From the same source we read:

Words must have no relation to actions-otherwise, what kind of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are "mask for concealment of bad deeds."

Within the past 6 months Political Affairs, the official organ of the Communist conspiracy in this country (June 1959, p. 24) reaffirmed the Communist's belief in the Marxist doctrine.

Marxist-Leninist guide must be firm.

The announced pattern has not changed. Any American citizen who does not know that the Soviet Government is dedicated to the conquest of the world and is confident of achieving that conquest is either a knave or a fool.

It takes more than a naive person to suggest that the representatives of the Soviets now will not break their solemnly pledged word to exercise their judicial powers impartially and conscientiously merely because their puppet sits on an international court.

EXAMPLE SET BY THE UNITED STATES

Conscientious men always have striven for peace, justice, and freedom. Within the limitations of human frailties to achieve this end, coalitions of peoples historically have been formed. The most successful of these is the union of American Colonies into our great United States.

We have succeeded brilliantly because we started out on firm ground, guided by right precepts. In like fashion the nations of the world will succeed ultimately. But they will succeed only when and if they build their freedoms on substance and not shadow; on actions not words.

Let us not be carried away prematurely by our yearnings for freedom and justice for all only to find ourselves crushed down by our own creation, the World Court.

The principles upon which our Constitution is based, are clearly set forth for all to see. It is obvious in thousands of ways that the other nations want a share of the fruits of its success. Those who do, have the example of a pattern clearly set forth for them to follow. And the United States stands ready to help other countries to achieve a similar goal. Surely it is folly to argue as proponents of Senate Resolution 94 must do, that for the betterment of the world we should descend to the international level and submit ourselves to a globally acceptable body of arbitrary court decisions by offering our hard-won Constitution on a sacrificial altar doomed to useless sacrifice. And rest assured, that is precisely what will happen if our lawmakers fail to remember that he who sups with the devil needs a mighty long

spoon.

HAS THE INTERNATIONAL COURT FAILED TO DISPENSE JUSTICE?

Senator GREEN. Thank you very much.

I have a question. You speak of the International Court as though in your opinion it has ceased to function in the manner in which we hoped it would function; is that it?

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. Well, the International Court is predicated upon the assumption that it will dispense justice. But an organization comprised of people who do not appreciate, comprehend or understand that word cannot in fact dispense justice. So should we extend its area of activity from the international field of treaties and so forth into deciding what constitutes a domestic or international matter, we have given it large grounds within which to roam.

Senator GREEN. I still fail to understand whether you think that it has failed and is not worthy of our support, or whether you think that it is worthwhile trying to get support for it?

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. As it is presently constituted, it is not worth endeavoring to expand.

Senator GREEN. Could it be better constituted to meet your objections?

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. Yes, it could be better constituted, but only if one takes into consideration that it can only be composed of those people who have beliefs in rights and justices which are comparable to

our own.

Until that time comes, Senator, you will never have a Court of Justice.

Senator GREEN. As a result of that opinion, you think there is no use submitting anything to the Court unless the people who submitted it agree as to what its solution should be? There would be no use in submitting it then.

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. No, I simply say they should agree on the concepts of justice; if all do not agree, then you cannot have any valid conclusions.

There are valid grounds of differentiation and differences naturally even among those who believe in justice, but where you draw an individual in who does not believe in justice, then you cannot have a conclusion from that individual which is valid.

Senator GREEN. Then you state that the grounds on which you oppose the Senate resolution are that the Statute is an international court itself?

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. Yes, sir.

Senator GREEN. Do you think it could be rewritten to avoid that criticism?

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. I certainly do.

Senator GREEN. Don't you want to try your hand at it?

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. I don't think it could have been much worsely done than it is presently constituted, because you have a qualification set up for justices who must sit on that Court, whose qualifications are decided by his own country. Now I submit to you, that if a Russian qualifies as a jurist on the International Court, I would ask you the question, Whose justice will he administer? He is incapable by the mere fact of his being a Communist of dispensing impartial and conscientious justice.

Senator GREEN. I think that we would be very glad to have your views as to how it could be reconstituted to meet your objections and still be worth while.

Thank you very much.

Senator CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask this. Years ago I had the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives with Judge Goldsborough. Is this the same family?

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. Yes, sir; from Maryland. Thank you, Senator. Senator GREEN. The next witness is Karl O. Spiess, Sr., president of the Homeowners Federation of Arlington, Va.

STATEMENT OF KARL 0. SPIESS, SR., PRESIDENT, HOMEOWNERS FEDERATION OF ARLINGTON, VA.

Mr. SPIESS. First of all, I would like to express our appreciation to the committee for extending these hearings. We were quite surprised when we learned they were only going to be for one day so therefore we are most appreciative to have the opportunity to testify.

THE NATION'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Our Government has become a large and complicated structure which requires more attention from the Chief Executive-not less. Each time the Chief Executive absents himself from the duties and responsibilities delegated to him by the Constitution, said functions perforce are handled by some subordinate, possibly an appointee rather than an elected official. The creation of the United Nations at San Francisco is a perfect example, with Alger Hiss "carrying the ball," and as past history proves, this action has intensified our foreign and domestic problems. It is hoped that this committee will well consider the background of the preparations for the meeting at San Francisco.

George Washington's admonition about refraining from participating in foreign intrigue was absent from the mind of the chief architect of the U.N. Charter, and those with whom he collaborated, as was the Monroe Doctrine.

This doctrine has been respected by foreign nations from 1823 to the present time. Successful arbitration has resulted during that time without a world court between a number of European countries, including Russia and Japan. Incidentally the stature of this country was greatly respected during the year 1902 when President Teddy Roosevelt agreed with the Drago doctrine, which was incorporated into the Hague Conventions in 1907.

It is appropriate at this time to repeat from an article published in the Whig at Palmyra, Mo., on December 30, 1847, under the name "Cin-Atlas":

Aye, stand by the country. A noble sentiment always stimulating the heart of the patriot. But, what is standing by the country? Is it to assert the infallibility of the Executive and to require the passive obedience of the people? Is the President the country? Are his measures never to be canvassed, except for approval? Is the freedom of thought and speech limited to the applause of his acts, while the right to condemn is denied? Stand by the country, say we. Stand by it in glory and gloom. Stand by it whether the President is right or wrong. When the President is right sustain him and the country; when he is wrong restrain him and thus stand by the country. It is as much the duty of true patriotism to oppose the President when he is wrong as it is to sustain the cause of the country when right. That is the truest test of patriotism. It requires no moral courage to stand by the country when she is right; but it is proof of moral heroism to resist the Executive in doing wrong. Is not this the duty of a Republican patriot? The doctrine that we must stand by the President right or wrong, is only taught by tyrants and only submitted to by slaves. Free men will stand by their country, whether assailed by foreign or domestic enemies, the latter of whom, as being more dangerous, are more to be feared than the former.

NATIONALISM VERSUS INTERNATIONALISM

An odd phenomenom is astray in our land today, one hard for true Americans to understand. While other nations the world over are with vehemence expressing a violent nationalism, we have in our midst intellectuals and prominent would-be "molders of opinion" in the field of government and sociology who insist that we are living in an international world climate. Our educational systems have been infiltrated with such "intellectuals" preaching a one world philosophy, deriding the free enterprise system and promoting a one world goal.

All around us we see proof of nationalism. It is certainly evident in Russia (and Khrushchev was given the opportunity on a silver platter to bring it to our very hearts); in France, DeGaulle; in Indonesia, Sukarno; in all of Africa, nationalist leaders; in Germany, Adenauer; and on our very doorstep, Castro, not to speak of the leaders in Venezuela and Argentina.

None of these groups are working to make for internationalism. Internationalism, togetherness, brotherhood, would appear to be the bellwether of the intellectual fuzzyheads, dreamers of a Marxian Fabian socialism in the guise of internationalism.

These "pie in the sky" theorists believe nationalism to be one of those shibboleths with which to denounce proponents of compliance with the Constitution. It is used by one world idealists in a derogatory way to damn the sentiment of national integrity and pride, as the cause of war, and a public enemy of brotherhood and coexistence. Group dynamics as practiced by many liberal groups today results in the kind of thinking expounded by the National Council for the Social Studies, an interlocking adjunct of the National Educational Association, which results in such instructions to teachers of the youngsters of today for conditioning them for the one world takeover of the United States as follows (17th yearbook), page 202:

** (2) American history should primarily concern itself with the social and scientific achievements. *** A quite common notion inculcated in American history classes is that all important inventions, especially in the fields of electricity, gasoline motors and radio are of American origin. Unless we are laboring for a blatantly uncritical nationalism, such indoctrination in error has little to commend it. Moreover, a listing of inventors and inventions (Eli Whitney, Elias Howe, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, etc.) has about as much merit as the similar approach to authors and books.

Page 126:

*** Most notable has been the impartial series of studies instituted by the Carnegie Corp. such as Gunnar Myrdal's "American Dilemma" (1944) and M. J. Herskovits' "Myth of the Negro" (1941). Herskovits, an anthropologist with historical interests, has attacked the idea that the African came to this country culturally naked and stresses the persistence of the African cultural heritage and its influence on American speech, music, religion, and social organization. Informed professional groups concur that reasoned patriotism should be the goal in the teaching of American history. For example, on the eve of the Second World War when certain misguided lay groups, including the American Legion and the National Association of Manufacturers, became responsible for the current wave of hostility toward some textbooks in the schools, the American Historical Association declared, "No wonder loyal Americans are ridiculed, 'smeared' with such names as 'superpatriot' in tones of derision and as extremists, in the same vein."

This is the sort of climate which the internationalists are trying to foster, the better to enable them to hoodwink carefree, trusting peoples.

With this wave of togetherness and peaceful coexistence we are faced with the elimination of the Connally amendment, the only deterrent to the maintenance of that sovereignty which was cornerstoned by the founding statesmen of this great land. Such an action will result in an impairment of American sovereignty and will be the means of fruition for the one-worlders and internationalists in our midst.

FREEDOM FROM FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS

There appears to be no real advantage to the United States in belonging to the World Court since we will be greatly outnumbered in membership on said Court, which will include justices who have matured in an environment and judicial climate foreign to our own. It is only reasonable to assume that national ties and interests will outweigh, subconsciously, if not consciously, any matters before the Court.

The idea of accepting the jurisdiction of this Court is foreign to our accepted and acknowledged history of freedom from foreign entanglements. If the following international incidents were not amicably settled, it would indicate that the will to peaceful coexistence is nonexistent and no court, world or otherwise, will change the temper: The Triple Alliance of 1882 (Germany-Italy-Austria-Hungary); 1904 (Entente Between France and England); Anglo-American understanding, 1898; Nine Power Treaty of February 6, 1922 (arms limitation); Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, August 27, 1928; Chinese Eastern Railway feud with Russia; and the Japanese-Chinese fiasco; the Italian-Ethiopian difficulty; World War II, and, finally, the Korean "police action."

Article 43 of the United Nations Charter states that all member governments undertake to make available to the Security Council "armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage." and that the Security Council may use these armed forces to

'take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

It is not hard to see how this might be interpreted by judges who had been appointed to this World Court by powers favorable to a oneworld coexistence, togetherness philosophy. Of course the orders of this Court could be enforced.

Are you gentlemen aware of the training of the men in the military government reserve units in 1951? Yes, we did see it here. On July 31, 1951, a simulated invasion was perfected. Nine California cities, Compton, Culver City, Inglewood, Hawthorne, Huntington Park, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, South Gate, and Torrence were invaded by "forces" carrying the United Nations flag, if you please, and their officers informed the city officials that they represented the United Nations. The mayors and police chiefs were arrested and later their pictures appeared in the newspapers behind bars. Manifestos were issued, reading, "By virtue of the authority vested in me by the United Nations Security Council." At Huntington Park they had a flag-raising ceremony where the American flag was replaced with the United Nations flag.

On April 3, 1952, other units did the same thing at Lampasas, Tex. They took over the town, closed churches, strutted their authority

51053-60--16