I am here because after studying the Charter carefully I am convinced that it is not only in conflict with the Constitution of the United States but is in violation of the Constitution in many respects. My reasons for thinking so have been augmented by the sources of pressure which are being exerted to urge its passage. Groups and individuals who for many years have shown by their deliberate actions that they are unfriendly to our constitutional form of government are the present groups who are most eager to see us adopt this Charter. For that reason, I am suspicious of their motives, and I suggest you check the records of these organizations in the files of the F. B. I., the U. S. Military Intelligence, and the Dies Committee.

I question the constitutionality of this Charter because of the following passages in the Constitution of the United States.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to read these sections of the Constitution by article and clause only, and at the end of my moments with you I expect some member of this committee of Senators to have looked them up in a copy of the Constitution and to give me a positive

answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have convened to hear you. You cannot compel Senators to answer questions unless they want to. So you go ahead.

Mrs. JOHNSTON. All right. These are the matters in the Constitution itself which I think should be clarified for the American public, because to be asked to sign something which is unconstitutional is not fair without a very frank discussion of the constitutionality of the provisions of the Charter by the elected representatives of the people. So far, the legality of the Charter as being at issue with our own laws has not been frankly discussed.

The oath of office of the President of the United States is contained in article II, section 1, paragraph 8. I do not see how, under that oath, the President of the United States can delegate a representative to the world conference, because the Constitution only permits the election of officers; it does not permit the delegation of officers who will carry executive powers.

Now, another thing: We are to be obligated by the Assembly, in the Charter, to pay unknown sums for unspecified purposes, which will not be, according to the Charter itself, publicly accounted for. How does that square with the obligation to publish reports of accounts and receipts of public moneys, as expressed in article I, section 9, clause 7, of the Constitution? We are all feeling the pinch of our pocketbooks, and we are very much interested in the vagueness of that part of the Charter.

Now, again, in article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution, under the Defense Act of 1920, which pertains to the raising of armed forces, we are required to appropriate moneys for that purpose each year. Then, how can you commit us for an indefinite period of time and commit indefinite numbers of men and indefinite sums of money to helping armed forces of the world government? Is that or is that not constitutional?

Again, I want to make this very clear to you, gentlemen. Would I, in my own mind feeling this entire Charter to be in conflict with the Constitution-if I neglected my duty to protest and appeal to you elected representatives of the Constitution, would I not myself be

guilty of misprision and of treason? I am here to take my own patriotic stand and to remind you of what we expect you to do.

Now, the power to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court is clearly set forth in article I, section 8, clause 9; but I can find no place in the Constitution of the United States that permits the Congress to establish tribunals or to submit the people to tribunals superior to the Supreme Court.

The power to regulate commerce is given to Congress in section 8, article I, clause 3. But, gentlemen, where is the power given to delegate the trade, the commerce, and the finance of this country to an unknown, unpredictable group of men?

I just want these constitutional matters discussed and clarified for the American public.

The power to regulate the currency is clearly expressed in article I, section 8, clause 5. That power is given to the Congress. I do not see that the power to delegate that power is given to Congress.

Again, as regards this world police, in article II, section 2 of the Constitution, it is clearly stated that the President of the United States is to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States. How are we going to work that into this world police as outlined in the Charter?

Again, I would remind you that article VI of the Constitution clearly states that treaties and some people call this Charter a treaty-must obey the laws of the land. In other words, you yourselves by your own action cannot commit the people of this country to a program which in itself is unconstitutional. You may repudiate yourselves, but you cannot repudiate the Constitution.

Now, in fairness to yourselves, I realize that this country is in the grip of a gigantic conspiracy, that it has been well financed, and that you men are in a very uncomfortable spot, and I think that that is why you are trying to railroad this thing through.

The CHAIRMAN. Right at that point, we showed no disposition to railroad it through when we let you appear here to testify.

Mrs. JOHNSTON. It was announced in the newspapers that there was no opposition to this Charter. I have here a copy

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is rather ungracious of you, after we have given you the time and the opportunity to place all you want in the record, to charge the committee with railroading the matter through. We are not railroading it; we are trying to give it consideration. So will you not kindly confine yourself to the merits of the matter and not to reflections on the committee?

Mrs. JOHNSTON. Certainly; I stand corrected. But I insist that the expression "railroading" has been applied by many people. I do not want to be discourteous, but I think the speed is too great. The Connally resolution, the Fulbright resolution, the Mackinac resolution, the plank in the Democratic platform, and the plank in the Republican platform all have specified that constitutional processes would be used.

I insist that if the matter of how much alcohol we could have in a glass of beer had to be submitted in the form of an amendment, certainly if there is any question of the legality of this Charter or its lack of having constitutional status, then that must be submitted by amendment. Otherwise, how can the decent, law-abiding citizens of this country feel bound by your unconstitutional acts?

Gentlemen, I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Johnston. You have several minutes yet.

Mrs. JOHNSTON. That is fine.

The CHAIRMAN. We do not want to railroad you through. Mrs. JOHNSTON. I should very much like to continue. The CHAIRMAN. If you are finished, of course, it is all right. Mrs. JOHNSTON. No; I should like to make a very tangible suggestion for peace, since we are told we are very concerned about peace. Wars will be fought, gentlemen, as long as wars are profitable. In the last 200 years, wars have proved profitable to three groups— the politicians, the international bankers, and the ammunition makers. As far as we can see, this Charter is a very ingenious instrument for solidifying these special interests, who will then have all the power to make all the war they want to whenever they want to.

That is why the mothers of this country are bitter. We object to the fact that when you gentlemen undertake to sign the Charter, you sign a blank check with our names on it, because the Charter itself offers no limitation as to future changes or amendments nor to the amount of money that we would have to pay to support it. Is my time up?

The CHAIRMAN. No, not quite. Do you want to go on?

Mrs. JOHNSTON. All right. There is something else that is bothering me. There was an awful hullabaloo a few years ago about providing pensions for Congressmen. In the Charter

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that has anything to do with the matter we are discussing.

Mrs. JOHNSTON. Yes, it has, because in the Charter, in the World Court, they very carefully give themselves pensions and retirement. fees. Do you think that is going to be popular with the American people? We do not like it for our own Congressmen. We are quite aware that since we are the richest nation in the world today, we shall have to pay the major part of the bill.

There is another thing in the Charter which I think is difficult to understand. We are told that the Charter will not interfere with the domestic affairs of any nation. Yet we know the Charter confers the power of investigation of all affairs, whether social, economic, or, I think the other word is, cultural. What human activity could not be included under those terms? I object to selling out our birthright for a mess of pottage, and I certainly object to selling out our heritage to this mess of verbiage. It is the ambiguous wording of the Charter and its vagueness which infuriates the American people.

I regret to say that the reason why many people are not writing in to you about this is that they are so disgusted with it. They feel their letters are ignored, even as my telegram to the President was not given the courtesy of a form letter.

The Charter is not well expressed. It is too vague, too ambiguous, and too unsatisfactory to be given serious consideration. I think a Charter may be written in the future, but I refuse to accept this Charter as an instrument for peace, because it will lead to chaos in the world and in our own country.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Senator TUNNELL. I should like to ask the lady a question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tunnell.

Senator TUNNELL. What is your theory as to this war being profitable to bankers?

Mrs. JOHNSTON. I think all wars are profitable to bankers.

Senator TUNNELL. Why do you think so? Are the interest rates too high?

Mrs. JOHNSTON. Why, because Mr. Stettinius is so happy about the whole thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Please do not be personal in your remarks. Mr. Stettinius is a guest of the committee, just as you are. We trust there will be no altercation between you.

Mrs. JOHNSTON. Well, I think that the records of the bankers for the last 200 years will bear out my statement. I would remind you that the Napoleonic wars were financed in England by the House of Rothschild; they were financed in France by the House of Rothschild in France; they were financed in Austria by the House of Rothschild of Austria.

All wars, including our own Revolutionary War, which was financed by Mr. Morris, have been financed by bankers for the last 200 years. Senator TUNNELL. Is it not true that we have an immense amount of capital that cannot even be loaned at this time? The loans cannot be made. Why do the bankers want that situation?

Mrs. JOHNSTON. I do not know why they want it, because I am not an international banker. But I am aware of the fact that they have found

Senator TUNNELL. You are not a man, either, but you are telling us about men's opinions.

Mrs. JOHNSTON. No. I am telling you about my opinion. That is my opinion, and I think that if you will look into the record you will find that the bank statements at the present time are quite favorable to the bankers of this country and to the international bankers. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

You are excused, Mrs. Johnston. Thank you very much for your testimony. The committee is appreciative. We will observe your injunction not to railroad this matter at all.

Mr. David Darrin, of the United Nations of Earth Association, is the next speaker.

STATEMENT OF DAVID DARRIN, UNITED NATIONS OF EARTH ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name and state whom you represent, Mr. Darrin.

Mr. DARRIN. My name is David Darrin. I represent no pressure group. I represent a large number of American people who are favorable to world organization against war and for peace; who are not organized, but who are very definitely opposed to the terms of this Charter as being quite unable to produce world peace or to stop world

war.

The CHAIRMAN. You are listed here as representing the United Nations of Earth Association.

Mr. DARRIN. I wrote on a letterhead for an association without membership attempting to accomplish this purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a rather unique situation.
Mr. DARRIN. I so stated in my application.

The CHAIRMAN. An association without membership?

Mr. DARRIN. No attempt has been made for membership; there has been no time for such an attempt.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you are, for the purpose of this hearing, the United Nations of Earth Association?

Mr. DARRIN. You might say so.

Senator BARKLEY. There is no reason why a man cannot associate with himself.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. DARRIN. My address is 326 Pennsylvania Avenue SE., Washington 3, D. Č.

The CHAIRMAN. Please let us have order. We want to hear Mr. Darrin and the association.

Mr. DARRIN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the United States Senate, fellow Americans of the audience and of the Nation, sisters and brothers in the spiritual family of God on earth, we are met at one of the crucial moments of human history.

Amid the crumbling ruins of an outworn civilization, we face the grave necessity-but also the splendid opportunity for laying the foundation and designing the structure of a higher world order.

But if we come to this tremendous responsibility drunk with pride in a victory which has lowered us in many ways to the level of our foes, which has marked us as even more destructive than our enemies, we shall fail in the greater task of building an enduring world peace.

Rather let us approach this combined duty and privilege in deep humility and in sincere prayer for God's guidance, through which alone can we make an effective start upon establishment of His kingdom on earth. Let us also realize that God has already answered such prayers to a great extent through His guidance of our national progress during the 8 score and 10 years of American history.

These I hold to be some of His answers to our prayers for guidance in the finding and founding of another new world.

Do not be discouraged by failure of the first attempt at world organization. Your own American union required two efforts before real success was achieved. Learn from that success that a strong federation is indicated when a weak confederation has failed.

One of our great men said in substance, "There shall be no more empire-building in the Western Hemisphere." And being strong to defend that principle you have had not outside aggressions in your half of the world for over a hundred years. Learn from that success that world peace requires the termination of all empires and empirebuilding by a world state able to enforce that principle.

The greatest of all Americans said in substance, "Our Nation is too small to contain two competing groups of States." A bitter war tested his principle and subsequent national progress has won for it both parties to that struggle. Learn from that success that the world is too small to contain two competing groups of nations; that world peace calls for a world state including all the nations of earth.

The greatest man of all time told you "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." And He loved His neighbors so well that He could pray for those among them who were also His torturers: "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." Learn from that prayer to realize that even your bitterest enemy is also your neighbor, that all nations, races, creeds, and conditions of men are your neighbors, that in each living creature there is a spark of my spirit which is