MCNAMARA'S WAR IN SOUTH VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200140009-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 2, 2005
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: May 27, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

A
ro se 200/02 DP60_13,00403RIN120G140009-4
CO RESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 11751
ou chine' tO a reaion *14
Pole-Poinee;or
noner,a2piles`Jhe item is
?open COnineMtIOri.
_
hTl
ar areas /buys of
fid ove)-*kin -6-6d9 for- other
_an ?open coetitton. ti the leaSer. dollar
areas ' we will take :--a "SfatiltiCatpanii511-iig.
This *111 be done in su4i a way ae to give
110 a Condo:le:nee- factor. When
:041Pron,we will stand
'
1t-=2togeilibr'r -Orthe-riileS
;On jv?suThtheffe&tructionof
..,66hildence ,a*V-Iiise, 7.-futiirCbliginess=and
we Will again be placed: in the-iiniortiniate
Position (for bath Of us) of having to make
and follow our own unilateral, list. :gut if
We can , have mu ital confidence and trust
both of _pp will have iiiiProVed our positions.'
"Iton, have protection for the- iiitegritY a
'
. L.secret? Morris has approved bh1s idea.
-We hve his permission to proceed whilehis
StR stuies and develops a SySterri for Sp-plir":
-0.tiOn:on: a POP-wide basis.
Thiring: the service test; Industry came
71'9-rWariln4_ suested that the 11
r pine induatrj weren
aeCeSPOry-
ii acfurers. I, -tfieicTadOlited the -engine
ioariti Criteria as ours, after It had been
preskited to Seareteat -CharIei:'-TheaeldeaS
ribW7 being prepared for nublieation.
, have already directed San Ai-A(:6116
Ar MelAi* adopt this procedure in"
its 'dealings' 'With- the STaiy- and fiat
rni that
theuweps people have raTsed the question
ato wief the Alf"rotoO..:*Itr:00:1.4;1:4,0i3'
ttlei-47. Oil: their decisions. Our ,apswpr Is
-"PeilAitety no."
,;?-? n EL A T AREA ZVI) -/IrEIVI
- t1 ere is another related areaAliaf
.irriplyps_prid,.iteins, often Government fur-
t co,*4094,10*,44040494,7=a-Ps1
,ii()Metirnes turriisliect by prime contractors
,as,part of end item weapon systems. This is
A 'large 'field. It covers _all, the way from
0Plalaticated jet erigine controls tomost of
ckpit instruments and pack up ain
to -constant speed 'drives and , such time-
, JacilaMI tY. . .
The. j)roblern,_ is that "over recent years it
has .1aPcorne .customary to compete these
'items .at Rath buy. This has often respitAd,
as as as four or five models cg, the
'same gadget?each-doing the same fob but
Llriternaliy noninterchangeable. you can pe_e
the logistics support problem that results.
-- a fighting for is - standardIzatlon
()Ay for the start of the
,iternra,p_Fuelincgon,_ Aftcr_vw_:(4gc_onIrAc- ,
10X P1-41-43k.C,P40:iktilts-lcuks4kess-aP W_,kePP
p, '4tlaIitj and share with the Government
Savings resulting from long production
1-Out r:l.sp.rn'ilpg-Curves, lack of duplication
Okinee'ring,looling,,,teiting, etc.
:Pill.ny would result in more efficient
r tibia for everyone; however, I need the
driduStr,ri, fiel.P in petting the old system
*teoppeA: Each tmpj try , to s'-e-t an item
0-644;c1p010.4kine?preiriously._ disappointed
"684t-9(0a-JZqrnea OA-746i and. PAYs, "You
' vp?,..g.ot tO:- have a competition _becapse=
Woz:,,g441led 'phariee to _bid...Again last
you can see' we can't :get there
gcs?.1p,A14:04.1114,441-11;:cr,,?,W,gpjnpetitive
tutPg:4",.70A.,aglau.A3A.,c9wasivr,
lc4ylnja_.10,theques-
,S9P.,Pq...P._iir?.47*.bi_ficleri_toslo the
'f am ;happy_ to quote from a recent
- policy statementbiSecritaiY "14-Ci4aniara.
11.11?,,yiwipzig toward better defense pro-
curen nothing :is more basic to...patia-
fa4tory pr-oeureMenf
prospectivecontractors, Don-
a avr9rds to, concerns of marginal capa-
.-
-Wass Cali legeoffi delayi failiirea' in
obtaining delivery of needed items and to
Increased eventual costs to the government."
End of -quotation Arid thank you, Mr. Sec-
retary.
This we propose to "follow scruptil.bus13r---
and by so doing, / am certain our procure-
ments will be sounder and our derive-x.10s
more timely.
_POINTS isummarixzEn
In summary, I'd like to say that:
1. Your summary of September of 1961 is
in consonance with the legislative history of
the Procurement Act of 1947.
2. In order to insure reliable weapons and
get competition where it makes sense we
must cooperate with each other. This means
tievo-way 000peration. We must keep the
competition figure high by honest endeavor
on both sides. We must have "competition
with confidence."
? 3. We are not deemphasizing "competition"
but rather beginning to put emphasis on
? "other" and, in the words, and surely the
intent, of the Procurement Act "perhaps
more important factors" such as quality and
ultimate costs. I have here for distribution
100 copies of our latest regulation on this
4. We must all do whatever we can to re-
duce the ultimate costs by standardization
and long production runs.
I want to say that the problems I have
_.talked about are extremely difficult and that
the suggested solutions are certainly not easy
to accomplish. But I am confident that?
if we can get wholehearted cooperation be-
tween industry and the military?we can
make great progress toward our future
goal?reducing the ultimate cost of defense.
RicttIrp ACT OF 1P0
e Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the
constitutional right to vote, to confer
jurisdiction upon the district courts of
the United States to provide injunctive
relief against discrimination in public
accommodations, to authorize the At-
torney General to institute suits to pro-
tect constitutional rights in public facili-
ties and public education, to extend the
Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent
discrimination in federally assisted pro-
-grams, to establish a Com-mission ,ron
`VcitieI 2rnployinent Opportunity, and for
.other purposes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Mississippi on the conditions
previously announced.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the
Senator from Minnesota in a statement
on the floor of the Senate on Monday,
May 25, pointed out that the debate and
explanation of H.R. 7152 has helped the
Senators and the public to better under-
-stand the provisions and real content of
H.R. 7152, the civil rights bill now under
discussion in ,he Senate.
but, as many of the opponents of the
bill lave Said on the floor of the Senate
many times, that misleading statements
and on occasion rather serious distor-
tions have been made about what the
bill really contains and the practical
effect it will have upon our society. He
very wisely concluded that such misun-
derstandings "point to the need for a
renewed effort to explain this bill in
straightforward and uncomplicated lan-
guage."
Mr. President, the opponents of the
civil rights bill have for several days
studied the bill very carefully, and even
after some several weeks of thorough in-
Veetigation and study, many heretofore
unimown _provisions have been discov-
ered, _The language of the bill is so broad
and the terms are so imprecisely defined
that almost any interpretation can be
placed upon the words and phrases which
have been used to put together this pack-
age of bills that actually it is nearly a
dozen bills in one. There were, of course,
no hearings by Senate committees, no
attempt has been made to call wit-
nesses, and the only evidence at the
Senators and the public have on which
to draw any conclusions as to the effect
the bill might have is the study and ex-
amination of the statements that are
made during the debate on the floor of
the Senate.
In the course of this debate, the Sena-
tor from Minnesota has made several
statements and speeches in favor of the
bill. In the most recent memorandum
which the Senator from Minnesota has
inserted in the RECORD, there is con-
tained a statement relating to title I
which is devoted to voting rights. The
Senator from Minnesota stated:
State control over voter qualifications is
not impaired, except that those qualifica-
tions must apply equally to all citizens re-
wiifiless of race. _
? The Senator frOM Minneeota has ap-
parently attempted with this statement
to leave the impression that voter quali-
fications in the several States will not
be affected or, as he says, "not im-
paired," and that the States will be
Allowed to hold their own elections with-
out regard to what the Federal Govern-
ment may prescribe in the way of voter
qualifications or the election of Federal
officials. This statement is somewhat
different from the view that the Senator
from Minnesota took on March 30, when
he explained on behalf of the proponents
Of the bill what effect title I would have
upon the control of voter registration
throughout the Nation. He called at-
tention to the fact that "the States would
be free to set up a procedure solely for
the election of State officials," but he
further said:
I think that as a practical matter, the
States will not establish separate elections.
Tlie opponents of the bill have re-
peatedly pointed out that title I will, in
effect, place constructive control over
voter qualifications in the Federal Gov-
ernment and take it from the States
where the Constitution intended that it
should be and where it has, until recently,
rested since the founding of the Nation.
that,No one argues under this bill, the
States would still have the right to suffer
the expense of a separate election for
which they must hire separate election
officials and underwrite the tremendous
expense of holding separate elections.
In Mississippi, this would be a very ex-
pensive and almost prohibitive proce-
dure. There are nearly 2,000 voting pre-
cincts, all of which must be manned by
election eiliqtalis, and the, expense of con-
11752
Oft
Approves For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 27
ducting an election is estimated vari-
ously from a quarter-million dollars up-
ward. It woad impose a great burden
on my State, a burden which it should
not have to bear simply to preserve for
Itself that to which it is already entitled.
Whether it -would be prohibited in Mis-
sissippi is uncertain. But the Senator
from Minnesota apparently feels that It
would be, for, as he said in his speech of
March 30, "As a practical matter, the
States will not establish separate elec-
tions." The conclusion then is inescap-
able that on March 30 the Senator from
Minnesota felt that, "as a practical mat-
ter," State elections would not be sepa-
rate from Federal elections and that the
rules and regulations established for the
Federal Government with regard to voter
qualifications would, under the terms of
this bill, H.R. 7152, dictate the qualifica-
tions of voters in the various States.
This is in grave conflict with the Sena-
tor's statement of MF 25, in which he
said, "State control of voter qualifica-
tions is not impaired." This is typical of
the ambiguous and double standards that
are found throughout hte civil rights bill.
? Such conflicting statements are the
source of much of the misunderstanding
and misinterpretation and lack of knowl-
edge about what the bill really contains.
The language and the specific letter of
the law as laid down by the bill may indi-
cate one thing, but the practical effect
of that language may be completely dif-
ferent. The memorandum which the
Senator inserted in the RECORD pur-
ported to show what H.R. 7152 provides
and what it does not provide, but the
Senator from Minnesota was not so gen-
erous in his explanation as he usually is
when he listed some of the things H.R.
7152 provides. For instance, he did not
call attention to the fact that under sec-
tion 302 the Attorney General is given
the power to intervene in aniaction com-
menced in any court of the Milted States
seeking relief from the denial of equal
protection of the laws on account of race,
color, religion, or national origin. He
neglected to say that this bill places more
power in one appointed official than has
ever been placed in the hands of one In-
dividual, outside the President. in the
history of the United States of America.
He neglected to point out that a person
accused of violating the terms of H.R.
7152 would be denied the right of trial
by jury contrary to the provisions of the
Constitution. He neglected to point out
that in the case of matters concerning
voting rights, the Attorney General ebuld
"shop" for a three-judge court that
would suit his own particular needs and
satisfaction without regard to the long-
established custom of having matters of
a local nature determined by judicial
proceedings conducted by local people.
He neglected to point out that title VII
of this bill would take from the employer
the right of managing his own property
and conducting his own business affairs
so far as the hiring and firing of em-
ployees is concerned, arid place it in the
hands of a bureaucratic equal employ-
ment commission of the Federal Govern-
ment. He neglected to point out the fact
that H.R. 7152 would remove from every
cafe owner, hotel, and motel, however
big or small, or other place of public ac-
commodation that is by the broad terms
of this bill remotely engaged in inter-
state commerce, the right to conduct his
business, but place such stringent re-
quirements on him that there is grave
doubt he could survive.
The Senator from Minnesota, in dis-
cussing title VII, said: -
In fact, the title would prohibit preferen-
tial treatment for any particular group, and
any person, whether or not a member of any
minority group, would be permitted to ble
a complaint of discriminatory employment
practices.
If the real purpose of this bill is to re-
move all discrimination in employment
without regard to whether or not an in-
dividual is a member of any minority
group, and If any person would be per-
mitted to file a complaint against dis-
criminatory employment practices, why
does the bill specifically define an un-
lawful employment Practice under the
terms of this bill as an act of discrimina-
tion against an individual because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin? If the purpose of the
bill is to remove all discrimination, why
is race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin even mentioned? Why does the
hill not simply say there shall be no
discrimination whatever, thereby re-
moving the explosive, emotional aspccts
of the race issue from the discussion of
this title?
It is clear the divergent and appar-
ently conflicting statements about what
H.R. 7152 contains or does not contain do
not find their source exclusively in the
opponents of this bill, nor are those who
express differing opinions to be neces-
sarily criticized for doing so. The am-
biguous language, the complicated con-
struction and the subtle and hidden pro-
visions of the bill make it impossible for
any individual, proponent or opponent,
to determine with any certainty what the
legal interpretation or the practical ef-
fect of the bill will be if it is enacted.
This certainly substantiates what the
Senator from Minnesota has advocated.
that is. "the need for a renewed effort to
explain this bill in straightforward and
uncomplicated language." The Senator
from Mississippi is happy to state that in
the interest of insuring that the terms of
the bill are understood, it is his intention
to discuss it as frankly as is possible for
so long as it is necessary to understand
its total effect upon our society aid our
Government.
McNAMARA'S WAR IN SOUTH
VIETNAM
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, un-
der the same terms and conditions. I
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Oregon.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, / shall
speak again in opposition to McNamara's
war in South Vietnam. I shall speak
again and again, so long as I think there
Is any hope of changing the mistaken
course of action of my Government,
which, if it is not changed within 12
months, is bound to bring death to thou-
sands of American boys in southeast
Asia.
I shall speak again and again, here and
elsewhere, in protest against a foreign
policy of my Government that I believe
is indefensible, inexcusable, unconscion-
able, and morally wrong. I shall speak
again and again, here and elsewhere, in
an endeavor to change the foreign policy
of my Government from one of making
war to one of attempting to make peace
in the world.
My Government is making war. My
Government is killing, unjustifiably, not
only American boys, but South Viet-
namese; and my Government is acting
outside the framework of international
law.
The American people need first to
know the facts. Once they know the
facts, they have the duty to speak out
and to hold their Government to an ac-
counting, for, after all, the foreign policy
of this country belongs to the American
people; and the people of this Republic
have both the right and the solemn obli-
gation to make clear to their Govern-
ment that they want it to stop making
war, and that they want it to return to
the sacred moral duty of making peace.
Any failure of the United Nations to
fulfill in southeast Asia the role for
which the United Nations was created
would be one of the great tragedies of
our time, comparable only to the tragic
disinterest of the League of Nations to
the pleas of Haile Selassie, in 1935.
There are many differences; but there
are very many common characteristics
and very many similarities between what
Is happening today to the United Na-
tions and what happened in 1935 to the
League of Nations, when the League of
Nations chose not to act in the case of
Italy's aggression against Ethiopia.
That was the last chance the League had
to head off World War II and it washed
Its hands of it.
The comments of Secretary General
111 Thant, of the United Nations, in ex-
pressing reluctance to see the United
Nations take over the Asian crisis, are
especially remarkable, since at the same
time he deplored the use of nuclear
weapons in that area.
Mr. President, just how does the Secre-
tary General of the United Nations think
nuclear weapons come to be used? I
trust that he is not naive. If he does
not know the answer to that question,
he should be told that nuclear weapons
are used in war: and that a war is going
on right now in southeast Asia; and that
unless the war now going on in south-
east Asia is quickly brought under Con-
trol, no man can say where it will end,
how many nations will be involved, and
what kind of weapons will be used.
It is no secret that the United States
relies upon weapons superiority to offset
the manpower resources of both the So-
viet Union and Communist China. Our
country relied on atomic weapons in
Asia in World War Tr. Our country came
near to using atomic weapons in
Korea. Regardless of how dreadful and
terrible atomic weapons may be, no
American war ever will be fought on the
mainland of Asia except with nuclear
weapons.
And, Mr.' President, we are on the
brink of a full-scale war in Asia. I can-
not emphasize too much the gravity of
this situation. As the American people
from coast to coast in this Republic at
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4
1964,
Approved For INpase 20051021.10: CIA-RDP6613Q0.4034.600140009-4
. ,
CONGRESSIONAL Rtcortn---L-sENATE ? 11753
hour-.0-abotif their enjOYable living,
Thern-knoW-the- danger lurking
iead Parently*,- few of them are
afit?to- be- a-Vare=for it is
iriblirtehifOrtable to be unaware?that
finelear, war n theo ng, unless this
Sfcinned.** If this war in
_ ,
Asia 1,4I -90e=4.1*Wd into a war in North
Vietamai pu it do as a
certain:0T-, r. _Preilderit,--that nuclear
power - will "be used:" And no one, any-
where in GOvernineht?in the United
_ States,_ in Russia, in Great Britain, in
Red .China, or elsewhere?knows what
the .end result of the first use of nuclear
power by the UnitedStites' Violild lead to.
.Mr. President,thiS is the hour, figura-
,. tively'speaking, and this i-S-the time, ac-
CUrately Sneaking; When the leaders of
nations Who 7want- to Maintain peace
should aet in the interest of peace, not in
r the interest of Warrnaking.
:Bo, Mr: PreSident,here1S-Ori-OSeriator
Who has no intention of remaining silent
- at this critical honr.-Here*Is one Sen-
ator -*he refuses to "Pisa the buck," in-
as his ongtitutional-i6pi:iiisibili-
,,-W? are Coriberried,' to the **PreSident of
the t:hiited. States, to the Secretary of
State; or the Secretary Of Defense, so
long as those , holding such offices seem
bent on:iiis.Topo war, for at this hour
they are Making war iii*BotithVietnam-
- a.Ware Whieli*is an illegal War, an uncon-
stitutional arid a' War' Ontgide* the
'-franieWni*-OrtheArrifted Rations.*
-1854.4FROci.c,nt, What has hapPeried to
us OferabirielfS?*--*What has
haPpe* to the-Ainerleanne6Ple ? ?save
we forgotten o Soon? -Ilave we forgot-
? ten ? he ',Inhumanity in the -last war?
'HaveWe7fOrgetten. the COSI Of the last
'war," r16t only in Material- things, not
- only in human blood, but also in human
-valneo T.:, feel that the last war did
soffiething -terrible psychologically, not
,only- to "millions of Anierioaria,*init also
,to *MijliOnS of peOle -elsewhere in the
.world Tt did ? something dreadful to
- Whatjheretbfore had- been- a' sensitivity
? ,ValneS-and -MOral-Principles.
j._ , _
. ? ...tilt _One that 'tpo people b is great
religious ltation "are* willing to "pass the
_SO to *Sneak; in connection with
their reSPOiiiibiritteS Of citizen States-
. manship, to warmakers and war-
mongers? Is it tine that *the PietinIe of
this l',WPtiblie are 'neffeetlY -Willing to
.sanetion,unp* "uh-
' .110-00-40.;," because nollierangh ittenint
ter_ inake peade *hee'let-been made
Rn raised tfi6 qUeStiOri; Mr. Presi-
dent, I am -going to giVe ?ir answer,
based UPon, my conviction: It is that the
American people have not Changed their
.-serised values. *But as this war in
southeast Asia ,centirineS niOnth after
, MO-1th, and as more and more American
.boys die there, the demand' of the war-
rriOngers.t4.t':thOt War be -escalated -into
_a* Iffai- VI-641a* and" that then
the use ,Of nuclear power be -begun, thug
'killing Men by the theilSalida will seem
more 0,10 more plausible and then the
- _holocaut- . -
Mr. PreSielent, ii eVer there
when: the churches .Of Anie-riea should
be n.11e4,*(111 .139;0.,,p tt_iai? knees, if is
now. If ever there Was a dine When the
- - - -
religious `leaders of this country should
be raising their voices to Almighty God,
it is now. But that is not happening.
Has life become too easy, that too
many are willing to waste it?
Have the joys of easy living become
so captivating that the American people
have turned their faces away from
reality to what they hope will be a dream
world of unreality in which they can
live? Escalate this war into Asia and
start shipping American boys by the
thousands into Asia, and then perhaps
the American people will come up with a
sudden start. But it is so unnecessary.
We should not have to travel that road
of horror, sacrifice, and blood. We
should stop while the chances of reason
can prevail, and proceed to use our minds
and reason in connection with the pro-
cedures that should be followed in Asia
today.
That is why I am highly critical of the
Secretary General of the United Nations
in this speech today. In my judgment,
he has evaded his responsibilities. He
turned away from his obligations when
he indicated to the world?and his state-
ment was unfortunate?that the United
Nations at the present time cannot take
up this issue. What is the issue? It is
the issue that determines the difference
between peace and war. Mr. U Thant
sits as the Presiding Secretary General
over the Organization that was created
at San Francisco to preserve peace. Be-
fore I finish my speech, I shall quote
for the benefit of the Secretary General
the Charter of the United Nations, be-
cause his unfortunate statement to the
world shows that he needs to have the
charter over which he presides quoted
back to him.
As Secretary General he has a solemn
responsibility to use his great office to do
everything he can to promote peace and
not to throw up his hands hopelessly,
as I interpret his remarks, and leave the
impression that there is nothing at this
time that the United Nations can do;
for there is, Mr. President. The member
nations of the United Nations must in-
sist that the procedures of the United
Nations be brought to bear upon the
terrible world crisis which threatens all
mankind.
Every nation uses whatever it has that
can be used to advantage in time of war.
With some countries it is manpower;
with us it is nuclear weapons. If the
war is escalated ihto North Vietnam, into
Laos, and into Red China, we may or
may not use large forces of conventional
American manpower. But most cer-
tainly we would use nuclear power. Now
is the time to stop it. Now is the time
to put on the brakes. Now is the time
at least to exhaust every peaceful re-
source to avert what could be the greatest
historic tragedy that mankind has ever
suffered. The issue toward which Sec-
retary_General U Thant should be direct-
ing himself is not the madness of nu-
clear weapons, but the conflict which
intobrings them That Is his job.
!That is the Only job he has. ?
Article 99 of the United Nations
Charter specifically authorizes the Sec-
retary General?and I read it for the
benefit of the Secretary General:
Tb bring to the attention of the Security
Council any matter which in his opinion may
threaten the maintenance of international
peace and security.
The charter states that he may bring
those matters to the attention of the
Security Council. It is a great mystery
to me how U Thant can express the
concern he did over the use of nuclear
weapons in southeast Asia and still re-
gard the conflict there as one which the
United Nations should ignore. If he is
worried about the use of nuclear
weapons, why is he not bending every
effort to have the United Nations step
into the conflict before it reaches the
stage of nuclear warfare, instead of mak-
ing a statement that will be interpreted
around the globe as a "throw-up-the-
hands" gesture that this conflict is too
much for the United Nations? I deny it.
Mr. President, no threat to the peace of
the world is too much for the United Na-
tions, for, as Stevenson has said in the
past?but long before last Thursday?
this great charter offers mankind a
charter for peacekeeping. I paraphrase
him, but do so accurately.
For years the U.S. Ambassador at the
United Nations has raised his eloquent
voice in pleading for the application of
the rule of law instead of the rule' of
might to the settlement of international
disputes that threaten the peace of the
world. That is why the speech of Steven-
son last Thursday was one of the great-
est tragedies of our time. As I said last
Thursday, that speech extinguished a
light of world statesmanship. That was
not the speech of a peacemaker; that was
the speech of one who had been drawn
in, because of an ambassadorship, to sup-
port an unsound American foreign policy.
That is why I said then, and repeat to-
day, that he should have sacrificed that
ambassadorship before he ever lent his
lips to writing into the pages of history
through his lips a statement of foreign
policy that will rise to plague this Re-
public for years to come.
I say to the Ambassador, and to the
Secretary General who fears the use of
nuclear weapons that the only reason
I have been pleading with my own Gov-
ernment to put the Vietnam situation
before the United Nations is that I know
that the possibility and the danger exists
that the war will be escalated to the
point of the use of nuclear weapons. The
United States has already escalated it
from moderate military aid to the satu-
ration point, plus American advisers who
fight and American airpower in the
skies.
Reports coming out of South Vietnam,
one after another, belie the statements of
McNamara and Stevenson in regard to
American foreign policy in southeast
Asia.
The sad fact is that, no matter how
much they deny it, the United States is
making war in Asia. We cannot justify
it, and we ought to stop it. We ought to
come back to the framework of inter-
"national law, and act within it. We
--ought to come back to the idealism of the
Adlai Stevenson of years gone by, and
make it again the foreign policy of this
Republic.
Oak
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP6600103R000200140009-4
11754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 27
Anyone, including U Thant, who fears
the use of nuclear weapons against
Asians or anyone else, should be plead-
ing, too, for the United Nations to take
over before it is too late. Whenever the
use of atomic weapons is being contem-
plated, there exists a terrible and im-
mediate threat to international peace.
Cannot Mr. Thant see that? He has al-
ready heard our U.N. Ambassador say
that the United States will "take what-
ever means are necessary" to help cer-
tain nations in Asia.
I repeat that unfortunate quotation of
Adlai Stevenson that the United States
will "take whatever means are necessary"
to help certain nations in Asia.
If the Secretary General and the U.N.
as a whole decline to act on what is
clearly their responsibility, they can
hardly quibble over the steps one of the
parties may deem necessary, nuclear or
not.
Let me repeat what I said the other
day in a speech on the floor of the Senate
about the logistics problems that will
confront the United States if it escalates
the war.
If tens of thousands of American boys
were put into the jungles of North Viet-
nam, is it expected that we would win?
Or if it were done in Laos, does anyone
think we would win if tens of thousands
of American boys were pitted against
human tides of millions of Red Chinese
sent against them in one human wave
after another?
I remind the American people that
military experts say that a war cannot
be won that way. That is why we would
use nuclear weapons, The human sacri-
fice involved in such a war, on both
sides, would be so great that the United
States could never rise from the ashes
of its destroyed reputation as a peaceful
nation.
That is why I say there are great spir-
itual value involved at this hour. That
is why I say today that the church bells
of America should be tolling. That is
why I say that, in my judgment, every
religious person in this country should
be in communion with his God. I do not
believe our course of action can be recon-
ciled with spiritual values. All the ap-
peals to superpatriotism by waving the
flag into tatters can change the basic
fact that American foreign policy in
southeast Asia cannot be squared with
spiritual values and with our professings
as a religious nation.
Is it not interesting, Mr. President,
that in the thinking of some persons, it
makes a difference in God's eyes as to
what our course of conduct is because
Communists are on the other side? They
are ignorant, illiterate Communists.
Uninformed millions in Red China have
not the slightest idea what they are
fighting for. That goes for South Viet-
nam, for North Vietnam, and for Laos,
too.
One of the difficulties in American
thinking today is that we are proceeding
on the assumption that the people in-
volved are of the same development--
educationally, Intellectually, and politi-
cally?as we are. It does not happen to
be true. That fact makes it all the more
Important that we should hold firm to
great moral and spiritual values. We
cannot justify this killing at all.
The course of conduct this country is
following is resulting in the killing of
thousands of South Vietnamese, too.
They happen to be human beings. It is
also resulting in the killing of thousands
of Vietcongs. The political philosophy
which they possess, as it is alleged, and
which their leaders possess, I despise
and abhor. But they are flesh and blood.
They, too, are the children of God.
I have read nothing, I have heard
nothing, even by way of rationalizations
and alibis of a McNamara or a Steven-
son, that justifies the blackout of moral
values that seems to have overcome the
policy of this Government in southeast
Asia.
As I said before, when I think, not of
the possibility, but of the probability, if
we continue this course of action, that
In a twelvemonth thousands of Ameri-
can boys will lie dead in Asia. I raise my
voice again pleading for a halt, plead-
ing for a change of policy, pleading for
assuming our responsibilities in the
United Nations, to lay the matter before
the United Nations, even if the Secre-
tary General may have thrown up his
hands in despair?which is my interpre-
tation of his unfortunate statement to
the world.
I hope that there is not an ugly fact
behind the scenes that would explain the
position of the Secretary General of the
United Nations, for it never would have
prevailed in the thinking of his great
predecessor.
His great predecessor did not hesitate
to take on Russia before world opinion
when Russia threatened to make war in
the Congo. That great Swedish leader
announced to Russia and to the world
that Russia would either get out, or the
United Nations would put her out. Rus-
sia got out.
Of course, the great Secretary General
of the United Nations of that day had
strong support. The United States was
behind him. Great Britain was also be-
hind him.
Where are they today?
The United States is making war in
South Vietnam, and Great Britain Is egg-
ing us on.
A tragic example of international
hypocrisy in recent hours has been the
position of Great Britain endorsing U.S.
planes over Laos, and endorsing Steven-
son's threat to use whatever means are
necessary in Asia. As I shall say later
In my manuscript, but will say it now
because it cannot be said too many times,
we do not find any British planes over
there; we do not find any British boys
dying over there, nor Australian nor New
Zealand boys?or planes, either.
They are "egger-oners." But "egger-
onera" are not allies. They only find it
convenient from the standpoint of Brit-
ish interests to have the United States
do the fighting and the spending in
southeast Asia. Certainly, no one should
suffer from a myopia which blinds him to
the fact that Great Britain's eyes are on
Malaysia?and New Zealand's and
Australia's, too.
Great Britain finds U.S. foreign policy.
In Asia at this hour very helpful to the
perpetuation of what should be recog-
nized as bygone British colonial policy in
Asia but which is still being maintained
In Malaysia. It is doomed. British co-
lonial policy has been doomed elsewhere
In the world, and for the most part has
fallen elsewhere in the world. We now
have the United States and Great Brit-
ain embracing each other, but the United
States is paying the bills, U.S. boys are
doing the dying, and U.S. planes are do-
ing the flying in the war in southeast
Asia.
I say to the people of Great Britain,
"Your policy will not stand to your credit
In the pages of history, just as the policy
of my Government, as of this hour, will
not stand to its credit in the pages of
history."
I have great faith in the public opinion
of Great Britain, as I have great faith
In the public opinion of the United
States. I have great faith that once
the British citizen fully comes to under-
stand and comprehend the threat to the
peace of the world which U.S. foreign
policy is creating in Asia today, British
public opinion in the months ahead will
hold its government to an accounting.
If the Secretary General and the
United Nations as a whole decline to
fulfill their clear responsibility, they
can hardly quibble over the steps one
of the parties may deem necessary, nu-
clear or not.
I am not interested in hearing all the
reasons why it would be unsound for
America to use nuclear weapons in Asia,
unless those who advance the reasons
are ready to fulfill their own interna-
tional responsibilities to bring the con-
flict under the jurisdiction of the United
Nations.
That is the responsibility of the Sec-
refary General, Mr. U Thant, but not
his alone. My criticism of the Secretary
General of the United Nations in this
speech is not limited to him. MY crit-
icism goes to members of the United
Nations as well, for, as I shall show in
a moment they, too, have not only the
Power but the clear duty to call this
threat to the peace of the world to the
attention of the United Nations for the
exercise of its jurisdiction under the
charter.
I have a word or two to direct to the
less developed countries. The less devel-
oped countries, no less than the great
powers, must always remember that the
one, primary reason for the existence of
the United Nations is to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war. If
It cannot do that, then it is not going
to do anything. If it allows a conflict
In Asia to go unheeded and unconsid-
ered, all its social and economic develop-
ments interests will come to nothing, be-
cause once the great powers involve
themselves in major conflict, the prob-
lems of the undeveloped countries will
pale into insignificance.
Secretary General U Thant has many
problems on his hands?the Congo, the
Middle East, Cyprus. All are difficult,
and all are expensive. But if the United
Nations does not have the will to cope
with the big threats to peace, it will be
heading down the same road to oblivion
which the League of Nations traveled,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4
Approved For Re e 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B0040300140009-4
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE 11755
and it will take its economic development
problemss-1611g `with it."
Is It to'b?e V" Thant's rale in history to
preside over the demise o United
Nations? His rernarliS: 'Of - yesterday
would so indicate. -
If the United Naliona IS Unable to stop
war When there is a threat to the peace
of the iorld through war, the 'United
Nations is finished. ,
'The Milted Nations" cannot survive as
a club for powerful nations, at which
they meet and divide- up the role of
internatienal policy among them. The
United Nations is finished if Great
Britain and the United States can get to-
gether and decide to support each other
in the PaliCY That Preaefitly prevails in
Ma. The United Nations 11 ell through
If it is not willing to Step in and ex-
ercise its procedures to the Maximum
extent possible to maintain peace. The
United,. Nations is not doing it in Asia.
No wonder that I ask again, "Could
_ _
there be -the ugly fact behind the scenes
that some nations, such as the 'United
States, Great Britain, Australia, Can-
ada, New Zealand, and others, are too
powerful for the United Nations to ex-
erCise its jurisdiction when peace is
threatened?"
I said the other day, and repeat
now,
that, in my judgment, the history
Stites
In
will be condemned y because
the course of action that we arefollow-
ing In southeast Asia is the greatest
threat to.the survival o f th
Na-
tions that has occurred'siriler' ''''th-etta uerirt,t-
d
,
Nations was created. , For the United
States from the very beginning has had
a clear obligation and -citify to take ,the
issue to.Jhe Security Council, and, if
necessary; in the face of a Russian veto',
to the General Assembly.
By not doing so, Mr. President,
sident, say,
for the benefit of Mr. ACT
.that' the United States b is, weakening the
charter he has
?Vork tospeSrveT,Sfhe
P
; His ch of as t Thursdaya
_any-
thing but the _.fulfillment o a triiStee
hip. His speech of last Thursday weak--
s
ened the United Nations as a force for
peace in the world.
In that .speech, he served notice to the
world, in effect?and I paraphrase t, but
'
the meaning is clear?that we would do
whatever We wanted to a
nam. That is it. in South Viet-
Tht. at Is Wt the position qf a peaceful
na, ion._ An that not the
illy Nation oughttS position that
t,ure rem o take, with its
signa
charter. n e Unit-64- i\T4tions,
n o th
Article 98 of the charter declares;
That the Secretary-Generals hall shall ac in
that capacity?
Chief 'administrative officer?
=
in an meetings of the General Assembly, of
the Security Council, of the Economic? and
Social 6Ouncii,-and of the Trusteesiilp Coun-
cil, and shall perform such other functions
as are entrusted to 4141. by ."hese organs.
,
Note that he "shall perform" He shall
perform such other,functionS as are en-
trusted tol4m by_these organs."
The General: Ass:el-Ably, no less than
the Security Council, can entrust certain
peacekeeping functions to the aecretarY
General, if the SecurityCouncil is un-
able to do so because of the veto, then
the General Assembly should do it, if it
cherishes its own future.
The United Nations will not serve the
best interests of either the small nations
Or the big nations if it fails to act in
southeast Asia. If it is content to let
Communist-led rebels fight against
Western interests there, with the in-
creasing likelihood of the introduction
of nuclear weapons, it will serve no one's
interests. Among the big nations,
France does not favor U.N. action be-
cause France does not look with favor
upon the U.N. at all. It has consistently
been contemptuous of the organization
and prefers to handle international
problems in the old ways, including war.
The Soviet Union has little interest in
U.N. action when the side it favom,sgems
to be winning. As the guerrillas con-
tinue to make progress, the Soviet Un-
ion probably will not favor any U.N. ac-
tion, either. But let that war escalate
itself into a full-scale war in Asia, and
watch the Russians.
I do not know what we are thinking
of, to lay the foundation for a possible
rapprochement between the Red Chinese
and the Red Russians. If anyone thinks
as a result of the so-called negotiations
that have been going on between the
United States and Russia?and I am all
for those negotiations, including the
treaty that the President announced to-
day for the exchange of consulates in
United States and in the Soviet Union?
that if the Western powers start a take-
over war in Asia, there will be no rap-
prochement between Red China and Red
Russia, in my judgment, they could not
be more mistaken. For neither Russia
nor Red China will let the colonial powers
of the West control Asia. We must be in-
cluded among the colonial powers of the
West now, for the United States is light-
ing a colonial war. Colonialism has a
variety of definitions. ..,
Mr. President, when we seek to domi-
nate and control, as we are doing with
the puppet government that we have set
up in South Vietnam, and maintained
now through three dictatorships, we are
resorting to a form of colonialism. And
neither Red China nor Red Russia will
ever permit Western colonialism to rule
Asia.
So I would have the Secretary General
of the United Nations and Mr. Steven-
-son meditate on article 98 of the United
Nations Charter. I would have them
meditate on their obligation of trustee-
ship in regard to the charter. For if they
did, I am sure that intellectually they
would have to come to the conclusion
that they cannot justify U.S. action in
t South Vietnam.
I have made it clear so nianY times,
in so many speeches, that I hold no brief
for violations of the Geneva accords by
North Vietnam, by Laos, by Cambodia,
by Red China, that I would assume it
would be unnecessary to mention it In
this speech. But if I did not mention it,
someone would point out that Ldid not,
and unfounded conclusions would be
drawn from the fact of my not doing so.
I have no doubt that North Vietnam
violated the Geneva accord. China
probably did, too, as did Cambodia and
Laos. The neutral council that was set
up by the Geneva accords found in its
1957 report that both North Vietnam
and South Vietnam had done so.
As I_ have said so many times, it was
found that South Vietnam had done so
In part because of the military aid that
the United States had been furnishing
her and that she had been accepting.
Because the escalating of the war in
South Vietnam, participated in by the
United States, violates the Geneva ac-
cords of 1954, we stand, as a nation, con-
victed a violating the Geneva accords.
What a hypocritical position we take
when we seek to rationalize and alibi.
This is McNamara ',s and Rusk's great
alibi for our course of action in South
Vietnam, IVIcNanlara and Rusk do not
like to have anyone say they are acting
illegally. They are. Neutral counsel
found them violating the Geneva accords
by taking military aid, and the U.S. esca-
lating policies in South Vietnam?ac-
cords we did not even sign, nor did South
Vietnam, by reason of our pressure.
Instead of taking those violations of
the other countries to the United Na-
tions, as we should have done, the alibi
of Rusk and McNamara is, "We are in
there because the Geneva accords of 1954
are being violated.''
As an old professor of logic, if a student
in my course had ever made that argu-
ment, not only would I have flunked him
from the course, but I would have de-
spaired that he could ever survive uni-
versity study.
Rusk and McNamara have brilliant
minds. They know better. They have
placed themselves in a position in which
they are trying to pull through with ra-
tionalizations and alibis that cannot be
bottomed upon either logic or law.
What a glorious opportunity we had?
and still have?to prove that the Geneva
accords of 1954 are being violated by
North Vietnam. I believe they are being
violated by Red China, too. Certainly
they are being violated by the Pathet Lao
in Laos. I am not so sure that Cam-
bodia would come off clean.
Under the sections of the charter
which I discussed the other day in my
speech on the charter, we ought to file
our complaint. Adlai Stevenson, being
the brilliant lawyer he is, ought to offer
his evidence, instead of sitting in New
York, playing the role of judge, prose-
cutor, and jury in one person.
We have no ease, under the Geneva
awards, for justifying America's making
war in South Vietnam.
Great Britain, Australia, and New
Zealand have been perfectly willing to
see the United States fight their colonial
battle for them. We constantly hear of
Britain's fear that Communist success in
Vietnam will endanger Malaysia. But
you do not see any British boys fighting
in Vietnam, or British planes flying
there. The same goes for Australia and
New Zealand, Despite their alleged con-
cern that Indoneka may be encouraged
to move against Malaysia if a Western
foothold is not _held in Vietnam, you do
not see any New Zealanders or Austra-
lians helping to keep that foothold.
AU are perfectly satisfied merely to en-
dorse what Uncle *VI is doing to en-
Approved Or Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B0a403R000200140-009-4
11756
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE May 27
dorse the expenditure of American
money and American blood.
So most of the great powers have rea-
sons of one kind or another for pre-
ferring to keep the issue out of the
United Nations. All have a vested in-
terest fn the outcome, and rather than
turn over the problem to a more im-
partial arbiter, they prefer to fight it out
despite what history teaches about the
end result of such conflicts.
Perhaps Mr. Thant had the great
powers in mind when he doubted the
competency of the U.N. to undertake any
task in southeast Asia. Or perhaps he
had the small, undeveloped nations in
mind. Their preoccupation with their
own economies to the exclusion of their
international responsibilities as U.N.
members has been a widely discussed
shortcoming of the organization.
But the purpose of having the organi-
zation is to provide the means whereby
small and great powers alike can find a
meeting ground. Peace is essential to
all of them. That is why we have the
, and it is the only basic reason. I
predict that there will be no peace in
southeast Asia, and that there will be
growing conflict there until the United
Nations lives up to its charter and inter-
venes.
I hope that Mr. Thant will wake up to
that fact before it is too late, before
he finds himself presiding over the liqui-
dation of the United Nations.
Finally, I cannot let pass the press
reports of Secretary McNamara's com-
ments yesterday after his testimony to
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He said nothing to justify the war he is
managing in South Vietnam. He said
nothing that puts it on a legal footing.
The Constitution still requires a declara-
tion of war or a treaty obligation before
American soldiers can be sent into battle,
and as the Secretary of Defense knows,
American soldiers are now fighting in
South Vietnam not under a declaration
of war nor in pursuance of a treaty, but
on the orders of Mr. McNamara.
That makes our war illegal under the
Constitution of the United States.
Under article 1, section 8 of the Con-
stitution, the power to declare war is
vested in Congress, not in the President,
not in the Secretary of State, not in the
Secretary of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense naturally
made no mention of the United Nations
Charter, to which this country is a signa-
tory. Paragraph 3 of article 2 of the
charter reads:
All members shall settle their interna-
tional disputes by peaceful means in such
a manner that international peace and se-
curity, a ndjustice, are not endangered.
Who in this administration wants to
defend the proposition that we are doing
that in South Vietnam at the very mo-
ment I speak? We are not. That state-
ment is irrefutable. It is undeniable.
We stand in violation of the charter to
which we have put the signature of the
United States.
Yet the Secretary of Defense, in justi-
fication of 'McNamara's war, came out
out of the Committee on Armed Services
trying to alibi for his position. I could
not quite determine from the press re-
ports whether he had walked out on his
press interview of a couple of weeks ago.
It will be recalled that for several
weeks, on the floor of the Senate, I have
been discussing, with great frequency,
McNamara's war in South Vietnam. I
pointed out in answer to some of his
apologists that he took a little umbrage
because I had called it McNamara's war
and said that I would continue to call it
McNamara's war, because that is exactly
what it is, as evidenced by the fact that
the Secretary of Defense prepared the
blueprint for the war.
So long as the President retains him
as Secretary of Defense, it is to be ex-
pected that the President will follow the
Secretary's blueprint. But the Presi-
dent needs a new blueprint for southeast
Asian policy; and in order to get a new
blueprint for southeast Asian policy, he
needs a new Secretary of Defense. It is
as simple as that.
The Secretary of Defense has been
silent about the provisions of the United
Nations Charter. It is well that he
should be, in view of his indefensible
position in leading this country into an
undeclared McNamara's war in Asia.
Paragraph 4 of article 2 of the United
Nations Charter provides:
All 'members shall refrain In their inter-
national relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the purposes
of the United Nations.
We were caught flatfooted. We were
caught dead to rights; and that is the
posture of the United States in the
world today.
Yet an attempt is now being made to
steamroller through Congress increased
appropriations of millions of dollars for
the conduct of McNamara's war in Asia.
As I said earlier in this speech, I fear
that it will escalated into a nuclear war.
There are many things about that leg-
islative straterlt that I abhor. One of
them is its indirection. One of them?
although it was not very subtle?is what
I suspect was designed to be a subtle
strategy in order to get Congress "on the
hook" by means of an indirect approval
of the undeclared war in South Viet-
nam, through the passage of an ap-
propriation bill which would provide mil-
lions of dollars for its prosecution.
Mr. President, I stress my concern
about what I consider to be a very un-
fortunate indirect legislative tactic in
an attempt to obtain congressional ap-
proval of the undeclared war in South
Vietnam. I refer to the attempt to
steamroller through the two bodies of
Congress appropriations for conducting
McNaroara's war in South Vietnam. It
is not to our credit; It is not the way we
should face the issue. As the Cor.gress
of the United States, we should vcrx di-
rectly either for or against a declara-
tion of war; and then we should permit
the voters to pass their judgment on our
votes.
As more and more Americans come to
understand the facts involved in Mc-
Namara's war, I am satisfied that a grow-
ing feeling of resentment is spreading
through the United States. Later, Mr.
President, I shall request permission to
have printed in the RECORD some recent
communications I have received in re-
gard to the position I have taken on the
war in South Vietnam,
One of them has come from one of the
greatest living historians in the United
States; he has made perfectly clear his
agreement with the position I have
taken, All of those communications
come from very responsible citizens
across this country. I shall have to de-
lete the names of some of the writers of
the letters; but, as I have previously
stated, their letters will remain on file
in my office, available for inspection.
Some of them come from members of
our armed services in South Vietnam,
who have been writing what the cor-
respondents also have been writing
from South Vietnam concerning the un-
soundness of McNamara's position in
regard to his blueprinted war in South
Vietnam.
Mr. President, I am satisfied that once
the American people come to understand
the facts about this uncalled for, un-
jusified killing of American boys in South
Vietnam, that resentment will reach the
point of white heat of opposition to those
who support it.
I am aware of the Madison Avenue
technique and the propaganda support
used by a warmongering press. By and
large, at this hour the press of this
country is a warmongering press. I am
aware of the various media of prop-
aganda that are being used in attempts
to convince the American people that
they must fight, that they must make
war, or else the Communists "will get
them"?as if the American people were
still little children who could still be
frightened by scare stories. I know such
propaganda tactics can fool many per-
sons for a period of time. But, Mr. Pres-
ident, one must have my faith in people,
to follow my course of action; namely,
that once the American people under-
stand the spiritual values, the moral
principles, and the legal obligations
owed by our country to the United Na-
tions and, through it, to the world, they
will ultimately approve the course I ad-
vocate.
I say to my political colleagues in the
Congress that before there is that final
recognition of the right, some political
losses may be suffered by some. But how
Insignificant would be such sacrifices on
the part of any of us, if they were made
in the interest of trying to maintain
world peace.
I do not intend to permit anyone who
Involves himself in this historic debate
to overlook the fact that we have one
common objective, one compelling obli-
gation?to maintain world peace; for if
we do not do so in our generation, we
shall not have any heritage of freedom
to leave to our grandchildren.
One of the most inexcusable and fal-
lacious bits of propaganda that is being
spread by the propagandists of McNa-
mara's war in South Vietnam is the
statement that we are engaging in that
war in the name of freedom. What non-
sense. There is no freedom in South
Vietnam. In South Vietnam, as I said
yesterday, we are supporting a military
dictatorship?a dictatorship that is so
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4
1964
Approved For R
CO
scared abg,ti_its Survival that .?It closed
apers'ariTaiteSted nine of its
ISeteyx4p9gIllp?oirents-'-'6.iiii in 'those
neWSpapeittlie_ re ,watiptiptiferthane
edv4.6-etrulit-
little
Military tyrant, we and are
supporting Itt South
different Pia& eyer;Vtrrgnhrtia,nlhetlaeuepses he
fears for ins
If the tinited States were out of South
Vietnaraand tbe United Nations were in,
the difference Woilid be a difference be-
tween the Making of war on the one hand
and maintaining ,the peace on the other.
That is . quite a elifference. We ouId
find a great difference in attitude de-
veloping among the South Vietnamese
(people, too, which would open the way
to go in for the next 20 to 25 Years?it
would take that long?to help build up
a system of economic freedom for the
people of South Vietnam- Out of which
Wottld grow Potiticirfreedem for them
nnte thy Understood.
Clever Propaganda is leaving the irn-
? presilori that the peonle of South 'Viet-
? nam are enthusiastic democrats with a
small "d", Nothing could be more mis-
taken, They do net krib* the difference,
and they 'Care less about the differenCeS
between and athong political ideelogieS.
'they ,would understand economicfree-
dom. Once we help to develop a system
bf economic freedom 17r them, the politi-
cal result will be inevitable. There Will
be political freedom of choice for the
Individual, for it always grows_ out 61- a
seedbed oreconomic freeoii. We must
establish it first. _
Senators must have my faith that the
ftal 'Judgment will be rendered by the
American people, once they understand
the facts.
We must be willing?as I am Walling?
to follow -4 course of _actio4;:ie-gratull
though I do, contrary to the Present
course of action of nay Government in
the field of foreign policy, hopefully?
always hoping, of course?that my GoY-
ernMent would change its policy.
? There is, no questia'n as to where the
itni0 eair freni3O,,,regen will Stand
tf his Goxerntrient Should. fnaUy ,make
the colossal Wunder of either declaring
war or entering :into _a "fuil7Seale war
undeclared. Then the issue would be
drawn . between Red China and Red
Russia, on the one hand, and the stir=
Tival of ,my country on the other, We
Shall all he tifiltekat that; hai*,43:cteing
What, We can to succesetillY prosecute
Such an unnecessary and unjustifiable
war, but One Which at that time Would
preserit us, with a set, of facts that in-
volved the survival of the country, for I
would riot imte Zu the war,? X sh4iltsOP,-
trate tofdo what x can te, persuade the
leaders of My country to reappraise 'the
Mistaken .course a, action, which_ theY
have, followed up to the present moment.
That is ,why I urge again that they re-
read And Arieditate upon the sections of
the Pnited Vationkchartg_whlsh M.
etevehs64:4,54-11Sithfug, to say about in
is most unfortunate speiefi of the other
day, and aliOnf-whiCh there is not the
Slightest Intimation of Idiewledge in the.
unfortunate statement that the Pecre-
No. 1067-----16
se 2005/02/10 CIA-RDP66B00403RUW200140009-4
GRESSIONA1L RECORD ? stN-Rrt
tary General of the 'United Nations made
in recent hours concerning the relation-
ship between the United Nations and the
war In Asia.
-Returning to his statement of yester-
day, the Secretary of Defense made no
reference, either, to article 33 of the
charter, which provides?
The parties to any dispute, the continuance
of which is likely to endanger the main-
tenance of international peace and security,
shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotia-
tion, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbi-
tration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful
means of their own choice.
We have never invoked that article.
We have never attempted to use article
33. We stand convicted before the world
of having walked out on our obligations
under the United Nations Charter. We
signed that commitment at San Fran-
cisco. The Senate approved it, and the
treaty was ratified. It calls for affirma-
tive action on our part. It calls for af-
firmative action on the part of Great
Britain, our "egger on-er." It calls for
affirmative action on the part of the
other signatories. But in view of their
statements, which I consider to be un-
fortunate, uncalled for, and inexcusable,
it calls for action also on the part of
Adlai Stevenson and U Thant.
Most certainly Secretary McNamara
did not respond to article 37, which pro-
vides?
Should the parties to a dispute of the
nature referred to in article 33 fall to settle
it by the means indicated in that article,
they shall refer it to the Security Council.
We stand convicted again. We have
not lived up to our obligations under one
article after another of the United Na-
ions Charter. Is the United States try-
ing to destroy the United Nations? Is
that our purpose? This will help to do
'it, because if we persist in this unlawful
course of action vis-a-yis international
law, nation after nation, if we ever at-
tempt to hold any other nation respon-
sible for its obligation under the United
Nations Charter, will cite our defiance of
the United Nations Charter in South
Vietnam.
I am sure that most American citizens
do not know that. Our leaders are
counting on the fact that they do not
know it. The Secretary of Defense, Mr,
McNamara, the U.S. Ambassador to the
-United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, and
Mr. U Thant, the Secretary General of
the United Nations, were very careful
not even to allude to those obligations.
The articles of the charter making the
war we are fighting in South Vietnam
illegal under the United Nations Charter
had 'better be considered by the leaders
Of my Government who are responsible
for the unjustifiable course of action
that we are following in South Vietnam,
Which is leading to the unnecessary kill-
ing of American boys.
Secretary McNamara has already pre-
sided over a considerable escalation of
the war In Vietnam. At the same time,
he has presided over a consideration de-
terioration of our condition there. Un-
less the countries of the world, function-
11757
ing through the United Nations, act
under the provisions of the charter to
take over this dispute, it will be Mr. Mc-
Namara's role in history to preside over
a large and hopeless American land war
In Asia that wilfUndoubtedly see the use,
sooner or later, of nuclear weapons.
And that means the loss of hundreds of
thousands of human beings.
-Both Mr. 'Thant and Mr. McNamara,
who seem to have parallel views on the
subject, must remember that war has a
way of dictating its own means and its
own ends. A country gets into a war
only because it believes it has interests
St stake that justify it. Thereafter, the
war sets its own demands upon the
methods used, and very often those
methods change the objective of the war
itself. Sometimes the causes that gave
rise to it disappear long before the war
comes to a close.
A war also creates its own vested in-
terests. It would be far easier for the
United States to make a graceful exit
now from our unilateral position in
southeast Asia than it would be after we'
had committed still more troops and air
power. The longer this conflict con-
tinues and the more intense it becomes,
the less chance there is of the United
Nations or anyone else heading it off.
I return to the point I raised the other
day about face saving. We still read it
in the newspapers. It is surprising how
many editors start their editorials by
deprecating the plight we are in, and
criticizing our Government for getting us
into this plight. One reads on, thinking
the editor at long last is going to make
a plea for sanity in American foreign
policy, only to find the editor diverting
himself with ,the facesaving argument.
So, in one language form or another,
the editors end by saying, "Of course, we
cannot get out. That would be a great
loss in American prestige and face."
Mr. President, I cannot understand
such an attitude. I have heard the old
'story about throwing out the baby with
the bath water, but I never thought any-
one would come to suggest that we blow
off heads to save face. That is the kind
of face saving we are engaged in in South
Vietnam today?blowing off the heads
of American boys, as well as a large num-
ber of South Vietnamese, apparently to
save face.
It is nonsense. It does not change the
immorality of what we are doing. It
does not lessen one whit ,my earlier crit-
icism in this speech that this country has
walked out on our moral values as a re-
ligious people by prosecuting this illegal
war in southeast Asia.
Nothing said by the Secretary Gen-
eral, Mr. U Thant, the American Am-
bassador to the United Nations, Mr.
Adlai Stevenson, the Secretary of De-
fense, Mr. McNamara, the Secretary of
State, Mr. Rusk, or the President of the
Milted States changes the fact that in
Seiith Vietnam the United States is act-
ing outside the framework of its obliga-
tions under the United Nations Charter.
_
That foreign policy should be changed
before it is too late. I believe that the
world expects more from Mr. U Thant,
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403
. $11111111'
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66410403R000200140009-4
11758 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 27
from Mr. Stevenson, from Mr. Mc-
Namara, from Mr. Rusk?yes, and more
from the President of the United States.
To seek to rationalize and alibi our
foreign policy in South Vietnam, which
Is undercutting the United Nations, may
very well endanger its very survival, in
my judgment. It may very well present
to the world the sad spectacle of the
Secretary General, tr Thant, presiding
over the liquidation of the United
Nations.
If that hour comes, in my judgment,
the hope for peace in the world will
vanish, and mankind will thrust itself
into the holocaust of that destruction.
The world expects more from the
Secretary General, the Secretary of De-
fense, the Ambassador to the United Na-
tions, the Secretary of State, and the
President of the United States.
I shall continue to pray tonight that
we will get more from these leaders,
whose decision can change the course of
events in southeast Asia which at the
present time jeopardize the peace of the
world.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD cer-
tain Communications on this subject.
There being no objection, the com-
munications were ordered to be printed
In the RECORD, as follows:
BAN AreroN10,
May 25, 1964.
Senator WAYNE Moose.
Senate Office Building,,
Washington, D.C.:
Great analysis by a great American. Please
continue to promote truth and democracy.
WILLIAM J. LYTLE.
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
May 24, 1964.
Senator WAYNE Mossz,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
After today's "Pace the Nation." I would
say I am not from Oregon but I'm some-
what sorry that I cannot vote for you. I wish
I could.
Itzatarrn H. Jarormrs.
CAILliamoz, Mass.,
May 24, 1964.
Senator WAYNE Moasz,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.: -
Thank you for that Magnificent talk on
television today. I am with you 100 percent.
Rsr..sn PEABODY.
Dzraorr, Mica., May 24, 1964.
Senator WAYNE Mouse,
Washington, D.C.:
Just heard you on "Pace the Nation." Sim-
ply spectacular. Your message desperately
needed by the American people. Keep talk-
ing. We all bless you.
Mr. and Mrs. HERBERT T. Rizetnte,
Sr. Loma, Mo., May 24, 1964.
Senator WAYNE Molise,
Senate _Office Building,
Washington, D.O.:
Deeply deeply thankful to have heard your
today's much-needed alerting message on
"Pace the Nation." Hoping you too await
and expect again Stevenson's best.
Gratefully yours,
Hoag T. Joxes
Mrs, MOIST T. JorrAs.
CHAMPAIGN, ILL., May 24, 1984.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
Your performance on '"Pace the Nation"
was masterfuL
Thank you.
JOHN J. DEBOER.
GRANTS PASS, Oaza.,
May 24, 1964.
Hon. Senator WAYNE Moms,
Senate Office Building,
Washington. D.C.:
Congratulations. Your TV interview put
Into words the very thoughts I have in mind
and heart.
Beatrice B. Momsa.
liou.vwooD,
May 16, 1964.
U.S. Senator WAYNE Molar,
Senate Building, Washington, D.C.:
Your recent speech relative to Vietnam
on floor of Senate was masterpiece. My
brother, Bob Hendrickson, your former col-
league and U.S. Senator from New Jersey,
briefed me over long-distance telephone and
we both say congratulations. Keep up your
great work.
Daw Harmarcxsore.
QUINCY, MICH.,
May 25, 1964.
Senator WAYNE liSoasr,
Senate Office Building,
Washington. D.C.:
Bravo, bravo, bravo on your "Face the
Nation" reply to a hostile press, on the Viet-
nam situation. Run for President and I'll
campaign for you.
W. E, Cacrrnr,
Chairman of the Board, Crotty Corp.
To Senator WAYNE Moms: Please. Keep
on talking. Please. Don't be Cent. Speak
for those of us who believe you are right
and have no way to voice our opinion.
Please. Speak out.
It is obvious to anyone who cares to look
that we are fighting a war against the Viet-
namese people. We have devised a plan, we
say, a very good plan; we just don't under-
stand why it doesn't work because there is
something keeping the people from cooperat-
ing with us. rive planes missing. Unex-
plained. Two possibly downed by mechanical
failure and three others Just misplaced.
Americans are being killed by their own
weapons supposedly fighting for a people who
are fighting against them. Could there be
greater insanity?
And yet, we march on, without eyes, with-
out vision (and worst) without mind. I
suppose I am so pessimistic because it is not
only in Vietnam that we are without sight.
All of our actions emanate from the same
blind vision. To understand our Insanity is
beyond my ability. That I see the Insanity
is more than most and that you have spoken
out against It is beyond all hope for in this
madness, one does not expect to see a light
in this most black darkness. You must con-
tinue to speak out and I write to help sup-
port the burden you have taken upon your-
melt and to ask what can be done to help.
It seems that once something happens In
our Government it is almost Impossible to
stop it from continuing. People get into
positions of power in a situation and are
unwilling to give up their power even if
they see the situation should come to an
end. The situation In Vietnam must come
to an end. The United States must remove
what never should have been there
In Frederico Pellinre movie, "8%," an
enormous tower is built, which, In the end,
is useless and must be dismantled without
being used. There are many towers like this
In our world today. Vietnam is one. But,
in the movie, as in life, there is a tremen-
dous feeling of frustration created by not
using this monstrosity. Pellini is moat di-
rectly symbolizing the bomb, something that
we have but must never use, something that
we have created that we must discard with-
out using. To do this, to not use the bomb,
to remove ourselves from Vietnam. requires
something which man so lacks today, re-
straint, but which man must have if he is
going to survive.
So, please, continue to speak out. Keep
on talking. Make them take down the tow-
er. It is a very difficult thing to do. People
are so proud of their work, even their mon-
strosltits.
Sincerely.
SUSAN GARLOCK.
AMHERST COLLEGE,
DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN STUDIES,
Amherst, Mass., May 24, 1964.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: EVEITLIAIlg you said
today cm "Pace the Nation" made sense.
Clearly we are headed for disaster in south-
east Asia if we persist in our policy of uni-
lateral action; clearly the way out is to put
the whole business before the United Na-
tions. I think you did say that we should
welcome De Gaulle's proposal to neutralize
the whole area. I did not hear you say what
is, / think, equally obvious, that the coop-
eration of Red China is essential to pacifica-
tion of this area, and that the price of this
is the admission of, China to the United
Nations. China sholTd be admitted on other
grounds as well, but is it not clear that this
present crisis is furnishing us the clearest
of all possible lessons in what happens when
China is not in the U.N. and the strongest
of arguments for recognizing that she must
be brought in?
Who was the imbecile from the Chicago
Daily News who had such difficulty under-
standing what you were saying? He ought
to be returned to Chicago where his capacity
for obfuscation would not be so irritating or
unusual.
Sincerely yours.
HENRY COMMAGER.
MANSFIELD CENTER, CONN.,
May 9, 1964.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
nms SENATOR Alkmsts: I wish to congratu-
late you for your gallant efforts concerning
our policy toward South Vietnam.
A glance at the situation in South Vietnam
illustrates the bankruptcy of our approach
to the problems of all of southeast Asia.
