study that, and we will report to you later. We will be glad to have your views. Come up and give them to us, but we are not trying to make a blueprint at this time."

Chairman BLOOм. Can you put both in there-"United and other sovereign nations"?

Mr. VORYS. Then you get, for instance, on those willing to join-if Germany says the day after peace is declared, "We are willing to join," and we say, "Wait, we think you ought to be on probation a while," and then somebody says, "Why, you passed this thing; you were going to take in anybody willing to join"-I don't know the answer to that one, and I certainly don't want to try and figure it out between now and 12 o'clock.

TO AVOID FLOOR AMENDMENTS

Mr. FULBRIGHT. In any case it would leave it open for possible amendments on the floor, which I understood was the thing we want to avoid.

Chairman BLOOM. That is the idea, Mr. Fulbright.

Mr. JONKMAN. I would like to see one constructive step in the resolution. This is the logical one you just can't get away from; you cannot be wrong on it. You have one constructive step.

Mr. KEE. I don't think you can get it any briefer.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is the idea. Establish a principle: willingness to participate; one constructive step-you can't go wrong. You can't go wrong on "United Nations."

Mr. KEE. That is the way it will be satisfactory to you, Mr. Vorys? Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Schiffler.

ARGUMENT FOR HOUSE RESOLUTION 200

Mr. SCHIFFLER. This isn't anything other than a trial balloon. The more simple language and the more direct expression, the better the chance of having it pass the House without any question. If you begin to elaborate upon the language and the terms or add to it, I am afraid that you are going to encounter difficulty and open it up and make it vulnerable to attack.

If I were to favor passage of this legislation, I think I would retract in a measure what I said last Tuesday, and that would be to go back to House Resolution 200, which says nothing other than "favoring the creation of appropriate international machinery*** to prevent future aggression and maintain lasting peace and as favoring participation by the United States therein." I think that was a better resolution to send out, because I think it has to require future legislation if we are going to act as a policymaking branch of government to set up the machinery and to direct the Executive as to what it might do, and as to the form or type of machinery, and as to how far we may want to go in carrying out the objectives of either House Concurrent Resolution 24 or House Resolution 200. If this is going to be reported out unanimously, I would favor it, and I think that is the desire of the Chairman, and the State Department has already passed upon this House Resolution 200 by saying it is in accord with the principle therein stated.

IMPLICATIONS OF "LAW AND ORDER"

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Don't the words "law and order" imply some other legislation we may have to pass to carry out or enforce law and order, and without this in there we would not have that question raised. In other words, to maintain law and order is another step.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. That is right-and requires possibly armies of occupation and other things, and the implications that might come from the use of those words may result in a substantial vote against the resolution. Therefore, I think the simple declaration that we do favor the creation of machinery and that we as a nation participate would be sufficient at this time.

Mr. KEE. Wouldn't "establish" be a better word? Or wouldn't "secure" be a better word?

Mr. VORYS. You use "secure." Either one--I like that idea you had in yours. We do not have "order" now "to maintain."

Chairman BLOOм. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. The words "law and order" carry with them the connotation of greater participation and of a greater police force than that just to maintain peace, and I agree that that opens up a new field or possibility of amendment, and I think it would be stronger for our purposes with this stricken out-because of the connotation of those words.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. I also expressed the thought, this is "weak"; that the executive department would be reluctant to express themselves upon this subject. I have no direct knowledge, but I suspect the Prime Minister [Churchill] and the President have discussed this subject. I think that is indicated by the statement of the Prime Minister before the joint committee meeting over at the Senate and I believe so far as this committee should go at this time would possibly be to offer House Resolution 200 to the House and then recess and let the country think about it.

Chairman BLOOM. When you say "offer," do you mean to pass it in the House?

Mr. SCHIFFLER. No.

Chairman BLOOM. Just offer it?

Mr. SCHIFFLER. Report it to the House.

Chairman BLOOM. You have it there now. You have the resolution. Mr. SCHIFFLER. Yes, we have the resolution and we have the letter from the State Department dated the 9th [13th] of April, I think.

ADDITIONAL STATE DEPARTMENT ENDORSEMENT WOULD HELP

Chairman BLOOM. I will say this to Mr. Schiffler-that if the State Department does not send in a negative report or does not want to report, I will see they give us some kind of letter that the committee

7 Minutes of Prime Minister Churchill's private briefing session with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs are not available. but see Mr. Churchill's summary of the views he expressed on postwar international organization during his visit to Washington in May 1943 as recalled in his Second World War, vol. IV: The Hinge of Fate (Boston, 1958), pp. 802-07.

can put in the report, but I do not think we can put that letter in a report at this time.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. They indicate they were favorable to the principle, or in accord with the principle, set forth in House Resolution 200.

Chairman BLOOM. But the committee has nothing before it. I want to get something we can put in our report. If we put it out, and this has been referred to the State Department, and they say, "So and so and so and so," that will make the report a great deal stronger than if you do not have it.

Mr. SCHIFFLER, That is true. They merely make the statement with the license to publish as they made it in the original letter to Mr. Fulbright—that they are in accord with the principle set forth in the resolution. That is sufficient.

STRAW VOTE NOW?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I wonder if it would be out of order to have a show of hands on the preference between-what was it?-House Resolution 200 and House Concurrent Resolution 24. Personally I prefer the original resolution of House Resolution 200. There seems to be some expression along the same lines.

Chairman BLOOM. Well, the Chair would like to state in that respect-if you are going to have a showing of hands on that I would include in that, whether it is to be a concurrent resolution or a joint resolution, because the other was just a House resolution. No. 200 was a House resolution. Now I would have a vote on whether it is to be a concurrent or joint resolution or a House resolution. I think it is rather important at this time, before we decide what we are going to do-to put into the resolution it self.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. Wouldn't that be a matter for the State Department to advise us about?

Chairman BLOOM. No, no, that is for this committee.

MR. VORYS MOVES AMENDED FORM OF PROPOSED KEE VERSION OF

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 24

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee approve a tentative draft for a resolution to read as follows. What I propose to read is the Kee form of the Fulbright resolution, the later one, House Concurrent Resolution 24,8 which happens to suit my fancy, and then by proceeding to an informal vote on that and various parts of it, we can get down here fairly promptly to what we have in mind. That the Congress of the United States

I am reading from Judge Kee's [proposal]:

That the Congress of the United States expresses itself as favoring the participation of the United States in the creation of appropriate international machinery with adequate power to establish and maintain law, order and lasting peace among the nations of the world.

Now, to explain what my suggestion does, so that amendments can be offered to bring them up and get a showing of hands on it-I have

Mr. Kee's amended version of H. Con. Res. 24 was proposed earlier in this hearing, see

p. 59.

left out the words in Judge Kee's draft, "through concerted action of the United Nations and other nations willing to join therein." I have also left out this phrase, "to prevent future aggression," and I have inserted before the word "maintain" the words "establish and""establish and maintain". Just briefly, because I have taken too much time-you all know we have discussed the reason why we might leave out the reference to the exact group of nations and [instead] attempt to describe the [general] group of nations we are referring to.

TO MAINTAIN PEACE OR STATUS QUO?

9

Now, the second amendment is to leave out "to prevent future aggression and." If Jim Shanley were here he would bring up a lot of history that Secretary Hull and others have described, and that is the attempt in the past 7 years to determine aggressors, and he would bring up the fact that Germany and Japan-who, I think, are signatories themselves to the Kellogg Treaty 10-all they are doing now is preventing future aggression; and the Chicago Tribune or some international lawyer might say, "Why, if you are saying and putting in there to prevent future aggression,' that means you are not only going to police the world, but you are going to maintain the status quo"[resisting] anybody who tries to change the present order. Now, if we have in the words "lasting peace" and "establish and maintain lasting peace" those are words that in international law and in popular parlance are thoroughly understood. Therefore, I would suggest this form. Now, inserting the word "establish" before "maintain" is [suggested] because it is a little naive, it seems to me, to talk about maintaining law among the nations of the world when there is not any in effect now and to maintain order which does not exist and, therefore-that is, to go back to a suggestion I made based on Judge Kee's own resolution, House Joint Resolution 70, to put in this machinery later, which is to be "appropriate" and "with adequate power" to establish "law, order and lasting peace." 11 That is my purpose in the motion. You can declare it out of order or somebody offer a substitute.

AMENDMENT OFFERED TO MR. VORYS' MOTION

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I would like to offer an amendment to your motion to strike out the words "law, order, and" so that the motion. would read, "to establish and maintain lasting peace."

Mr. BURGIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. BURGIN. Is that because you object to using force in setting up international order?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I think it involves a situation that is not necessary for the purpose of this resolution. I think it will cause debate on the

• Congressman James A. Shanley (New Hampshire) served in the House of Representatives 1935-42 and was a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. A supporter of President Roosevelt's New Deal in domestic policy, Mr. Shanley was nonetheless independent in foreign policy.

io The Kellogg-Briand Pact signed at Paris on Aug. 27, 1928, pledged its signatories to renounce aggressive war but it did not provide for sanctions.

11 See Mr. Vory's earlier comments in this hearing which appear on pp. 58-60.

floor: What do you mean by it? What kind of law are you going to establish? What kind of order are you going to establish?

Mr. BURGIN. We are not going to get away from that debate. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I think it would help to take those words out, so it would simply read "to establish and maintain lasting peace." That is what we want.

Mr. RICHARDS. Your contention is that statement presupposes you will have law and order?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Certainly. And later on maybe require legislation on the part of this committee and of Congress to establish a certain order or certain law in certain countries, but I do not think we need to go into that now-and those words were left out of the original Fulbright resolution.

HOUSE, CONCURRENT, OR JOINT RESOLUTION?

Mr. SCHIFFLER. May I inquire whether the Kee resolution is joint or concurrent?

Chairman BLOOM. I was going to ask that question. Mr. Vorys says "the Congress." I was going to ask him what he meant by that. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Couldn't we state first whether it should be joint or concurrent?

Chairman BLOOM. That is what I am trying to do. I just proposed the question. I mentioned it before.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. After that has been determined I wish to offer a substitute.

Chairman BLOOM. Will the committee kindly come to order. Following the suggestion of the Chair and also of Mr. Fulbright, could not the committee decide whether we are going to make a concurrent resolution, a House resolution, or a joint resolution, because Mr. Vorys said "the Congress." Of course "the Congress" means both the Senate and the House. What is the suggestion? I would like to have someone put that motion. The Chair would like to find out whether it is the sense of the committee that we ought to have it a joint resolution or simply a House resolution.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move we have a concurrent resolution that it take the form of a concurrent resolution. Chairman BLOOM. Is there any amendment to that-by a joint resolution?

Mr. VORYS. I was hoping Judge Kee was going to move to make it joint.

Chairman BLOOM. I just want to know. Then we will vote on the joint resolution and then go into the concurrent.

Mr. RICHARDS. I just want to know what the advantage is? Chairman BLOOM. The concurrent resolution, I believe, does not have to be signed by the President; the joint resolution has to be signed.

Mr. RICHARDS. What about a simple House resolution-what we were talking about. We are going to run right up against the Senate. They are confused on this thing.

Chairman BLOOм. If you are going to do that, you will be doing just what the Senate has been doing. The House has been objecting