Изображения страниц

BLOWINGBOCK, N. C., July 12, 1945. Senator THOMAS CONNALLY,

Washington, D. C.: We oppose endorsement of Charter to enforce peace until we know what peace treaties are to contain. We especially oppose grant of authority to employ military force vested in American representative to Security Council.



Washington, D. C.: I am opposed to the San Francisco Conference because it was concocted by the international morons who want to return us as a colony of Great Britain.



AN ARGUMENT FOR RESERVATIONS TO THE CHARTER (Submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, by John B. Trevor on behalf of the American Coalition, Washington, D. C.)

JULY 12, 1945. Hon. Tom CONNALLY, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Mr. CHAIRMAN: Allow me to suggest that a document of such momentous importance as the Charter of the United Nations should not be acted upon precipitately. The final draft was only published on July 2 in the Congressional Record. It has, therefore, been actually in the hands of the people for a little more than a week. No one has had an opportunity to study it, consider it, or express their views upon it.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it is particularly important that this instrument should not be acted upon immediately because, in my opinion, the whole Dumbarton Oaks project which it embodies has been sold to the American people by propaganda issued by the Department of State in what appears to be a clear violation of section 201, title 18, of the United States Code.

Mr. Chairman, the document which is now before the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate for approval is, in effect, the Charter of a new union of states. It is, in fact, so far as it goes, an instrument which transcends the Constitution of the United States. It is, I venture to say, an attempt, through ratification by the Senate, to transfer the sovereignty of the United States, without a constitutional amendment, to a foreign body.

A document fraught with such momentous consequences should not be acted upon without a complete review of our foreign policy. It was, in fact, the opinion of my associates at our annual meeting last January, that the Dumbarton Oaks project should not be brought up for action by Congress until after a treaty of peace had been signed. To ratify a document of the proposed character until the war with Japan has been fought to a successful conclusion, may be not only impolitic but actually inimical to the national welfare.

The Charter of the United Nations, insofar as it confers power on one American and six foreigners to make war, appears to be the very embodiment of Fascist dogma.

The people of the United States have already sacrificed over 1,000,000 casualties to stamp out fascism and its counterpart nazism from the earth, yet here in this Charter seven men are endowed with the greatest of royal prerogatives, that is, the power to take the United States or any other country or countries into war.

It is urged that time is of the essence in applying force to suppress force. This argument is preposterous for two reasons. First, history demonstrates that all wars have been preceded by periods of ample warning. Second, under modern traffic conditions it is possible to assemble the Congress of the United States in less than 4 days.

Take the present World War as an example. It is demonstrable that the German General Staff commenced preparations for war in 1921 and it can be conclusively proved that the fate of the world was completely in the hands of Great Britain and France for at least a decade after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.

We owe this war to the fact that Mr. Lloyd George and the British Foreign Minister, Lord Curzon, saw fit to build up Germany as counterweight to an alleged militaristic France. A magnificent and conclusive brief in support of this contention has been set forth by Leopold Schwarzchild in his book entitled *The World in Trance." Winston Churchill himself seems to have been well aware of the truth about this matter, because, in one of his recent books, he asserted: “Hitler's success, and, indeed, his survival as a political force, would not have been possible but for the lethargy and folly of the French and British Governments since the war, and especially in the last 3 years" (p. 226, Great Contemporaries, 1937, by Winston Churchill).

Shall we confer dictatorial power to make war to save a maximum of 4 days? The price is too high. The germs of a new war are now apparent. No microscore is necessary to discover them. You know them and I know them but, Mr. Chairman, I question from the standpoint of the public welfare the desirability of a show-down while we are still at war. This much, however, can properly be said, the Charter of San Francisco utterly fails to provide the means of applying force where force may most be needed.

Commenting on this feature of the Charter now before you for ratification, a delegate from Arabia is credited with making the following statement: "If two small powers fight, the organization steps in, and that is the end of the fight; if a small power and a big power fight, that is the end of the small power; unless, of course, another big power steps in, and that is the end of the organization."

In plain language, Mr. Chairman, there is ample justification for saying that, as an agency to ensure peace, the organization of the United Nations set up by the Charter at San Francisco will altogether fail of its purpose.

In my humble opinion, however, let me say that as an agency to bleed the last vestiges of our economic resources into the coffers of foreign nations, the organization created by the Charter is superb.

It is unfortunate that the people of our beloved country are not to be given time to understand this Charter and the Bretton Woods agreements which belong with it.

As I have already said, Mr. Chairman, the pending Charter is the incarnation of fascism and, therefore, the negation of the effectiveness of democratic process. In this respect it clearly violates the Constitution of the United States.

The founders of the Republic, when they drafted our fundamental law, definitely withheld the war power from the Chief Executive of the new Governmentour Government-which they created. They specifically conferred on Congress the power to declare war. The law upon this subject has been comprehensively and ably discussed by Judge Cooley in his great work entitled “Constitutional Limitations,” volume 1 (8th ed.). Judge Cooley's contention, Mr. Chairman, has been sustained by a multitude of court decisions which are set forth at some length in notes accompanying his declaration of general principles of the law.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me urge upon the committee that it attach reservations to this document which will preserve the constitutional requirements that the sole authority to declare or make war be held forever where it now is, that is, in the Congress of the United States and, further, permit me to urge that the committee preserve the sovereign right of the United States to maintain the Monroe Doctrine intact.

Let us not face the world with the ratification of a document whose terms are repugnant to the basic principles of our Constitution. Respectfully submitted,



Chicago, Ill., June 28, 1945. Hon. Tom CONNALLY,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We, the undersigned Americans, oppose the ratification of the San Francisco Charter because it is unconstitutional. It gives up our independence which we have thrived under for the past glorious years of our history.

The peace of the world was not lost because we did not join the League of Nations, but because of the greed and insanity of European and Asiatic countries who have not as yet become civilized. Do not drag us back into their eternal wars. We should realize by this time that we have been fools twice and hare received not one iota of thanks for the sacrifices of lives and money that we have expended in the last two adventures in the Democratic Party's wars of internationalism.

Do you mean to stand up before the whole world and say that the Russian grabs of territories in Europe are just ? Do you mean to say that we must fretze them that way? Do you think the Russian concentration camps are any better than the evil ones of Germany? Instead of peace, the war has created the cinders of a thousand wars, and has been of no value. We have descended to the lowest depths of morals and it seems that you in Washington have become so hysterical that you believe the OWI propaganda yourselves.

Please save our country from further degradation and save our young men from slaughter every time some foreign government decides to oppress, or some blind group tries to gain political control. The way to solve the troubles in Europe is to remove the revenue from them and tell them to go to work and pay their debts and they won't have so much time for revolutions, nor money to finance wars. Respectfully yours,

Rose McAvoy, Chairman.

Sioux Falls, S. DAK., June 28, 1945. DEAR SENATOR: I want to ask every Senator of our Government to oppose by all means the steam-rolling method being used to force the adeption of the Frisco Treaty. This treaty ought to be placed before the American people on its very merits and not based upon foreign entanglements by foreign steamrolling. The Democratic administration has already gone the limit to help Russia under Joe Stalin to get the upper hand in world affairs and we need a breathing spell before we plunge into a anti-Christian pagan league of nations which will send our Declaration of Independence down the river to a God-forsaken communistic rule of bloodshed and anti-Christian rule. This cursed “European entanglement” has reached its very climax if we are to be driven into a world alliance which can only spell future wars galore with Uncle Sam as watchdog over the downtrodden helpless nations encouraged by forced methoils like a Cain who murdered his own brother to satisfy his bloodihirst and hatred. It's antichrist in its very essence and will destroy forever any future peace among the nations in the whole world. It cannot help but carry in its very foundation the curse of almighty God and downtrodden humanity who are to be dominated by its methods. Only a God-forsaken attitude prevailed at this Frisco Conference if rightly understood. My God save our country from partaking in anything like that.

Sincerely yours for a just peace, and preservation of our Declaration of Independence.

N. N. ISULLKRAN. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Miss Mabel Vernon.



Miss Verxox. I am speaking as the representative of the Peoples Mandate Committee for Inter-American Peace and Cooperation in opposition to the provision in the Charter regarding amendments.

Since the beginning of the war the Peoples Mandate Committee, which is composed of women in all the American republics, has been studying plans for international organization and the way to lasting peace. A delegation of 16 members from 6 countries represented the Committee at the San Francisco Conference.

Even the most enthusiastic advocates of the Charter do not claim that it is a perfect document. The hope is held out, however, that improvement will be made in accordance with the teachings of time and experience. But the fact is that change is made practically impossible by the provision for alterations in the Charter adopted in San Francisco. Chapter XVIII stipulates that any amendment adopted by the General Assembly or any alteration made by a general conference held for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter must be ratified by two-thirds of the members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

Representatives of the Mandate Committee worked in San Francisco against this provision. I attach a letter addressed to Mr. Stattinius as one of the presidents of the Conference which I should like to have included in the record. Among all the delegates we talked to, and we dealt with many, we found little support for this measure.

It can readily be understood why the five permanent members of the Security Council desire the right of veto over any positive action of the Council in the unsettled years of transition immediately following the war. But after the United Nations Organization has had opportunity to restore peace and has proved its ability to keep order, the right of one of the Five Great Powers to veto any amendment to the Charter cannot be justified. Such a provision would make it practically impossible for the enlightened public opinion of the world, including that of the United States, to bring about changes, time and experience will show to be essential. Supporters of the veto claim that the Five Great Powers will all approve amendments which are right, but no one can guarantee this.

Let me mention a few changes which will almost certainly occur in the world situation in the next few years, and which would all demand amendments to the Charter. Countries now ranked as intermediate powers may advance to a place among the greatest nations of the earth and quite possibly countries now considered major powers may decline in their relative international position. Such changes would inevitably lead to a demand for reorganization of the Security Council. Smaller nations will almost certainly demand far greater authority for the General Assembly than is now given to it. This body which” Senator Vandenberg has called the town meeting of the world has no important powers. Military and scientific developments may greatly change today's ideas of what constitutes physical security:

It is conceivable that one of the Five Great Powers would refuse to approve the amendment to the Charter which each of these suggested changes would require, and the amendment would thereby be defeated even if all the other nations approved it. Resistance to essential changes would inevitably cause the organization to function ineffectively and perhaps to break down entirely.

The Peoples Mandate Committee requests that if the United States Senate decides to ratify the Charter, it shall attach to ratification the reservation that 10 years after the Charter goes ino operaion amendments shall become effective when ratified by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and will give consideration to your views.

I will ask the reporter to place in the record at this point a letter from Miss Mabel Vernon to Mr. Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., dated May 28, 1945.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)



SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., May 28, 1945. The Honorable EDWARD R. STETTINIUS, Jr., President of the United Nations Conference

on International Organization. Sir: Believing that veto power of the great nations over future amendments to the Charter would endanger the international organization, the Peoples Mandate Committee for Inter-American Peace and Cooperation, with members in all the American republics, urges that such a provision shall not be incorporated in the Charter.

The proposal made by the Big Four delegations to liberalize the Dumbarton Oaks provision regarding amendments (which it is agreed would put the Carter in a strait-jacket) does not accomplish its purpose. It retains the requirement that future amendments must be ratified by all the permanent members of the Security Council.

To empower any one nation to block future amendments, which all the otber nations may desire, would be an obstacle to world progress and world peace. The people of the world would not long submit to provisions which they consider dangerous, and the Organization wonld function ineffectively or break down completely. Such a catastrophe must be prevented by wise action at this Conference. We request consideration of this provision;

Five years after the Charter goes into operation a general conference shall be held for the sole purpose of considering amendments to the original Charter. Such amendments may be adopted by a vote of three-fourths of all the member nations.

Of course, those who would simplify and liberalize the method of amendments do not all offer the same provision, but they umite in insisting upon one that after a suitable period of time removes the veto from future amendments to the International Charter.

We send this request to you, asking that you put it before the delegations of the permanent members of the Security Council. Very respectfully,

MABEL VERNON, Director. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Miss Elizabeth A. Smart.



The CHAIRMAN. You represent the Woman's Christian Temperance Union; is that correct?

Miss SMART. I represent the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Mr. name is Miss Elizabeth A. Smart. My address is 100 Maryland Avenue, NE., Washington, D. C.

I am here today, gentlemen, to speak not for myself but for women who in the cities, towns, and hamlets and even the crossroads of our great Nation comprise the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union-an organization which for the 71 years of its existence has been fighting to rid the world of the curse of war, as well as the curse of alcohol.

My organization in its world WCTU reaches with Frances Willard across the barriers of the Golden Gate in her historic words: “We are one world of tempted humanity," and embraces women of every faith,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »