likely to endanger international peace and security. If it so determines, the Council would be under obligation to take further steps. Similarly, the decision to make recommendations, even when all parties request it to do so, or to call upon parties to a dispute to fulfill their obligations under the Charter, might be the first step on a course of action from which the Security Council could withdraw only at the risk of failing to discharge its responsibilities.

6. In appraising the significance of the vote required to take such decisions or actions, it is useful to make comparison with the requirements of the League Covenant with reference to decisions of the League Council. Substantive decisions of the League of Nations Council could be taken only by the unanimous vote of all its members, whether permanent or not, with the exception of parties to a dispute under article XV of the League Covenant. Under article XI, under which most of the disputes brought before the League were dealt with and decisions to make investigations taken, the unanimity rule was invariably interpreted to include even the votes of the parties to a dispute.

7. The Yalta voting formula substitutes for the rule of complete unanimity of the League Council a system of qualified majority voting in the Security Council. Under this system nonpermanent members of the Security Council individually would have no veto. As regards the permanent members, there is no question under the Yalta formula of investing them with a new right; namely, the right to veto, a right which the permanent members of the League Council always had. The formula proposed for the taking of action in the Security Council by a majority of seven would make the operation of the Council less subject to obstruction than was the case under the League of Nations rule of complete unanimity.

8. It should also be remembered that under the Yalta formula the five major powers could not act by themselves, since even under the unanimity requirement any decisions of the Council would have to include the concurring votes of at least two of the nonpermanent members. In other words, it would be possible for five nonpermanent members as a group to exercise a veto. It is not to be assumed, however, that the permanent members, any more than the nonpermanent members would use their veto power willfully to obstruct the operation of the Council.

9. In view of the primary responsibilities of the permanent members, they could not be expected, in the present condition of the world, to assume the obligation to act in so serious a matter as the maintenance of international peace and security in consequence of a decision in which they had not concurred. Therefore, if majority voting in the Security Council is to be made possible, the only practicable method is to provide, in respect of nonprocedural decisions, for unanimity of the permanent members plus the concurring votes of at least two of the nonpermanent members.

10. For all these reasons, the four sponsoring governments agreed on the Yalta formula and have presented it to this Conference as essential if an international organization is to be created through which all peace-loving nations can effectively discharge their common responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security.

II

In the light of the considerations set forth in part I of this statement, it is clear what the answers to the questions submitted by the subcommittee should be, with the exception of question 19. The answer to that question is as follows:

1. In the opinion of the delegations of the sponsoring governments, the Draft Charter itself contains an indication of the application of the voting procedures to the various functions of the Council.

2. In this case, it will be unlikely that there will arise in the future any matters of great importance on which a decision will have to be made as to whether a procedural vote would apply. Should, however, such a matter arise, the decision