Изображения страниц

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Lodge.

Mr. LODGE. I want to extend greetings to my friend from California, and say

I was very much interested in his statement. Mrs. BOLTON. I would like to join in that. Mr. JOHNSON. May I revise my remarks? Mrs. BOLTON. Yes, indeed. The next witness will be Mr. Chadwick, our colleague from Pennsylvania.




Mr. CHADWICK. It is a great privilege to appear before your committee this morning, if only to give evidence of the deep and sincere feeling I have toward the problems before you, and express my great respect for your committee.

It might be interesting to tell you how I responded some months ago to an inquiry addressed to me by the League of Women Voters at a time when we were engaged in a primary campaign. I will say in passing that the League of Women Voters in our district makes à great contribution to our civic life. They have an intelligent and nonpartisan approach.

They suggested to me this question [reading]: Will you suggest ways the United States can contribute to strengthening the United Nations?

My reply to that was: Primarily by its citizens keeping alive in their hearts the hope that this effort at international collaboration can and will succeed; by more overt evidences that the administration shares such confidences and an intention to cooperate wherever opportunity offers ; by a hardening conviction that this plan must become more of a Federation of Nations; and by some method of restricting or eliminating the veto power.

That brief statement contains most of my basic thoughts on this question.

However, I am reminded as I sit here today that my experience has been somewhat long. I remember the enthusiasm with which I shared the questions which were proposed to us with respect to the League of Nations, and my complete conviction at that time that the security of America, and all that we hold most precious, was in some way bound up with at least reservations against the purposes of the League of Nations. My feeling at that time was very sincere, and one of the principal psychological lessons of my life was to discover within 15 years that I had been completely wrong in that; that President Wilson had been, so far as it was possible for a human statesman to approach a question, fundamentally right; that the opportunity to have avoided the Second World War was there presented to us, and we turned aside from it. I was no enthusiast for President Wilson. I am a somewhat practicing Republican. However, I learn by my own mistakes.

When the proposal of the United Nations was made, I was reasonably well disposed to it. I thought that too many words were used in its composition and organization; because it is my observation that "the letter killeth, the Spirit maketh to live." I believe that the United Nations is the only machinery now hopefully offered to solve this

us over.

problem. I tremble to see how shaky it is now, and how ineffective it is in solving these problems; but we have no other bridge to carry

The particular resolutions that have been proposed to you, it seems to me, comprise just the beginning of the thinking on the subject, and I share Mr. Johnson's view that we must look to you for something that will be constructive in the formation of opinion of the House of Representatives, in the first place, in the Congress, in the second place, and the Nation, in the third place. There is probably nothing That begins to measure in importance with this particular problem. We can make our economic errors and recover from them. We can make our political errors, and recover from them, but I fear the world will not stand another great mistake in international problems, because it seems to me that the Dark Ages are again just around the corner, and it pays for us all to give primary attention to this problem.

I wanted to add that I have observed the work of this committee during my time in Congress, and I think that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives is to be greatly congratulated on the success of their approaches.

I noticed that you decided to package foreign aid in one great package, and I thought you were wrong. I was able to observe within a few short weeks that you were exactly and monumentally right. It not only saved the time of the Nation and the Congress, but it made it possible to achieve a great contribution to the affairs of the world. As I learn mostly from my own mistakes, I feel that I ought to say that, about the decisions of this committee.

I w just add one thing that was suggested by the inquiry which was presented to the last speaker and suggested in part by what I tried to say to the voters in my district. It is my observation, for whatever it is worth—for heavens knows I cannot claim to be an expert witness on what Congress should or should not do, when I look back over the affairs of the last 2 weeks—but I am in agreement with my friend Clifford Case, of New Jersey, that a very great part of our responsibility is best served at home. The things we say and do down here are no doubt part of our duty and are no doubt tremendously important. However, I observe that in my county there was no great resistance to the idea that we would make a generous implementation of the foreign aid. I do not claim to have accomplished that, except that from the time we began at the last session, I took a strong position in that field with respect to all the bills that were presented. I reported to my people what I was doing, what I proposed to do, why I thought it was desirable to do it; and I am sure that an untimely fate that overtook me a few days ago was in no way due to the fact that I

very frankly told the people what they should think on this subject rather than waiting for them to send me postal cards to guide me in what I should think.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chadwick, we deeply appreciate your coming to us, and I am particularly happy to have an opportunity to thank you in the name of the committee for your very stimulating, challenging, helpful attitude and talented words. We so often have the other kind of statement, that it is a very happy moment when one of your stature expresses confidence in the committee's judgment.

Thank you very much.
Are there any questions?

Mr. Judd. I would like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the remarks of the chairman, and to say that while I do not know who your successor is, he will have to be a mighty good man to win so important a place and achieve as much influence in the Congress in 2 years as you have. We are sorry to lose you; you can be sure of that.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Lodge. Mr. LODGE. I would like to say that it is a matter of very deep personal regret to me that such a learned successful and high-minded public servant as yourself will not be in this body next year. I think you have made a very distinguished contribution to the deliberations of this Congress.

Mr. CHADWICK. Thank you, Mr. Lodge. Mrs. Bolton. Thank you again, Mr. Chadwick. The next witness will be Mr. Ġwinn, a colleague from the State of New York.



Mr. GWINN. My name is Ralph W. Gwinn, Twenty-seventh District, New York.

I appear for Resolution 167 and have submitted myself a concurrent resolution of the same character.

Madam Chairman, I would like to bring to the committee a little history of the metropolitan police of the city of New York and the experience of that organization. It may have a parallel bearing upon the present organization of an international police.

Less than 100 years ago New York City was divided into separate wards. There were good wards, and there were very tough wards. Each ward was self-sufficient. It had its own police force, its own marshals, its own judges. The police and the marshals from one ward could not go to the other ward. They could not even go across the line to chase a criminal. Lawlessness developed. Raids came out of the bad wards. Men with guns and bombs and mobs of people attacked the law-abiding wards.

Finally, the metropolitan police force, which now consists of 18,000 police, were inaugurated for the city as a whole. Ammunition was destroyed in the wards finally. Guns and all manner of instruments for carrying on violence were taken away. Only those who showed a reason for having a gun could be licensed to carry a gun. Order quite generally prevailed. No mass movements of lawless men now ever appear on the

scene; their mass movements of instruments of attack, such as bombs and guns, no longer appear.

Now, it seems to me that that same situation faces us in the world. We must limit the carrying of bombs or guns or bacteria, or other instruments for mass destruction. They must be cleaned up.

Such manufacturing centers or such harboring centers must not even be allowed to accumulate or get started. If they are started they must be destroyed.

It is not conceivable that we as reasonable people can go on one more day on the assumption that we must prepare for the defense or the waging of a traditional type of war. We have not even started to bear the agony and pay the cost of this Second World War. We are still in the perfectly childlike attitude that somehow or other wars create prosperity. We are enjoying a kind of artificial price prosperity that still deceives us and makes us labor under a false illusion. To contemplate, therefore, a third world war is utterly mad. The distressing thing about our deliberations in the United Nations and in our Halls of Congress and in our press seems to indicate that we are proceeding along traditional lines. We must proceed, of course, to do whatever we have to do, waiting upon a better course, or waiting upon the organization of those forces on which we may rely, such as this resolution proposes; namely, an international police that will enable us to rest at night, as the New York metropolitan police enables us to sleep at night, to assure us that no lawless ward will attack the other wards during the night.

Now, this will not necessarily interfere with all of the satellite departments or functions of the United Nations. It will make the one department, which is the international police department, function. That department of the United Nations has been dwarfed and sloughed off up to the present. This is an effort to bring it into being. All of the nations are invited to come into the international police department of the United Nations, if they will. If any will not, as some even now fail to cooperate very willingly or effectively in international trade, in labor organizations, in the food organizations, and in other departments of the world, but this one most important department must not be delayed any longer. For us to sit by another day, while behind the iron curtain the jet planes-maybe seven or eight different varieties—are actually being produced in quantity, seems to be the worst kind of foolishness as well as appeasement.

Now, the international police force will not interfere with any nation, except in the matter of inspection, and in necessary legal steps for the destruction of the mass manufacture or accumulation of instruments for aggressive mass destruction of people. I suppose if they want to fight among themselves with fists and their own revolversand they have plenty of internal troubles of their own—the international police could not be called upon. But whenever there is evidence that they are manufacturing such instruments as must be intended for mass aggressive warfare against other nations, then the international police would function.

Now, in one sense this international police is more solidly conceived than the metropolitan police of the great city of New York. There the police are recruited from all areas, of course. There they did have in many places set-ups for law and order. In the world. however, there is no set-up of any police having to do with inter national policing matters. In New York the police are drawn from. all ranks and all segments of the city.

There is a unique suggestion in this resolution to avoid the sus picion of the two great nations, organizing a police to be used fo their advantage, or for the disadvantage of others. This resolution contemplates the recruiting of high-class police from the very cream of the crop of Europe, the little nations, such as Holland, Belgium


Thank you.

the Norwegian countries, Switzerland, South America, and from all nations where there is no conceivable entertainment of ambitions for conquest of the world. These people have a sole desire for peace and coordination in a world whose existence depends upon it. There would be no police drawn from the United States or Russia.

That concludes my statement.
Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much for appearing before us.
Are there any questions?

Mr. Judd. Thank you very much for coming before us and making this statement on the practical issues of bringing peace to the world with a police force under public control and not under any private agency able to use it unilaterally and arbitrarily for its private ends.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Lodge.

Mr. LODGE. I will say I always listen with great interest to the remarks of my colleague from New York, and he has made some illuminating remarks on this subject. Thank you.

Mr. Gwinn. I appreciate that particularly, because the gentleman and I look over each other's lines, and we must be friendly to each other. Thank you.

Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Judd.

Mr. Judd. Madam Chairman, I would like permission to make a short statement here because I had to leave yesterday before Senator Austin completed his testimony and had no opportunity to question him.

I think it ought to be said for the record that a great deal of the testimony we heard yesterday morning from Secretary Marshall and yesterday afternoon from Mr. Austin was directed at a strawman. They attacked proposals which so far as I know no one has made. I say this because I am one of the persons who introduced these resolutions after working on the question for many months. It was portrayed that these resolutions would threaten or would destroy the United Nations; even that their purpose was to wreck the United Nations. I can give categorical assurance that that is not their purpose. The exact opopsite is their purpose, and they say so plainly. We see that the United Nations is already being destroyed. Every thoughtful American sees the steady deterioration in certain crucial fields. We see the growing lack of confidence in it, which has been referred to earlier, confidence on the part of our own people. We see that many people abroad have already written it off as an effective agency. To allow things to drift along is to assure its failure.

It is primarily to prevent the destruction of the United Nations and of mankind's hope for world organization for order and peace that we are trying to do whatever proves to be the most reasonable thing, or to adopt whatever is the most reasonable procedure, the one that gives the greatest hope of success, after examining what are the reasons for failures in those areas where there are failures, and trying to correct them.

When a patient is slowly dying of cancer of the lung or of heart failure it does not answer the problem to say that he is all right in his eyes, ears, stomach, legs, and all other parts. Many a patient is 98 percent all right, and still dies from the 2 percent that is wrong.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »