not in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter. It is giving them as little as we possibly can, while they are still giving all that they possibly can. Is that either fair or honest?

This is only to be a league of the so-called United Nations, also called the peace-loving nations, and the test whether or not a nation is peace-loving was set at whether a nation was at war with one or more of the Axis Nations by a certain date; i. e., in order to be "peaceloving" a nation "has to be at war," an obvious inherent self-contradiction. It is only the old balance-of-power politics-which produced both World Wars-all over again; only this time it is officially legalized before the world.

It is the commitment to the domination of the world by five selfdeclared world powers. Small nations, even of the "peace-loving" united variety have much less chance in this new Charter than they had in the old League of Nations. There was no recognized hierarchy of nations under the old League.

Based purely on military power, strength in might, it gives official world sanction, also, to the totalitarian doctrine that "might makes right," after all. Thus, at San Francisco, Hitler's doctrine really won the day. The whole thing is nothing more or less than a not even very deceptive camouflage for five-power politics and world control by the Big Five.

Now, may I attack this Charter on seven major counts, specifically? First, that it is a step toward peace. The clauses that deal with the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in the Charter are lofty sounding and full of idealism on paper, but at the same time vague, indeed. Those having to do with the settlement of international disputes by forceful methods are very explicit. This, then, becomes the perfect instrument for making it an easy matter to engage in war, because neutrality would be treason to the superstate and downright dishonorable after this Charter has been signed.

If the conversations and findings at Dumbarton Oaks, Bretton Woods, Yalta, and San Francisco had been but tiny faltering first steps in the direction of world peace, this speaker would not be here to oppose their adoption. They are a rejection of all that has meant peace, in the. past. No one can say that these former real steps toward peace were wrong, because they were never tried. There was One who walked the earth called the Prince of Peace, but His proposals, as outlined in our New Testament, were not heeded at San Francisco. They are the alternative to force, and no nation can call itself Christian which ignores them. The great scientist and original thinker, Sigmund Freud, as late as 1932, called force the last resort of complete frustration, leading to only an illusion of victory or defeat.

The defeat precedes war for all contesting parties. To place reliance upon force, then, is to deny not only the manifest truths of religion, but to disregard the proven facts discovered by modern scientific research. It is also to break faith with the millions who have given their lives in these last two wars. For it is that the method of war, no matter how high or how holy its alleged cause, imposes a dreadful price upon those who use it. The greatest price is paid in utter disregard for individual life and human right. War itself renders those who wage it unfit to achieve the dreams they profess. Remember the

peace of Versailles. We have been told over and over again by our scientists that the next war would destroy our cities and reach our women and children. Yet, we dare to mention war possibilities again as a way to permanent peace, and to consider legislation to enable our youth to be conscripted for the purpose of enforcing a world charter that means war. War was outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact, signed by 65 nations. The Charter would seek to nullify this part, which, while not perfect, was a step forward. Anything less would be a step in the wrong direction.

This Charter is not just, because of the special advantages and privileges given to the Big Five Powers. Rights should only be recognized by laws, constitutions, and charters. But rights are born with us, and not man-given. Nature has made no provision for France to have greater advantages and privileges than Brazil or India or Australia. Why should the Charter grant such? We all know the history of those nations which have sought to rise above their fellow nations by imperialistic, economic or forceful means. They have been eternally at war.

The Charter framers never once pondered those two questions that troubled the great mind of Socrates before he conceived his republic. "What is justice?" and "Know thyself." For while they were building a social structure, they needed to know. the nature of the state. Perhaps ambition of some sort is one of the qualities of a flourishing state. If so, the Charter does not take it into account. Henry George said, "Unless its foundation be laid in justice, the social structure cannot stand."

While standing in danger of being accused of being chauvinistic at this time, I must remind you that we in this country have a system of government that has been much admired everywhere, and our Constitution has often been copied. Why did the framers of this Charter dispense, in their document, with all of the provisions in our Constitution that have made it an exemplary thing before the world? I refer to the principle of majority rule in voting and elections, the principle of equality before the law? These are our proper rights. Even to become more powerful than we are, wealthier than we are, by virtue of our position as one of the specially privileged nations, we should not deny these rights to others. If we do, we shall soon find that we have enslaved ourselves, as well as the lesser nations.

