« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
demanded the truth about Pearl Harbor and the American trial of Tyler Kent? Why have you not worked for a negotiated peace with Japan? We used to call them the nice little people and admire their beautiful cherry blossoms in Washington. Now we are killing their women and babies with liquid fire, right at this very minute, and we should be shocked about Buchenwald
No, gentlemen, do not accept this Charter; it is written by men of war, they know nothing about peace or we would not have had this war. Let us have a Charter written by the men and women who believe in the dignity of the human race. Let us go to the peace conference demanding world disarmament as has been recommended by President Hutchins of the Chicago University.
There has been no opposition to the administration for the last 8 years, so the opinion of Senator Vandenberg does not count for the complete unity which is so often quoted. When the Republican Party failed to place the blame of getting this country into war on the Roosevelt administration they failed to use the only weapon that could have defeated the war and the new dealers, so both parties have betrayed the people.
Many women will be on the next congressional ticket, women who have considered the care of their children and homes the first requisite, but will have to get into politics to save their homes and children. We can trust our Government and the lives of our dearly beloved sons and daughters to these self-seeking representatives no longer. . I ran for Congress in the Tenth District of Illinois and will do so again.
Please table this bill until we get the boys home, the truth about Pearl Harbor, and the American trial of Tyler Kent. Work instead for å negotiated peace immediately, as we know now that we gain nothing but dead boys, heart-broken parents and an endless debt, in this terrible carnage of a whole generation.
Speed the day when Congress is voted out of office when it votes
Speed the day when we are represented by men and women who will not harden their hearts to the suffering of the individual.
Speed the day when the citizens of my beloved United States can once more walk this earth with heads held high, because of living like Jesus Christ.taught us.
Dear God in Heaven, speed the day. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mrs. St. Clair here? (No response.) Mr. Stephens? Mr. STEPHENS. Here. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stephens asked for 2 minutes. We will give him 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROYAL C. STEPHENS, NETCONG, N. J. Mr. STEPHENS. My name is Royal C. Stephens, Netcong, N. J. I am speaking as an individual American citizen.
Mr. Chairman, I am submitting to your committee 10 reservations to the proposed Charter of the United Nations.
1. It is the legislative intent of the Senate of the United States in keeping with the Constitution, laws, and customs of America that all future meetings of the General Assembly and the Security Council of
the United Nations shall open their meetings with prayer to Almighty God.
2. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that all members of the United Nations shall without any delay permit representatives of the newspapers from the United Nations to enter their country to work and freely report the facts on news to their own country:
3. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that the General Assembly at their next meeting shall take positive action to outlaw the use of opium except for medical purposes.
4. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that the General Assembly shall at their next meeting take positive action to completely take the profits out of all future wars,
5. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that the General Assembly at their next meeting shall take positive action to punish any nation that uses its diplomatic privileges to propagandize the domestic affairs of any country.
6. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that the General Assembly at their next meeting shall declare any nation guilty of endangering the maintenance of international peace of mind as to the welfare and security of prisoners of war in camps in their country, who refuses to permit International Red Cross representatives to visit their war prisoners.
7. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that no nation or group of nations shall charge United States as being guilty of causing any nation to go to war because the American people refuse to act as Santa Claus to their country.
8. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that the Monroe Doctrine is the concern of the United States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
9. It is the legislative intent of the United States Senate that no member nation of the Security Council shall have a right to vote or veto any decisions involving action by the Security Council in which the member national is involved in the dispute.
10. It is the legislative intent of the l'nited States Senate in keeping with the Federal Constitution hereby declares that the United States delegate on the Security Council must first receive the approval of both Houses of the Congress of the United States before American military and air power can be used against a nation that has acted to interrupt peace, security, and justice in the world.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as I view with fear for the respect for the Constitution of the United States because of the growing desire on the part of the Members of Congress to delegate their constitutional legislative duties to some other person, or persons, I believe the time has arrived for the sovereign States to at once act to safeguard the constitutional rights of the citizens of their State to be free from the burden of taxation without representation by passing a State welfare and defense law that will declare vacant the seat of any Member of either House of Congress who votes to delegate their legislative duties to any person, board, or agent of the Federal Government.
I thank the chairman for the chance to present my views to the committee on the proposed l'nited Nations Charter.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stephens. Are there any questions by any of the Senators?' [No response.] There seem to be no questions, so you are excused.
We will next call Mr. Michelet.
STATEMENT OF PAUL D. MICHELET, WASHINGTON, D. C.
The CHAIRMAN. Give your name, residence, and whom you represent, for the benefit of the record.
Mr. MICHELET. My name is Paul D. Michelet. My residence is 1002 I Street SE., Washington, D. C.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. MICHELET. In going into this matter this afternoon I feel very much encouraged by the testimony of the people whom I have heard here, because I feel that they have really pierced the truth of the matter to a large extent; and I think that in the future probably the members of the committee here will agree with that.
In regard to the matter of the acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations
Senator BARKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the witness forgot to state whom he represented.
Mr. MICHELET. I represent myself. I came here to hear the Senators, but I met some friends and they recommended that I come up and talk, so I put in an application to be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. What is your business?
Mr. MICHELET. At present I am doing nothing. I have written a book, and I have a little garden in Anacostia. That is about all that I am doing-working in that garden.
In getting at the truth of the matter in regard to the acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations, I believe that there is some misunderstanding, the misunderstanding being this, that the United Nations, as explained and as considered here before this committee, is really a totalitarian idea. In other words, from the testimony that has come out here, the whole world is to be included; and when you include the whole world it becomes a totalitarian idea.
The real truth of it is that democracy is not a totalitarian idea. Democracy is a thing of parts. You have your Republican Party, you have your Democratic Party, you have your Socialist Party, and you have other parties. Democracy, then, is a thing of parts.
But the United Nations, as considered here before this committee, is really a totalitarian idea. It is not democracy at all.
The other day a Senator asked the man who was explaining the Charter of the United Nations what would be done about a nation which wished to get out of the United Nations. The witness endeavored to explain, but he could not well explain it, and the Senator insisted. Could that nation get out? The witness said that it would go before the Security Council and they would consider it. Then the Senator said, "What would you do about it?"
"Well, it would be considered," and so on. Finally he said, "What if this Nation insisted on getting out?”
Well, they thought they could get out by going to the committee. But this man that explained the Charter said they would still be considered to be responsible in a certain way; there would be certain obligations. Which really means that the nation could not get out at all.
The whole idea is totalitarian. The nation would never be able to get out unless it fought its way out, or unless all the nations said, “Well, you can get out."
The truth of it is that the nation which got out in that way would be an individual nation; it would be a nation which started to grow strong, and it would grow so strong that it would in the end overcome what was left of the United Nations. They would no longer be united, because one would have departed.
Democracy is a thing of parts. You have your right hand and you have your left hand. When you become a thing totalitarian you become something else. You then start to look like what totalitarianism is. You start to look like what the United Nations would become-a thing which is really a ball, something which is round. But that thing is a negative thing and, consequently, it would start to disintegrate; it would start to go back to what it really was long ago, and that is dust.
In other words, if we should enter into the United Nations and if we should continue to remain in the United Nations, it would become a question of wther a nation had the will to get out or whether the will is to be exercised by those of the United Nations to compel that nation to stay in. If they compelled the nation to stay in, then the individual nation would have lost its will and its identity, and the identity would be that of the United Nations, which would be a totalitarian idea and which would eventually be the self-destruction of the whole world.
When I put in my application I said that I would like very much to have anybody who wished to, ask me questions. If there is anybody who would like to ask me any questions I shall be very glad to try to answer them.
The Chairman. Do any Senators desire to ask any questions of the witness? (No response.)
I am sorry. Nobody seems to need any information.
Mr. MICHELET. The whole thing is this. A lady got up here this afternoon and criticized Senators of the United States. After all is said and done, I think that when something is terrifically wrong there should be criticism, and I can see the reason for that criticism; and this is the reason. There are certain totalitarian ideas. One of them is this Charter of the United Nations. A totalitarian idea goes all the way. It is total. It is complete. It is all.
What is democracy? Democracy is something different. Democracy is something of parts. In other words, you have something that will go only so far. What happens when a person is practicing something which only goes so far? Well, somebody with a totalitarian idea comes along and says that he is going only so far. He says, "I can go a little further and I can keep on going a little further." In other words, it becomes predominant. When you come right down to it, there is really no such thing as opposition in totalitarianism. In totalitarianism, you go all the way. Consequently, when a totalitarian works against people who are working as Republicans and
Democrats, the Republicans and Democrats are working only part way.
The totalitarian goes on beyond. There is another kind of totalitarianism than the kind that is being practiced. I called that negative totalitarianism. This is positive totalitarianism. It is the kind of totalitarianism which tells people, “Well, we will go all the way, too, but we will do it positively, not negatively.” That would be like the idea of somebody telling, people, "You practice democracy.” In other words, if it is necessary to tell somebody to go ahead and practice democracy, something which they would ordinarily do, if negative totalitarianism does not exist, then it is a simple matter to go ahead and say, "Practice democracy.'
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
The next witness is Mr. Ely Culbertson. Please give your name, residence, occupation, and whom you represent. STATEMENT OF ELY CULBERTSON, NEW YORK, N. Y., REPRESENT
ING FIGHT FOR TOTAL PEACE, INC. Mr. CULBERTSON. My name is Ely Culbertson. My residence is 16 East Sixty-second Street, New York. I represent Fight for Total Peace, Inc., a nonprofit organization recently chartered for the purpose of establishing an effective and acceptable system of collective security to eliminate wars of aggression as distinguished from phony internationalism exemplified in the United Nations Charter now before the Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. You are for an international organization, but not this one. Is that right?
Mr. CULBERTSON. Pardon me, Senator?
The CHAIRMAN. You are for an international organization, but not this one?
Mr. CULBERTSON. I am for an effective and acceptable international peace organization, but not merely for an acceptable one which is noneffective.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. CulBERTSON. I oppose ratification of the United Nations Charter by the Senate as it now stands because it cannot possibly fulfill its stated purpose of prevention or suppression of aggression.
The only effective way to prevent future aggression is to limit and control the means of aggression-the armored ships of land, sea, and air. This could easily be done today by establishing, through the Charter, binding world-wide limitation of the production of heavy armament, on the basis of individual production quotas for the leading states, and a collective quota of production for the smaller states. This world-quota limitation of heavy armament is not only indispensable to prevent wars of aggression, but is indispensable for the very survival of the United States. Today the United States is the largest producer of these war-winning fighting machines. But the time is drawing dangerously near when other nations, with overwhelming manpower, will approach our degree of industrialization and will inevitably outproduce the United States in fighting machines.
The only effective way to suppress future aggression is by establishing, through the Charter, a special armed force, separate from the power politics of the member states, under direct control of the special