The struggle for Vietnam has become a bot-
tomless pit for the Unitedl States. We have
wasted some 65 billion in that region since
1960. Today the bill is running at the rate
of 61% million a day, while more than 16,000
U.S. troops serve as combat "advisers" to
the Junta of the moment.
What do we have to show for our invest-
ment in men and money? Only a bitter har-
vest of mounting Communist victories, to
loss of American life, the increasing dis-
enchantment of the war-weary Vietnamese
people, and the hardening of dictatorship in
the government of our choice.
Keep up the good work.
Sincerely yours,
JAN ARV&
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I also
ask unanimous consent to have printed
In the RECORD a transcript of a television
program of last Sunday entitled "Pace
the Nation," in which I was the person
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4
the bar of ques
rem, ,1--drie-Wedliirtlift:Oliffilit
siiieoth?iews! hive ex-
Tpn t1ielfOOF-or 'the Seriale "this-
-.Ei,f,terii0,ii,,-Tiiiiil-the765-iiiinunications Ill-
600,4 In the FCoaD relate to the Views
OXIOXeS8e6 IR that EJrrio Objection the Iext of
P..aStep.qt was oiffered fobe printed
1.11ithOltReoeb., as fOTTOWS:
. -
,
(As broadcast over th?BS- teleVision net-:
/Ork :and 'the epp radio iietWork, Sunday,_
i4y 24 1664, 1.2?80 -
63.leerti:"ite TiCifioiatje -
, Senate; riehioCiat:'of'bregen. "
News correesPoriblenta: Paid Niven, Mis-
r/ewe; Peter Lisager,- Mileage Valif
and lyra,rvhi Cl3S News.
--rteckneerai ?then.' tritalei!ahd Prentiss
Oh41,4,
PIT,Opt9-F: 'Robert Vitarelli.
".'4orilsr,.els`a. From. Washington, B.C., Sen-
ator WAYNE 'MORSE
Democrat of tif-e-g6i-i:will
'-PaOa the Stattati,'", in a Ifve,sontaneous and
-Seriefor-MOrse
till 'bp, c,iii-eatiOnad by Cb eiVS-151.Prarilatle-
-"Corresporidant-Mariiin: -Kalb; Teter "Lisagor,
'Washlog'tori- bUreau-ohiel - of ' the Chicago
DaiiY-NeWs. ? - - ?
,:.o ',lead:the, questioning, here is CBS News
CorrOPCiiiderit Paul Nivea.
:Mr?,Niv*.:Senater MeasE, welcome to
"rade the _
%-11 1952, 5,1611" left the RePiibliben-Paity to
Carrilffi'lgft for "AdIet SteVenseri-fer President.
?The day' -befara- -YeSterday you accused
Stevens= g ;Furkfug out on his past-reccird
ot_ 440#411:0-ii14; "The disagreement- was
oxer?,parilaipatiori in the Wer'lli-"Sbilth
Viethani, an-4- Stevenson's defense thereof in
the 14.N. speech. -
,In almost daiy speeches on the -Senate
fiooiT yOu have haen 'Calling the war "Mc-
Nainara'a'wr,flegeribing- It? as 'illegal arid
-.11-neon6tItutIonal,-and dethanding that A-Mer-
le= troops beulled out.
" We" Would like to ask you today,- Senator,
about, the Situation in southeast :Asia, about
the civil rights, bill, '6.nd abOtit --the-lc-oveiti-
bei? election, -
We will begin the questioning In Just 1
minUte.,.."
NiVsir; -Senator 'lqbasa, what do you'
_ - '
rA'.1004,*110:Ii-j'd# 0411 Our "paitiatiiatiOriln the
SaUt-h, VietnamWar uncerittittition:ar -and
- '-
.-tenatoz oasa. -Well, our Goverinnenchai
no ifgbt to send Ainerlean 156
in any battThfield Int the sence of a decla-
ration 0'1*, and artiala aeatiehilrOfIES?
Co.*.thigon vests the, prerogative
ip.s War 'in the Congress of the 'Mita Stites,
asid lb 3var';hP,-6.,W0-1001,a*Liii iT,OSIthst
--an:d 'Until.' a War in' dealareciii
-
eTld 1o,ys to their death in SOuth
71P't*% 1-4
4rici ille,gal, 1i thy jf1?
under the
hope
ef
:6;1_ 1 14; :41? :;1106;61:e :1111v'l1-1 :1137thavo'd "
ttriltesi stevenion.pttwo speeches
!I?t!e''c 0*P ,77-g-metrit4z9fie
uiThe
by in tements he a 0_457
grea-u.6.68a-the
United at1ons bOI the th4,4s_CW-A*1440.44e:WV4_,CUPIWW---
tions it is Apo Tzjad , at. yke,..ppruaitted his
lips to be used to read _a speech
f Which as written for him
down at 04*pt,p4q,pgprg.44.0,
,As Isa.Id
think of the #aarlflog
of 4nieriaa.4..boys in South Vietnam, the
cast:laity of 'a United, Nations ambassador-
. _
ship woUld have 'been smaT1 sacrifice fo
Mr. Stevenson to have paid, and, in my
judgment, he should have resigned that am-
bassadorship before he extinguished his
light of world statesmanship which he ex-
tinguished, in my opinion, when he delivered
that speech.
Mr. LISAGOR. Senator MORSE, we fought,
this country fought a war in Korea under
the umbrella of the United Nations. Would
you "advocate that this country turn the
whole of the South Vietnamese war over to
the United Nations or to a group of United
Nations powers in which case the united
states could then participate, or do you just
...advocate that we pull out and leave them to
their own devices?
Pe/later MORSE-. Pint, let me say that we
fought the Korean war not under the um-
brella of the United Nations, but as a partici-
pant to the United Nations in conducting
that war. I have never criticized American
'foreign policy without always offering a sub-
stitute of a policy that I think ought to
take- the place of the policy I am criticizing.
Por Week-a, on the floor of the Senate, I
have been urging our Government to take
the southeast Asia issue to the United Na-
tions. "We have a clear duty to do it, under
the charter, and I am asking that the United
Nations be asked to set up a peacekeeping
force in southeast Asia to maintain the
peace. There is a lot of difference between
,tritintaining peace and making war. The
United States is making war in South Viet-
nam, not maintaining peace.
Mr. KALB. Senator, do you feel that a "U.N.
peace force can actually maintain peace in
as turbulent an area as southeast Asia?
Senator MORSE. Why, if there is any hope
for the United Nations to survive, it must.
V'on certainly can't destroy?justify destroy-
ing the united Nations the way we are do-
ing now. The pUrpoSe of the United Nations
is for the signatories thereto to band 'Le-
gether and keep the peace, and that is why
we are supporting United Nations forces in
the Congo, in the Middle Rast, in Cyprus.
Why not in southeast Asia? -
Mr. KALB. Well, Senator, there is always a
constant battle at the U.N. as to ho you
set up a 'peace-keeping forCe under a United"
Nations umbrella.
Senator MORSE. Of course?
Mr. -Kim. pa- you really feel that the
SovietU. on, which has already ma e its
-
petition quite clear on this issue, would
agree to setting up a united Nations force
for southeast Asia?
Senator MORSE. As I have said so many
times in my senate speeches, let's put
Russia and Red China on the spot. Let us
put. Russia on the spot and see if she dares
veto such a program in the security council,
but don't think the security council ends
the power of the united Nations. If Red
Russia vetoes it in the Security council, then
you know what I think my Government
ought to do? It ought to call for an extra-
ordinary meeting of the General Assembly of
the United Nations, and I was one of your
delegates to the General Assembly in 1960 and
after that experience I came away more con-
vinced than ever that the only hope for peace
in the world is through the United Nations,
and we ought to then call for an extraordi-
nary meeting of the General Assembly of the
United Nations and let the world speak up,
because I am satisfied that the overwhelming
majority of the nations of the world would
join in insisting that the United Nations
move In and maintain the peace.
I J,
'Now?
Mr. KALB. Senator?
Senator MORSE. If you are not going to do
it, what Is your alternative? Let me say on
this telecast today to the American people
the real danger if you don't follow that
golirse ofitOtiori is e,scalating the war in
southeast Asia and the plans are in prepara-
tion for escalating It if our Government
al77, :
11759
decides that is' the coin-se it wants to folio*,
and that will mean the death of thousands
and thousands of American boys and you will
be bogged down in southeast Asia for a quar-
ter of a century and then you won't win.
Mr. LISAGOR. Senator MORSE?
Senator MORSE. I happen to think we are
really On the brink this time and the 'United
States ought to take this issue to the United
Nations and go back to its glorious record
of using the United Nations as the instru-
mentality for maintaining peace.
Mr. LISAGOR. Senator MORSE, Communist
China is not a member of the United Na-
tions and it is a chief offender in southeast
Asia.
Senator MORSE. So what?
Mr. LISAGOR. How do you bring China be-
fore the dock in the United Nations? we
tried that in the Korean war. It didn't work
then. How do you do it in southeast Asia?
Senator MORSE. You. won't know until you
try it and let me tell you what I think the
result will be. If you get the United Na-
tions to recognize that this is a threat to
the peace of the world and we may go into
a third world war if we don't stop this, and
the nations line up in support of that doc-
trine, watch Red China work for an accom-
modation because Red China has no inten-
tion in my judgment--she wouldn't be that
shortsighted to try to take on the world.
MT. LISAGOR. In specific?
Senator MORSE. But she isn't going to
hesitate to take on the United States in
Asia,
Mr. LISAGOR. In 'Specific terms, Senator,
what would you do about southeast Asia?
Do you support the idea that we mightdpe
able to neutralize it as General de Gaulle
has suggested?
Senator MORSE. Well, I want to say, con-
trary to Mr. Stevenson's proposal in this
very unfortunate and unsound speech of
his, we ought to support France's request
for a reconvening of the signatories to the
- Geneva accord of 1954 which, incidentally,
- we didn't sign and which we persuaded
South Vietnam not to sign. The sad fact
- is, and many Americans don't realize it,
neither the United States nor South Viet-
nam signed the Geneva accord in 1954, and
yet we are saying to the world, the Geneva
-accords are being violated. They sure are
- being violated. I happen to think they have
been violated for some time by North Viet-
nam, by Red China, by Laos, possibly by
Cambodia and certainly by South Vietnam,
In fact, the neutral council that was set up
in the 1954 accord has -found as a matter of
official finding that North Vietnam and South
Vietnam have both violated the Geneva ac-
cord of 1954, and one of the reasons they
found that South Vietnam had violated it
was because of American military interven-
tion in South Vietnam specifically contrary
to the accords of 1954, and tvhat should we
have done instead of following that course
of action? Should we try to rationalize, as
Stevenson does, going into South Vietnam be-
cause North Vietnam has violated the ac-
cords? we should have taken the issue to the
United Nations immediately. We should
have filed a complaint. As a nonsigner to
the Geneva accords we had no international
law or right to unilaterally try to enforce
them. The fact is we are outside the char-
ter. we are outside the accord.
Mr. KALB. Senator, there is another Geneva
Conference and that was in 1962 and that
did reach an agreement to which the United
States is a signatory.
-Senator MORSE. That is right. Laos,
Mr. KALB. For the neutrality of Laos.
Senator MORSE. That is over Laos.
Mr. KALB. In this particular case, the
United States right now is conducting air
reconnaissance over the northern part of
Laos controlled by the Fathet Lao. First,
do you agree that this is asound policy?
elease 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP6*040:',
00111k
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66BA3R000200140009-4
11760 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 27
Senator Mouse. Completely unsound. Very
Interesting that the British are egging us
on, but they haven't got any British planes
over Laos, you'll notice, and, after all, Britain
and Russia have the primary responsibility,
as far as the original agreements are con-
cerned, to take the leadership here in trying
to get something done about the Geneva
accords, but so do we, and we ought to
have Laos before the United NktIona, too.
I don't know why we think just because
we are mighty that we have the right to
try to substitute might for right, and that
Is the American policy in southeast Asia.
It is just as unsound when we do it as when
Russia does it. And we have no more right
in South Vietnam than Russia has in East
Germany. They are on a parallel. Russia
says the East Germans invited them in and
we say the South Vietnamese invited us in.
although South Vietnam has been our
puppet government ever since it has been
created. We ought to get rid of this violat-
ing of International law and we ought to
keep faith with our idealism and Stevenson
ought to start his march back from his re-
treat of the other day and return to the
United Nations and ask the United Nations
to take jurisdiction.
Mr. NIVEN. Sir, you said repeatedly that
the U.N. jurisdiction ought to extend to all
four of the states of Indochina. Can you
imagine the, Communists accepting the U.N.
presence in North Vietnam?
? Senator Moasz. Well, we know what hap-
pened when we made our objections in other
places of the world to the Communists, but
the fact is that in a good many instances
they reconciled themselves to the realities.
Le.* at Russia first in the Congo. Why, you
had threats from Russia that she was going
to invade the Congo and she was set to in-
vade the Congo, but the fact is---
Mr. Nnrze. But the Congo?
Senator Molise. But the fact is Russia with-
drew from those intentions, and you never
know?you see. I say respectfUlly that so
many people are thinking in terms of hypo-
theticals. "Do you think this would happen.
Senator?" "Do you -think that will hap-
pen?"
You will never know until you go back to
the framework of the United Nations, and
we are outside the framework of the United
Nations.
We have even got the Secretary of State
now standing tip before the American Law
Institute rattling America's saber, threaten-
ing that if we don't have our way in south-
east Asia we are going in with expanded
action. I think that its a sad, dark day in
American foreign relations history.
Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, it seems easy enough
to criticize what we are doing, but what I
don't understand is, what (specifically would
you prescribe for the area? Is it neutralize:
ton? Is it that we abandon the whole area
to their own devices? Or what do you see as
being possible in southeast Asia today if
American force is withdrawn from it?
Senator Meese. No. 1, abandon unilateral
U.S. action in southeast Asia.
? Mr. LISAGOR. Under those circumstances,
does that not mean abandoning southeast
Asia?
Senator Maass. Not at all. You dind't let
me get to my second point.
We announce to the world that we are
going to abandon unilateral American mili-
tary action, but we are going to support
and we will help supply forces to the United
Nations to maintain a peace-keeping corps
of whatever size is necessary in this trouble
spot of the world to maintain peace, be-
cause it you don't maintain peace over there,
you have no assurance that this cannot es-
calate itself into a nuclear war, because let
rese say, as a member of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, that I am satisfied that U
we escalate this war into North Vietnam,
nuclear weapons" will be used.
Now, does anyone think for a moment
that the first nuclear weapon the Waited
States uses In North Vietnam, if we come to
that, that Red China is going to send un
bouquets?
Mr. lasecoa. Are you suggesting that Red
China has nuclear weapons now. Senator?
Senator Maass. I am suggesting that she
has got millions and millions of manpower
that she can pour into Laos and overrun, or
North Vietnam. and overrun any Western
army you want to put in there.
Mr. KALB. Senator, you are saying that part
of the American escalation plan as you see
it for North Vietnam Is the use of nuclear
weapons?
Senator MoEsE. U we go into North Viet-
nam with an escalated war, I am satisfied
we will use nuclear weapons.
Mr. KALB. Do you feel that if the United
States--
Senator MORSE. What do you think, we will
put an army in North Vietnam. in the jun-
gles of North Vietnam? Do you think you
could support ao American army in North
Vietnam? Why, they wouldn't have a
chance. Find me the military officials, will
yott. that know anything about Asiatic war-
fare that will tell you that American ground
forces can win a ground war in Asia. That
Is not the place to let the Communists pick
up our battlefield for us. / don't propose to
let the Communists pick our battlefield for
us, and thp great danger is we are going to
let the Communists pick a battlefield for us
in Asia.
I think it is just inexcusable from many
angles, and may I take a minute. because
I want to get to your next question very
quickly, but I think the questions that you
have raised entitle this audience to know
the basis of my foreign policy philotophy
because I am a disciple of the greatest Re-
publican in my judgment in foreign policy
that has served in the Senate during my 20
years there, the great Arthur Vandenberg,
at one time the greatest isolationist in the
Senate, to become the leading international-
ist in the Senate. And after he became
briefed 'on the oncoming atomic bomb, he
turned from an isolationist to an interna-
tionalist and he left with us this tenet. I
want to recommend it Once more to AdIal
Stevenson. I thought he had accepted it for
years, but he walked out on it the other
day. I want to recommend It to Dean Rusk
because he certainly isn't following it
Neither is McNamara down in the Defense
Establishment. And here it is.
There is no hope for permanent peace in
the world until all of the nations of the
world, not just those we like, but until all
the nations of the world are willing to set
up a system of international justice through
law, through the procedures of which would
be submitted each and every issue that
threatens the peace of the world, to be en-
forced by an international organization such
as the United Nations. And I want to say
it is mankind's best hope for peace. There
is no hope for mankind If we continue to use
jungle law of military might which the
United States is using in South Vietnam to-
day to try to win a peace, for no longer in
history can you win a peace through war.
Mr. Mum. Senator, can we look at this
politically for a moment? Wouldn't Pres-
ident Johnson or any President who aban-
doned any Communist war in an election
year open himself to charges of surrender or
appeasement from his political opposition?
Senator Masse. I think it is a ghastly sug-
gestion. I just think it is untenable that the
United States should adopt a foreign policy
that would be geared to political expediency
rather than to right, and I want to say that
my President I am convinced?and he and I
disagree on this matter of foreign policy?
but my President is a thoroughly honest
man of principle and / am satisfied he "%could
not adopt an argument of expediency. If
he thought it was the proper course of action
to follow what I am recommending, he would
follow it. But I want to say now in direct
answer to your question, I completely-reject
the idea that American foreign policy ought
to be related to political expediency because
the right is always a course of action that
the American people will follow once they
get the facts supporting the right policy.
M. LISAGOR. Senator, the Constitution
gives to the President of the United States
the sole responsibility for the conduct of
foreign policy, does it not?
Senator Moue. You couldn't be mare
wrong. You couldn't make a more unsound
legal statement than the one you have just
made. This Is the promulgation of an old
fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the
President of the United States.
Mr. larenooE. To whom does it belong, then
Senator?
Senator MORSE. It belongs to the American
people.
Mr. LISAGOR. All right. Then how can
you?
Senator Molise. The constitutional fathers
made it very very clear.
Mr. LLSAGOR. Then how can you say that
Adlai Stevenson or Secretary of State Rusk
or Secretary McNamara, have three separate
foreign policies which they are promulgat-
ing in the UN., the State Department and-
the Defense Department? Where does the
President fit into this?
Senator MOREE. What I am saying is?
Mr. LISAGOR. On the responsibility scale?
Senator MoasE. What I am saying is under
our Constitution all the President is is the
administrator of the people's foreign policy.
Those are his prerogatives and I am pleading
that the American people be given the facts
about foreign policy.
Mr. Lxsacoa. You know that the American
people cannot formulate and execute foreign
policy.
Senator MORSE. Why do you say that?
You are a man of little faith in democracy
If you make that kind of statement. I have
complete faith in the ability of the American
people to follow the facts if you will give
them to them.
Mr. LISAGOR. It isn't a lack of faith.
Senator Mows. And my charge against thy
Government is we are not giving the Ameri-
can people the facts. Are we giving the
American people the facts about our obli-
gations under the Untied Nations? Are we
giving the American people the facts about
the Geneva accord? Have we given them a
rundown on what the facts are with regard
to southeast Asia? Read the letters I have
put into the RECORD from a good many
servicemen over there. They will tell you
we are not getting the facts.
No. I reject completely that unsound
argument.
Mr. lenze. I hate to interrupt this fasci-
nating colloquy but we have some questions
also on civil rights and politics, and we
will come to them in just 1 minute.
Senator, if you have to choose between the
civil rights package incorporating the Dirk-
sen amendments and no bill at all, what will
your decision be?
Senator Moasz. First. I am going to vote
for cloture. We have got to get cloture
adopted, and then I will do the best / can
to try to improve the amendments when we
come to the debate on the amendments.
I am going to vote for the best civil rights
bill that we can get passed, and then If it
Is not good enough to meet some of the prob-
lems that confront us, keep right on working
for improvements in Congress session after
Congress session.
Mr. /inns. In other words, in whatever
shape the bill ends up, you expect to vote
for it?
Senator Moasz. Well, I wouldn't say in
whatever shape, but I can't imagine it end-
ing up in such shape that I couldn't vote
?
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4
1964'
Approved ForR414ase 2006/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B004034O14200140009-4
CONGRESSIONAL RE05126=-StVAlt 11761
for it because the issue here is a simple one. Senator IVIossli. I wouldn't support Mc- clik;Teil before the Federal Government
Namara.
Mr. NIVEN. You will bolt the party if
McNamara?
Senator MORSE. Of course I wouldn't bolt
the party. I just wouldn't support his nomi-
nation at the convention. If he was nomi-
nated and that was the choice of the party.
I would support the ticket, of course, but I
wouldn't support him as a vice-presidential
candidate at the convention.
Now, the second part Of your question,
about the Republicans, you know, it would
be presumptuous of me to advise Republi-
cans, and my respect for my old friends Is
such that I wouldn't want to advise them as
to what they could do. It wouldn't make
any difference anyway. No matter what they
do they are going to get beat just about as
bad as Roosevelt beat Landon in 1936.
Mr. NIVEN. Do you think with any vice-
presidential nominee Mr. Johnson?
Senator MORSE. With any vice-presidential
nominee?the President is going to have a
good one and I think he is going to have a
Democrat.
Mr, NIVEN. Senator, thank you very much
for being our guest on "Pace the Nation."
The,tiilie haS. Coliie'tO -deliver for the first
tirneA.OUr'lifetiirithe- Constitution to the
-Vegroes-ofitheriea;. They have never had
,thee Constitution delivered to them. since the
ariCipation l'keep my
eyes On one' titiettlen; -The pr-cT-Visions of this
lil pro-need' te-aeliiier-the? Constitution to
the Ilegrnee,
Now, we ,-,inay fill Short in some particular,
but I am going to vote for the best bill I can
'get, Unless it ends up in such a mishmash
?,that feel it would cause more' harmthan
good, but i don't expect it to end up inthat
kind of a condition._ _
Ur, LISA0a. Senator,. do you licieSee as 6
result: or the vote SOnie--146-rtherh- States
for ?overlie; WarbaCe,"of Alabama, The fact
that the race taskie may be a political factor
in the November presidential election?
-Senator MORSE. If IS toilila to be a political
factor: It hasbean' a political factor in our
.elections for quite some time, and I think
perhaps more so this time than any other.
But, here again, 2 think we have got to get
the faete,,out ?Anikrioan-tieeple as to
!What ..t4e gegroes are en-tiled-to, because
you' know, 'the American people
have a d.ediciated.faithin government bylaw,
and ..oiee they understand that What' We are
paean* in -the Senate constitutes implement-
ing the conatitutional-riglita-of the Negroes,
:they will support' it, but let the Very quickly
remember, the' Constitution Is not self-
eXechting. :The Supreme Court In '1954"- de-
ciarSd the eonetttutionai rights or _Negroes
in regard to desegregated Schools: That if you
are, going ' -gtia-raiitee'-that to -Mein,
_you have gel t,6-ini-Ple-nient It 611-711
righte'bill,and that is onethelftlea -hi
this hill; and I Could go right down the line
llclelMW -that Wh'Fititliii-hiu-dOing-is seek-
lug to friipleineri(die'deaSiorfirorthat great
Court,. fg:K, that Court has h-Cep._sp far ahead
of the .0:Oniregi -YrOuSe. for `SO'
mejy yearethat it IS about tiina-Vr,io -oafeh
- up,
an am iad arid- inaf TiCrY quickly
aay,-; 2- am glad that The
was TceP4,41.4tni, last r pay;at
' C4etty'Sbilig,, delivered- trie-greateet speech
? 814ce34ineol03,4*,.. aige tffe-
taTibli-Count4r,
'
a45 he duet tom vie a fciv-das alei-fii a coil-
verstlep. with ItPI h,e us?.,*;.tpiOdt:044.:::43..
'suppo'rt WiterIng it' down"by denlng the
:Negroes their Copstitutienal rights,
:tclitsZ Sepator, doyou teef:thrit the'
_recent' .shOlving_ of oVerrior- Wallace In Pri-
:the-TraSilleP,t's 'airength
-Sou.tll?
, - 7 ,
e4tor. uht fQR3N.much. 'I
thinic, the jotii 1s going to sup:Port the
. -Presideht, but who fni9w47::_ There Isn't any
question that there is a very strong anti-civil-
rights feeling_ among millions Anieriaans.
but here again it Is because we havelabed_to,
. get a 'Clear understanding Of,WhatItlie *is
are in ,ragarci t9 constitutional to
_ ? _ ,
those Arnerio6e, and ,once you have a great
debate in this -Cainpa-ign, and -I tirifc We will,
you Will be able to change a good, many of
those, points of View.
fr..N1yr4.1geli_ator Mossli? you are the
,
only Member of theSenate 'with extensive
_
,
experience in. both political parties. Draw-
ing. on. that expertise, puid ,you tell ue, who
1*?:,Iii-h4:45-'mate.,..*-44_13113; Wirt.
he a ublican nominee' will be, and what
will '111%Speii in _Abv,Tn_
' Senator ,sX The rs part of your
question, , :1112'0 ' as _a
pbieeQka131.36.it'thit the_ es_ ,1* 0
running mate unless he ,picks some-'
* t--ntf.tigil
body?
Nrv44
-
Senator go0,,sn. Unless hg picks someone?
the only caveat I Utter, unless he picks some-
one that_2_ihinkis completely unqualified for
the position. _
Mr. III Vaii-; Vith abOu'i
?
Mr. MORSE. I now thank the Sen-
ator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER] for
his courtesy in yielding to me; and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. ELLENDER. I wish to say to my
good friend from Oregon, as well as to
our other colleagues, that I was very
happy to yield to them.
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1963
-The Senate resurnecl the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the
constitutional right to vote, to confer
jurisdiction upon the district courts of
the United States to provide injunctive
relief against discrimination in public
aCcomModations, to authorize the At-
torney General to institute suits to pro-
tect constitutional rights' in public fa-
cilities and public education, to extend
the Commission on Civil Rights, to pre-
-vent discrimination in federally assisted
programs, to establish a Commission on
Equal Employment Opportunity, and for
nther purposes. -
Mr. =ENDER. Mr. President, the
long-awaited compromise package was
submitted to the Senate yesterday. I
have not had time to examine this docu-
ment very carefully, but I had occasion to
glance over it. I can well see why it is
that the distinguished minority leader
Mfr. DIRKSEN] is now willing to sign a
cloture motion so that the substitute bill
can be acted upon. I can well see why
it is that quite a number of other Sen-
ators on his side of the aisle will be
prompted to sign a cloture motion when
the time comes.
Mr. President (Mr. McINryaz In the
chair), this substitute makes the bill sec-
tional. It is directed at the South, and
the South only. The title which the dis-
tinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKSEN] opposed the most was title VII,
dealing with equal employment oppor-
tunity. The amendment that is now
proposed by him would make it impos-
sible for the Commission which would be
created by the bill to exercise its author-
ity in any State which already has an
ritpp law, A, reasonable time must be
could go in, and that reasonable time is
described as being not less than 60 days.
It has been well demonstrated on the
floor of the Senate on many occasions
that in as many as 30 States which have
so-called FEPC laws, the law has not
worked or it has not been enforced in
most of them.
I have obtained figures from the Bu-
reau of the Census, taken in 1960, which
indicated more unemployment among
Negroes in States which had an FEPC
law than in States which did not.
AS -I have pointed out before, the State
of Pennsylvania has had an FEPC law
for quite some time. The total number,
percentagewise of unemployed in the
State of Pennsylvania was 6.2 percent,
5.8 percent of those were white, but 11.3
percent were colored. Yet Pennsylvania
already has an FEPC law.
In the State of Michigan, which has
had an FEPC law for 15 or 20 years,
the total number of unemployed in
Michigan was 6.9 percent. Six percent
were white, and 16.3 percent were
colored.
Yet that State, too, already has an
FEPC law.
It is readily demonstrated that there
is no greater employment of Negroes in
States which have FEPC laws, but on the
contrary there is less than in the South.
Under the proposed amendment, the
FEPC which would be created by the
bill canm4__aooluiffe jurisdiction until a
reasonable time has elapsed after the
complaint shall have been made, but not
less than 60 days.
There Was another provision in the
bill which was violently opposed by the
Senator from Illinois, the architect of
this package deal, and that was in regard
to schools.
When the bill was first presented to
the Senate by the House, some believed
that Representative CELLER, of New York,
had suffiicently protected the nonbusing
of schoolchildren from one neighbor-
hood to another, in order to prevent im-
balance. But the Senator from Illinois
went a step further. Not only can they
not transport children by bus from one
neighborhood to another, but the courts,
under the bill, are prevented from taking
any action.
Let me read from subsection (2) of sec-
tion 407(a) of the proposed amendment:
Provided, That nothing herein shall em-
power any official or court of the United
States to issue any order seeking to achieve
a racial balance in ally school by requiring
the transportation of pupils or students
from one school to another or one school
district to another in order to achieve such
racial balance.
Mr. President, that means to me that
the only section of the United States
Which will be affected by this pernicious
bill will be the South.
We have said that all along, but now
it is written in black and white, that it
will not be operative on most of the
States in the North, in fact, all of them
except two or three that do have public
accommodations laws as well as FEPC
laws, which are not enforced.
Those two sections, as all Senators
know, are the ones_ which were opposed
mostly by the Senator froinTlinois. I
Approved For Release 2006/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP664110103R000200140009-4
11762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE gay 27
cannot understand how he was able to
get the Attorney General to agree to that
" language.
I am wondering what attitude the Ne-
gro leaders will take as to the prevision
I have just read. Racial imbalance is
one of the main causes of demonstrations
in the North.
We in the South have been open and
aboveboard with respect to segregation.
Everyone knows where we stand. But
the same kind and form of segregation
was practiced in the North, and no one
paid any attention to it?until recently.
I predict that if the Negro leaders look
Into this matter and realize they have
been sold out, I doubt that they will fol-
low those who advocate this procedure.
I wish to read again from this subsec-
tion (2) of Section 407(a). because, as I
said, it was the most repugnant title in
the bill so far as the Senator from Illinois
was concerned.
Provided, That nothing herein shall em-
power any ?Meal or court of the United
States to Italie any order seeking to achieve
a racial balance in any school requiring
transportation of pupils or students from one
school to another or one school district to
another in order to achieve such racial
balance.
That situation, Mr. President, has ex-
isted for years in the large cities of the
North,. where they have practiced segre-
gation as much as it was Practiced in
the South.
They have even changed title I?the
voting qualifieations. I presume that
was done in order to satisfy someone and
thus impose cloture on the southerners.
It. reads in part:
That the Attorney General may enter into
agreements with appropriate State or local
authorities that preparation, conduct, and
maintenance of such tests in accordance
with the provisions of applicable State or
local law ? ? meet the purposes of this
subparagraph and constitute compliance
therewith.
In other words, the Attorney General?
not the courts?would be empowered to
enter into an agreement with the at-
torney genera/ of any State that certain
rules and regulations may be applicable
wherever the literacy test is effective.
Mr. President, this is merely another
loophole which is created in order to
obtain votes from the northern Sena-
tors. There are 16 or 18 Northern States
that have literacy tests. Under this lan-
guage, the LIB. Attorney Genera),
through the attorney general of a State,
could excuse the State from the opera-
tion of this law if he saw fit.
With reference to those three titles?
which, in my opinion, were the ones that
were most violently opposed, particularly
titles 11 and VII, by the distinguished
Senator from Illinois IMr. Diotaseel and
others?they have been so changed and
modified that they would not be effective
at all hi the Northern States. They are
directed solely at the South.
I am in hopes of being able in the near
future to point to many otter instances
In which the bill has been so changed
that it would not be effective in places
where it ought to be applicable.
If the bill Is passed, and the Negro
leaders of the North find out that even
the courts cannot interfere and have
children moved from one area to another
so as to balance the schools, as was in-
tended by the Supreme Court.
As I have indicated in previous
speeches, the contempt powers of the
Federal court are extremely broad and
the Congress should give some thought to
restricting this power, which is summary
in nature and often arbitrarily exercised.
There is adequate precedent for the Con-
gress to take such action.
An early case referred to as the Peck
case, arising in 1826, illustrates hos great
the abuse of the contempt power can be.
The facts of this case arose out of a suit
In the Federal court of Missouri in which
title to certain lands in the Upper Loui-
siana Purchase Territory was in dispute.
Judge Peck was a presiding judge in the
case of the heirs of Antoine Solder& and
there was a dispute between the U.S.
Government and certain persons claim-
ing title to this land under French and
Spanish territorial grants. Lawless had
acted as counsel for some of the claim-
ants in the Soulard case and Judge Peck
decided it in favor of the United States,
adopting a position which narrowly con-
strued Spanish land grants.
Judge Peck's opinion was printed in a
local newspaper and shortly thereafter
an article appeared which criticized the
Judge's opinion and respectfully pointed
out a number of errors of law and fact
which the Judge had committed. The
newspaper article was signed only as "A
Citizen." Judge Peck had the printer
attached for contempt and then it was
discovered that lawless, the counsel for
the heirs, bad actually written the arti-
cle. Ire was cited for contempt of court
and ordered imprisoned for 24 hours and
suspended from practicing law for 18
months. At Lawless' request, an im-
peachment proceeding was originated in
the House of Representatives setting
forth the charges against Judge Peck and
after a delay of several years, the House
voted 123 to 49 to impeach Peck, and then
the matter was turned over to the Senate
for trial.
The impeachment proceedings in the
Senate began on March 4, 1830, and
lasted almost a year and finally ended
In an acquittal of Judge Peck. The
vote was 21 to 22, but the impact of the
case was such that the Congress agreed
on remedial legislation to curb the pow-
er* of the Federal court.
Judge Peck had acted under the pro-
visions of chapter 20. section 17, of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided
that?
All the said courts shall have power to
? ? ? punish by fine and imprisonment at
the discretion of said courts all comempts
of authority in any cause or hearing before
the same.
Because of the injustice committed
under this provision of the old law, Con-
gress passed the restrictive legislation
referred to as the act of March 2, 1831.
The act of March 2, 1831, provided
that?
The power of the several courts of the
United States to issue attachments and
inflict summary punishment for contempts
of court, shall not be construed to extend to
any cases except the misbehavior of any per-
son or persons in the presence of the said
courts or so near thereto as to obstruct the
administration of justice, the misbehavior
of any of the officers of the said courts in
their official transactions and the disobed-
ience or resistence of any officer of the said
courts, party, juror, witness, or any other
person or persons, to any lawful writ,
process, order, decree, or command of said
courts.
? ?
And be it further enacted, That if any per-
son or persons shall corruptly or by threats
or force, endeavor to influence or intimidate
any Juror, witness or officer of any court of
the United States in the discharge of his
duty, or shall corruptly or by threats or force
obstruct or impede the due administration
of justice therein, every person or persons so
offending shall be liable to prosecution
therefor by indictment, and shall, on con-
viction thereof, be punished by fine not to
exceed $500, or by imprisonment not to
exceed three months, or both,, according to
the nature and aggravation of the offense.
The second part of this act which I
have just cited was interpreted by the
Supreme Court to offer an alternative
method of treating contempt cases?that
Is, by indictment and regular trial. This
was decided even In the face of Bu-
chanan's statement concerning the act.
Buchanan, who was later to become
President, was at the time, the drafter
and manager of this bill through the
House. His statement concerning the
act of March 2, 1831, restricting the con-
tempt powers of the Federal courts, said:
I thought it monstrous that a judge with-
out the intervention of a jury, under highly
excited feelings, should be permitted to try
and punish libels committed against him
according to his will and pleasure. * ? "
A few days after the acquittal of this judge,
the Senate. without one dissenting voice,
passed a bill, not to create a new law, but
declaratory of the old law, or rather what
the Constitution was under which no federal
judge will ever again dare to punish a libel
as a contempt. The constitutional provi-
sion in favor of liberty of the press was thus
redeemed from judicial construction.
The "joker" in the Federal act was the
use of the wording "or so near thereto as
to obstruct the administration of jus-
tice." This wording was seized upon by
the courts to cover any case of contempt
which they considered as an obstruction
to the administration of justice.
I mention this old law and the reason
for its existence arising out of the cele-
brated Peck case, to point up the neces-
sity to have the right of trial by jury
in all contempt cases if for no other rea-
son than the jealously with which the
judiciary guards its contempt powers.
Many of the old decisions were of the
same type as the Peck case in which judi-
cial interference with newspapers
abridged the constitutional right of free-
dom of the press. In spite of the old act
of Congress attempting to set the limits
of the contempt power of the courts, the
courts continued to punish newspaper
editors for printing derogatory remarks
about the court. It would appear that
today, after many years of controversy
In this field, that newspapers are at
liberty to criticize the person of the
judge, but not to derogate the authority
of the court itself.
I submit that if the Congress had in-
sisted on jury trials in all criminal con-
tempt cases in the beginning that much
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140009-4