When we consider the wide powers granted under this plan to the Security Council and that their Council shall have the conscripted armies of all countries, except the possible aggressor, at their command, we can well imagine what chance the lesser nations will ever have of freeing themselves from this yoke of oppression. When the despotism is of a military nature, as in Japan and Germany, in recent years, we have seen that it will stop at nothing to satisfy its hunger for power. This will be a military despotism. Perpetual war, in such a case, is assured in advance.

Thirdly, this Charter treats only the symptom and not the true causes of war. Wars are economic and psychological in character and cause, but where in all of the Charter do you see anything that outlines a program for dealing with these causes of war? Your economic and educational committee will be powerless, as I read the Charter. It can but make suggestions. When have the suggestions of the

educator or the economist been heeded by mankind? If your Council were to give the advice to India for freeing herself from the burden of 40,000,000 unemployed, that she should become a self-determined country, without paying taxes that she can ill afford to outsiders, how much credence would be given to your Economic Council, and how long would it last?

May I suggest that the word "security" is a misleading term in the Charter? Depressed peoples may take it to mean that freedom from want which was promised in the Atlantic Charter, but actually this is a security for the present powers to remain in their places forever. Security is a dangerous term, anyway, as Shakespeare warned us about. It can lead to slavery and even to self-enslavement. The serf had security. Also our slaves. But they lacked the only security worth possessing, equal opportunity for all, and, likewise, the peoples under this Charter lack it.

While the Charter assures that the small nations will not dare rise for some time, the larger powers may do as they please. All have a veto power over decisions and need not adhere to them. This practically nullifies the whole procedure. It not only means that the only nations capable of waging war with a major power cannot be stopped by this plan, but it permits large nations to do with small nations as they will. Who can stop their aggression? Who, in a case such as that of Russia and Poland, can say who is the aggressor, should Poland rebel against her partitionment?

Our own Government is a government, of laws not men. We learned this in first grade in the grammar school. But why, then, was a government devised that would be ruled by five men, some of whom are also rulers of empire? This aristocracy will come to a tragic end, by virtue of the system of rivalry inherent in the aristocratic system. If it does not do so right away, it will do so by plunging us into one ideological war after another, as suits the particular opinions or fancies of the fallible men who will be guiding this superstate.

My objections to the ratification of the San Francisco Charter do not arise from the fact that they would result in an international organization, but that that association would not be an association in equality, which is the only true condition of freedom; that it would seek to impose its will upon people not properly represented in it, by force; that it does not touch any of the true causes of war; that it will cause us to be ruled by dictators and bureaucrats; and finally, that its purpose is not peace, but the preservation of the status quo at any price.

The supreme danger in this Charter lies in the fact that once it is. accepted, no real plan for world federation, for instance, a United States of the World, will be seriously introduced in our lifetime or perhaps ever. We had our chance and still have it-an opportunity to devise a plan that will protect human rights everywhere. One of those rights is freedom from the fear of war. There have been plans designed to move in that direction. The Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Woman's Congress report at The Hague, and recently the proposals of the International Labor Organization. But they were not given any attention at San Francisco.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am not a perfectionist. But neither am I, together with many other American

housewives like me, satisfied with half truth. This Charter, we believe, is a betrayal of the real truth that is within us.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Senator TUNNELL. Your real objection is that you fear that the United States, as one of the five large nations, will be unfair to the small nations?

Mrs. BAESLER. That it might follow the path that other nations have taken, but mainly I feel that during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries we were steadily moving toward a larger ideal of peace, and I believe that this is getting away from it-from peace and brotherhood. I feel that now we are getting away from the ideals, the ideals that I mentioned of the men under whose literature I grew up in school.

Senator TUNNELL. There could not be any unfairness to the small nations without the assent of the United States, could there?

