same time he has confiscated 30,000 small landholdings belonging to Serbian peasants who supported General Mihailovitch. The people are being forced under the totalitarian, communistic rule of partisan bands supported by the Soviet Union" (speech of Hon. Burton K. Wheeler in the Senate, January 15, 1945). R. H. Markham, writing in the Christian Century (April 4, 1945), declares that in Bulgaria, "Official American representatives, civilian and military, are not free to travel outside of Sofia. Twice American military representatives have been expelled from the country. No American journalist is allowed in Sofia. But, because of our being represented on the Allied Control Committee, we are believed to sanction what goes on. Already about a thousand of the more prominent Bulgarians have been killed and the purge continues. The Agrarian Party, which is the largest in the country, and from the beginning has been heroically anti-Nazi, is forced into inactivity. Anti-Nazi Peasant Party chiefs are jailed along with pro-Nazi traitors." He declares, as also was reported in the press, that in Rumania Russia deposed one Premier and set up another. "The deposed Premier had to flee to the British Embassy to save his life. The Communist Party in Rumania is small, weak and utterly unrepresentative, yet it now dominates the new cabinet. The life and property of every Rumanian are at the mercy of the Communist members of the new cabinet, since they hold the vital posts. The two great Rumanian political organizations, the NationalistPeasant Party and the Liberal Party, are completely unrepresented. Thus everything which has happened in Rumania is in contradiction of what was promised at Yalta." This is the nation with which it is planned that we form a permanent military alliance, thrusting Russia forward with power to veto any of the decisions of the rest of the world. Is this travesty of justice in Europe the kind of peace we want to enforce with the blood of our sons, by a new war without the consent of Congress? Under the new league, if Germany rises up to fight to win back its own territory, as in East Prussia, it will be called an aggressor nation by the victorian powers and one man representing us on this Council will have the power to send our boys off to the next war. If Poland rises up to win back its land from Russia, it too will be called an aggressor nation, and so will these other countries. Then our supplies of men and wealth can be used against our will to back injustice. There are some who say that when we oppose Russia, we are working for a war with that nation. But nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no reason at all why the United States of America and Russia should fight one another. It is simply that we fail to give our smile of approval on Russia's policies. It is bringing the pressure of the public opinion of the world to bear upon Russia in our sincere effort to get her to change her mistaken and misguided policies. And the greatest way we can express disapproval of Russian policies is to refuse to join the new league. Here in America I believe that in normal times we have an attitude of justice, of fair play and good sportsmanship which under right conditions might do much for the world. Here, too, we have all nations represented in one land, so that we are more apt to take a fair judgment toward all, small as well as large, in their controversies and dispute. Here too we have inherited in our history the spirit of rebellion from tyranny and of freedom to work out our own destiny. It is a double tragedy, therefore, for us always to win wars and lose the peace at the peace tables where we let our allies trample under their feet every deal of justice we represent. And when the Senate refuses to pass approval upon this new league, the blame must fall not upon us who oppose, but upon those leaders of ours who have followed every ideal of American justice to be trampled under their feet, and who have been blind rubber stamps of British imperialism and Russian bolshevism. If you do not believe in progress by peaceful change, if you believe in trying to hold down by force an impossible status quo, you will adopt the new league, but if you believe in waiting and working for a true federation of nations to work cooperatively to end the causes of war, then you will refuse to accept this counterfeit until the genuine is won. Senator BARKLEY. I would like to ask the witness what religious denomination he is connected with? Mr. COTTON. I do not think that is very important. I happen to be a Presbyterian minister. I have nothing against any other denominations. I do not insist upon that at all. The CHAIRMAN. You announced that you are a Ph. D. What university? Mr. COTTON. Columbia University. The CHAIRMAN. Your organization has 25 members? Mr. COTTON. Not 25 members. The attendance frequently is 25. It varies. But a mailing list developed to over a thousand. The CHAIRMAN. You can mail, any thing to anybody. I am talking about the members of your organization. Mr. COTTON. Interested persons we mail to. The next witness is Mrs. C. P. Baldwin. Give the reporter your name, residence, and whom you represent. STATEMENT OF MRS. CATHERINE P. BALDWIN, NEW YORK CITY Mrs. BALDWIN. My name is Mrs. Catherine P. Baldwin, 1245 Madison Avenue, New York City. I represent myself, an American woman, a mother, a grandmother. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mrs. BALDWIN. I am objecting to this charter as given to us from San Francisco because it is in contradiction to our United States Constitution, which all of you Senators, and the President of the United States, and every man who holds office from the highest to the lowest in this country, is sworn to uphold. If you sign this charter, you are signing away the sovereign rights of the people of this country, which you are not authorized to do. You are given specific instructions when you are sent here to represent us. Those authorities are clearly defined. I do not concur with Senator Vandenberg when he says we should accept this because it was agreed upon by President Roosevelt at Yalta-when we were told it was San Francisco. The late Mr. Roosevelt is not here to speak for himself. And, furthermore, he had not the authority to promise anything in the name of the American people without the concurrence of two-thirds of this body-which has not been given. This is, to my mind, a very direct attempt to sabotage the Constitution of the United States, to take away our sovereign rights. It is not a new plan. It is one that has been going on for many, many years. Immediately after the last war the procession started. The highly financed propaganda permeated our schools, our colleges, our churches; in fact, every phase of our American life. Attempts have been made to destroy the Star-Spangled Banner-they are still going on. Our histories were rewritten so that you would not recognize American history. Gentlemen, it is in fact the apex of the pyramid we are facing today. It is well known to the people throughout the length and breadth of this land. The women know what is going on, and we do not intend to stand by and see our sons sent again to fight another foreign war which is not of our making. Under this charter, five men, not elected, merely appointed, whom we do not know and whom we may not trust, are given the destiny of this country. It is a demagogic, oligarchic project. It is an instrument of war, You say that this is an instrument for peace, but it is well known throughout the length and breadth of this land that World War III is in the making. That war will be with Russia. That war will be in the Middle East. We women are not willing to be silent and see our boys drafted again and sent to the four corners of the earth to fight and to give away our substance. Under this Charter, you say we will distribute the raw materials of the world. That is not new, either. You can find that in the 1893 edition of Andrew Carnegie's book, Triumphant Democracy, the last chapter, A Look Ahead-or, The Reunion of Britain and America. If you give away our raw materials, you will be trespassing on States' rights. If you give them away, you are sending the raw materials of this country to foreign powers who will manufacture them at the low European level, and the goods will be sent back here for us to buy. It clearly tells us that because England will control the seas she will supply the Atlantic States and the West, or Pacific States and our manufacturers can supply the Middle States. We will not like it at first, they say, but we will soon find it is our duty to the mother country. When you say that you will give away billions of dollars of our money to England, Russia, and the rest of the world where are you going to get that money? Where is it coming from? Or are you banking on the capital-levy tax that is in the making? Those are things that the people of the United States should know. I am willing to say that if, under due process of law, you submit this Charter as an amendment to the Constitution, to the people of this Country-and after a full, and free, and honest, discussion of the merits and demerits of the matter-they vote to give away their sovereignty and their substance, then I have nothing further to say. But, until that is done, under the constitutional process of the United States, then I do object, and object strongly. I am not willing to have my sons or my grandsons drafted to be put under the authority of five men whom I do not know, or know anything about, or know what their idea of life is. When the President of the United States went before your Body. he did not tell you that this Charter guaranteed one single iota of anything. He simply told you it "seeks" to do this, it "seeks" to do this, it "seeks" to do this. It means nothing; nothing at all. cannot go before the American electorate today with a lot of verbiage, and ask them to give away their substance. You This Charter guarantees nothing. But under the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, I am guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some of your colleagues-challenged-have admitted on the public platform that this is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, I do not see how you can even discuss it here in the Senate. Several of you Senators have admitted it. Some of you have said we must circumvent the Constitution. There are groups in this country, highly financed pressure groups, who are doing very good propaganda work down here in Washington. But you are not hearing from the rank and file back home. I wish you could be in my place. I go to market, and stand perhaps two hours to see if I can get enough food for my family for the day. The people are very bitter; they talk to me. The colored, the white, the Christian, the Jew, and the gentile. They say, "What does it all mean? Of course, we know war is in the making. They are not fooling us. What is the matter with the Senate down in Washington? What are they down there for?" Gentlemen, the people of this country are slow to arouse. They know they have been betrayed. They have talked, but you turned a silent ear. There comes a time in the history of every country when the people's silence is very dangerous. As in the Bible of old, it is said: Put on the taxes. And the people grumbled. Put on more taxes. And the people grumbled. And so long as the people grumbled it was all right. But when they put on more taxes, and the people were silent, they knew it was the danger signal. When I go to meetings of the highly financed pressure groups, as I went to that of the Women for Victory, or the Women's Action Committee, and I hear Anne O'Hare McCormick say: We women put over prohibition in the last war while the boys were away; and we women will put over the world government while the boys are away in this war. Gentlemen, is that fair? Is that honest? Is that honorable? Is it American? You will probably hear from them. I have seen some of their members here. And when I go to the meeting of the Commission for the Organization of Peace, and I hear Mr. Shotwell say, "The postwar world will not be governed by international financiers, but by international cartels," I say, Gentlemen, under this Charter we are going to get international cartels, demagogic government by five men. I am sure that you will agree with me that the honorable, honest way for the United States Senate to handle this matter is by constitutional means. No one can criticize you for that, when you go before your electorate and tell them the truth of what this document stands for and what it means. Mr. Connally, you, yourself, said it would be done by constitutional means. The Republican platform said it would be done by constitutional means. The Democratic platform said it would be done by constitutional means. Mr. Fulbright said it would be done by constitutional means; I heard Mr. Fulbright, at the luncheon for the Commission for the Organization for Peace, say, "We freshmen Congressmen went to Congress pledged to the world government." Gentlemen, did he forget that he took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, or does not an oath of office mean anything any more? If it does not, then it is time the American people knew it. We are not children; we understand what is going on. We think it is just about time we got back to the founding fathers, and to the Constitution of the United States. I know that when you think of this in your serious moments you will not want to put yourselves in the position of having the people back home say that you were not true to your oaths. I beg of you, gentlemen, before you put your names to this document, to weigh it carefully. This is not a peace document; this is a document of force; of aggression; of grabbing-grabbing the raw materials of this country; grabbing our boys; grabbing our money. We went to war in 1776 because of unfair taxes. What do you think we are going to do when you try to tax us to send billions of dollars to Europe and all over the world? Do you think we are going to stand for that? And where are you going to get it? These are the things you must weigh, and think of carefully.. These are the things you must discuss. These are the things for which you must answer to the American people. So, gentlemen, in all fairness, I, an American woman, a mother and a grandmother, I beg you-do not go down in history as the betrayers of your country. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Baldwin. Are there any questions? Is Mrs. Johnston with you? Mrs. BALDWIN. No; but she is here. The CHAIRMAN. Will Mrs. E. F. Johnston come around, please? STATEMENT OF MRS. ELISE FRENCH JOHNSTON, NEW YORK, N. Y. The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Johnston, please give your name, residence, and whom you represent, for the record. Mrs. JOHNSTON. My name is Mrs. Elise French Johnston. My residence is 60 East Sixty-Seventh Street, New York City. I am here as a representative of the public of the United States, as a free-born American citizen exercising my right of appeal and protest, while we still have our sovereign rights as protected by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mrs. JOHNSTON. Now, I am here The CHAIRMAN. Let us have order. Mrs. JOHNSTON. This is not a laughing matter, Mr. Chairman. I am here- The CHAIRMAN. That is why I am trying to get order and attention for you. Mrs. JOHNSTON. Exactly. I appreciate the courtesy. The CHAIRMAN. Be sure you use the amplifier; some of us are a little deaf. Mrs. JOHNSTON. Surely. This room with its marble walls-has it also marble ears? If anyone in the back of the room, Mr. Chairman, can not hear me, will you ask them to raise their hands, so that the instrument may be adjusted? It has worked very badly for the audience for the last 2 days. The CHAIRMAN. I have consulted the expert, and he assures me it is in good order. Mrs. JOHNSTON. The audience are having a very tough time back there. The CHAIRMAN. All right. We shall do the best we can. If you will place the instrument close to you and speak into it, you should be heard. Mrs. JOHNSTON. All right. This is the first time I have tried it, so I want the audience to check me. |