« ПретходнаНастави »
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
And then, when they came out, when they finally did produce the Articles of Confederation, it was too weak. I won't say it was as weak as the Charter of the United Nations, because the Charter of the United Nations holds forth much more for the world than the Articles of Confederation did hold for the 13 nations or Thirteen Colonies. But no sooner, when the war was over, and the patriotic period had passed and the desire for independence had petered out, that these conflicts sharpened. And then every leader, every political leader and leaders who were not in the political world, began to recognize that something had to happen in order that they could hold this Nation together, this country together. And I want to point out that, while there were dangers-in fact, Washington, of course, was so fearful of disunity and expressed himself very positively, because during the war he was commander-In-Chief not of one army but of 13 separate armies. And all during the war, during the Revolutionary War, his correspondence is full of pleas for clothing, for money, for help, for arms. There was no unity among the 13 nations in the era of the Revolution.
Now, of course, when we look back with the hindsight of 200 years, it seems to us as though it was nothing; everybody was a member of one family, and these differences were minor. They were not minor; they were just as great to the people then as these differences appear to nations today.
In my paper, I have cited various quotes from political leaders of the times concerning these differences, but I want to mention one item which is of interest which is the idea that this common language held everybody together. Well, you know it is interesting—there was a common language, of course—but if you wanted to do business in New York, you had to speak Dutch. You could get along without English. And you know that in Pennsylvania, there were responsible leaders who thought German ought to be the official language of Pennsylvania. And there were many parts of the colonies where Spanish and French were common languages.
Now that it is not to belittle the fact that English was the overriding language, but that did not hold these 13 colonies into any unified organization.
Incidentally, there were various acts after the war was over by these separate colonies antagonistic to each other-setting up customs against other States, refusal to recognize the money issued by some of the States. What you had, really, was a kind of-up until the adoption of the Constitution—you had a kind of Government which was run somewhat on a gentleman's agreement, and somehow or another they felt that this ought to do and it so continued in some manner. But it had to be changed and of course, it was changed.
By 1787, the Congress, then still meeting in New York, did provide for the creation of a special meeting that we now refer to as the Constitutional Convention, which adopted the Constitution. And one of the main issues before that Convention was an issue which is here today, the one State, one vote rule.
Obviously the big States wanted representational vote; the small States wanted the one State, one vote rule. One State, one vote rule had been the rule prior to the Revolution and during the Revolution under the Articles of Confederation. They finally adopted what now, as we look back over these many decades, seems so simple, and that is, the great compromise, which saved the Constitutional Convention; it might have fallen flat except for this, which was the compromise that provided for the one State, one vote rule in the Senate and the representational vote in the House. I do not take the time here
to suggest the various ways in which voting can be weighed in the General Assembly in the United Nations, but obviously there are various ways in which this could be improved. There could be certain standards and certain things on which the one State, one vote rule applied and other ways in which there would have to be other ways weighted voting could be applied.
Finally, the Constitution was adopted in September of 1787 and then submitted to the 13 States—Incidentally, it is interesting to note too that only 12 States voted for the Constitution; Rhode Island did not even attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, again indicating the differences that existed between the States.
Senator PELL. If I may comment there, it is a habit of independence that we have long had. We did not ratify the Volstead amendment either.
And as long as I have interrupted—I cannot stay-but I would like to present my particular respects to Bucky Fuller; I have read this testimony, and I think it is fabulous.
Mr. BITKER. Coming from Milwaukee where you know what we make, I am glad to hear there is one State that voted against the Volstead amendment.
Senator HUMPHREY. May I say as an appendage to what has been said by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, it is still independent, and the Senator represents a sense of idealism and purity of purpose which we commend.
Mr. BITKER. I simply indicate that you did not have 13 members of a happy family in the era of the Revolution, any more than you
have 130 happy members of the world community today, although they are all members of the human family.
It is also interesting how the vote took place. When the Constitution was submitted to the State conventions for ratification, nine States were to ratify, and when nine States had ratified, the Constitution came into force. Well, many months after September 1787, the nine States had finally ratified, and New Hampshire was the ninth. But two important States had not, New York and Virginia.
Now this is particularly interesting because Virginia was almost the moving force in the Constitutional Convention, the famous Virginia Plan. And you could not have a United States, even though nine States had already ratified, you simply could not have a United States of America without New York and Virginia in it. They were just too important in the whole scheme of things in those years. Incidentally, the vote in New York-ratification carried by three votes. Just imagine how close this is. Even in Virginia and New Hampshire, the vote was carried by a majority of only 10 in the State conventions.
And I am sure Senator Pell is aware of the fact that, in Rhode
Island, which did not ratify until a year after the Constitution was in force and the new Government was going entity, and then it ratified by the slim majority of two votes.
All of this, I point out, is of historic interest, but it also points out again and emphasizes that there were sharp differences. And when you say, oh, it is nothing to think about the 13 colonies being brought together in one entity, if you try to compare it with the world today, that simply was not true. There were these conflicts and these conflicts just came right out in all these State conventions.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE'S RESOLUTION ON CHARTER CHANGES The hope that I would like to conclude with and express to this group here—there are two things I would like to do, incidentally. One of the organizations with which I am affiliated is the Governor's Commission on the United Nations, which is an official agency of the State of Wisconsin and which recently adopted, on May 1, a resolution supporting the so-called House Concurrent Resolution 206, which was introduced by Congressman Hungate and a number of other Congressmen, supporting and emphasizing and directing and requesting the President to direct the State Department to submit to the Congress, both this committee and the appropriate House committee, its proposals for changes in the United Nations Charter and its procedure by June 30. Well, frankly, I have no hopes of the State Department doing that except in the most general of terms.
But I want to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, file this resolution.
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN,
RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE GOVERNOR'S COMMIS
SION ON THE UNITED NATIONS, HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE, WIS., MAY 1, 1975
Whereas all human beings share the fragile environment of a “Spaceship Earth" where survival depends on the cooperation of all; and
Whereas the Charter of the United Nations has proven inadequate for its purpose “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war"; and
Whereas global problems such as hunger, pollution, overpopulation, resource depletion, ocean management, and arms control demand global solutions; and
Whereas the General Assembly of the U.N. on December 17, 1974 (over the opposition of the United States and the Soviet bloc) voted 82–15 to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and invited governments and the Secretary-General to submit their observations and views; and
Whereas Congressman Hungate of Missouri has proposed in House Concurrent Resolution 206 (04.08) that the State Department be asked to formulate proposals for the more effective functioning of th U.N. Charter and submit them to the appropriate House and Senate committees by June 30, 1975; and be it
Resolved, that the Governor's Commission on the United Nations of the State of Wisconsin, meeting in Milwaukee May 1, 1975: Believes that the United States should seriously consider suggestions for review of the United Nations Charter; and
Commends Congressman Hungate on his timely and forward looking resolution; and
Urges prompt action by the Congress and the executive departments to authorize and submit proposals for strengthening the Charter of the United Nations.
Mr. BITKER. I take it that House Concurrent Resolution 206 is already a matter of record here. But if it is not, I would like to file it with you so that it may be part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be done. [The material referred to follows:]
[H. Con. Res. 206, 94th Cong., 1st sess.) CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Whereas the United Nations General Assembly voted on
December 17, 1974, “to establish an ad hoc committee on the Charter of the United Nations, consisting of forty-two members to be appointed by the President of the General Assembly, and therein invites governments to submit or bring up to date their observations' on United Nations Charter review "if possible before May 31,
1975," and said committee has been directed to report its work to the thirtieth United Nations General Assembly (opening September 16, 1975): Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that
(1) The United States should continue in its historic role of providing world leadership in working for modernization and reform of the United Nations, and toward the establishment and preservation of a civilized family of nations in accordance with the highest aspirations of mankind.
(2) The President is hereby requested to direct the Department of State to formulate constructive and forward-looking United States proposals for the more effective functioning of the United Nations, through (a) changes in the Charter of the United Nations, and/or (b) procedural changes that may not require charter amendment, in order to promote a just and lasting peace through the development of the rule of law, including protection of
individual rights and liberties as well as the field of war prevention. The President is further requested to report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives before June 30, 1975, on the position of the United States and the proposals submitted or to be submitted in this regard.
STUDY OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION URGED
Mr. BITKER. I would like to conclude with this statement, Mr. Chairman. I want to again express the hope that this committee will produce a study in depth that would serve as a meaningful observance of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution and also as a contribution toward world peace with justice.
If the attempts to halt the killing conflicts in the world today through a strengthened United Nations appear visionary, it must be remembered that to many thoughtful and knowledgeable citizens of the 13 sovereign Colonies, the idea of a strong central government under a constitution, appeared wholly unrealistic. Can the United States make any greater contribution in its observance of its own Bicentennial than to help the world to abolish war, mankind's most fearful illness?
May the United States be to the world what Virginia was to the 13 States in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make a correction in what I said about the Genocide Treaty. I said that it was reported out with the understanding that it would not be taken up in the Senate until implementing legislation was enacted. That provision actually says the U.S. Government declares “that it will not deposit its instrument of ratification until after the implementing legislation referred to in article 5 has been enacted."
Mr. Bitker, have you read the recent book on George Washington, I believe written by Mr. Flexner!
Mr. BITKER. I did not finish reading it until after I drew up my statement, or I would have incorporated it. It is just a fascinating story, and may I say that what I was saying here today about the conflicts between these States, it just runs right through the whole of the problems that George Washington had in those days. What a remarkable man he was.
The CHAIRMAN. I was very much impressed with the story on New York and Virginia. I thought you were also going to refer to the conflict between Massachusetts and Virginia over the proposition of Alexander Hamilton that the Federal Government would assume the States' indebtedness. That pleased Massachusetts greatly because it had a tremendous amount of bonds and securities, but Virginia did not want it, and finally they worked out a compromise. Virginia would accept it, but place the Capital of the United States where Virginia wanted it. That is how it happened to be where it is.
Senator HUMPHREY. That was a bad deal.
COMMENDATION OF WITNESSES
The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have Pauline Frederick with us. I think of her as being an authority on the United Nations.
We have listened to you many times. We welcome you here this morning
Senator Javits. Mr. Chairman, if I may—I have known Miss Frederick a long time. I am delighted to see her and I see our State singly honored to have you here. In the time I have, I hope to hear as much of your wisdom as I can. I would also like to greet the whole panel.
Like Claiborne Pell, Bucky Fuller is a friend, and a man I admire a great deal. And Dick Scammon. What a wonderful panel, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with this praise for the panel. Let me also make note of the fact that Mr. Scammon is originally a Minnesotan, and we are very proud of him. He has made many distinctive contributions to the American political scene.
And I regret, Dick, that I was not here to hear your testimony, but one of
here for a few moments and whispered in my ear some of the things that you had emphasized.
I want to say that for one who has admired Buckminster Fuller over the years, it is very good to have a chance to see him again personally.
And Mr. Bitker, we welcome you and thank you for your leadership in the Midwest. I am sure you know my good friend, York Langton from Minnesota.
Mr. BITKER. I remember when we referred to you as our Senator.
Senator HUMPHREY. And Miss Frederick. We recognize you in the Midwest too. I remember when I was teaching while I was sent home to pasture for awhile by my miscalculations in 1968, that I would hear you on the radio. You have been a voice of the United Nations, both objective and inspiring. And we thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. I may say in connection with Miss Frederick, some young ladies in my office who have been with me for a long long