Mrs. BAESLER. I am not sure of that, Mr. Senator, because the United States might be involved there. It says that all the five powers except those interested in the conflict must agrec. It is not majority rule there in case of force. It is that seven members agree, but four at least must be of the major powers.

Senator TUNNELL. Then does it not come down to what I first said, that your fear is of the United States?

Mrs. BAESLER. I don't know that my fear is of the United States, but I would not want my country to be in a position to commit a wrong. I would not want any country to be, but I certainly would

not want our own.

Senator TUNNELL. It is now, is it not, in a position to commit a wrong?

Mrs. BAESLER. Not officially. We have never legalized imperialism. We have never legalized it. We have always thought that imperialism is something that is not just right, something for other countries. Even though we might have something approaching it, we would never admit it. Now, we call them "powers." I object to that language as much as anything else. I don't consider that a Christian country has a right to call a nation a "power" because it has colonies.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mrs. BAESLER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Helen Somers.

STATEMENT OF MRS. HELEN V. SOMERS

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and your residence and whom you represent to the reporter.

Mrs. SOMERS. My name is Helen V. Somers, and my address is 2914 Cedar Street, Philadelphia, Pa., and I just represent myself, the organization of the United States Government, the people of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a good representation. Go right ahead. Mrs. SOMERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to place upon the record that I am an American woman, a mother, that I am pro-America and pro-peace, anti-nothing; but I resent the propaganda from any foreign source that tries to interfere in our domestic affairs.

Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am before you today, July 11, 1945, to voice my opposition to the United Nations Charter, which is the betrayal of our constitutional Republic, and in doing so I am expressing the sentiments of thousands of other Americans who cannot be here to do likewise.

I definitely oppose the United Nations World Charter because it will change our form of government by setting up a world government and a World Court.

Article I, section 8, clause 9, of the Constitution specifically states that "Congress has the power to institute inferior tribunals only." If our people wish to change our form of government, it can be done. only by amendment, by the vote of the people. Consequently, any ratification is illegal.

The United Nations Charter will set up a superstate because you cannot have a World Court without a world government and a world dictator. There will be no freedom, only slavery. George Washington warned against interweaving our destiny with that of any other nation. How do I know of the plan to set up a world state? Well, I have been very fortunate in learning of the British-Israel World Federation movement, whose symbol, the unfinished pyramid of Giza, appears on our one dollar bills only, placed there in 1935.

In 1893, Andrew Carnegie wrote a book entitled "Triumphant Democracy", the last chapter A Look Ahead. In it he says:

Time may dispel many illusions, destroy many noble dreams, but I shall ever be of the opinion that the wound once caused by the separation of the child (America) from its Mother (England) will not bleed forever. Let men say what they will, I say as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely it is to rise to shine to greet again the real United States, the British-American Union.

He left all of his money for the accomplishment of that objective. This world movement of the British Israelites is identical with the Andrew Carnegie-Cecil Rhodes-Theodore Hertzl plan to return the United States to the British Empire. The British-Israel literature boasts of Britain being mighty and that she will be mightier to rule the world.

What is to happen then to our beloved United States? Where will we be? Can't you see? Gone with the wind-No; not if the women of this country have anything to say about it. Never. We will not betray our country to any foreign power.

General Patton, speaking in London to the Officers Club said, "It is our destiny, Britain and America, to rule the world."

In British-Israel, you will learn that Edward, Duke of Windsor, is to be the messiah, the king of the world. In an article in the True Story Magazine, Wally, sunning herself on the beach at Nassau in the Bahamas, dreams of the day when the common people of the world will call on Edward to lead them and become the first President of the United States of the World.

Senator Pepper expressed the same thing about President Roosevelt. Congressman Huber wants to know how the Duke of Windsor, the repudiated leader of our ally, Britain, can travel around our country, with a private coach and crew, while our soldiers and civilians. are denied transportation facilities. Gentlemen, Edward, the Duke, is here surveying our land and looking forward to the day you ratify