International Strife part II
by Greg Farber | December 26, 2009
Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and
International Strife—Part II
REMARKS
of
HON. J. THORKELSON
OF MONTANA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, August 19,1940
Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, we are now dominated
and plagued by various pressure groups that care little or
nothing about the United States as long as they can involve
us in the present European war. Some of these groups are
well known, others remain obscure, but nevertheless very
powerful and effective in their insidious attempt to convince
the people of this Nation that war is impending. These
groups are composed of members who are generally classed
as the “intelligentsia.” I shall not question their intelligence,
but if one is to judge them by what they have said and done,
their intelligence is not being directed for the greater interest
of the United States. Aiding these groups, I believe often innocently,
are those whom we may take the liberty of calling
their tools and servants. We have reached a stage where
these anglophiles advance the thought that in order to
Qualify as a good American, one must be pro-English and
willing to fight and die for England. These England-first
groups and hands-across-the-sea organization are made
up of many Canadian and Anglo-American societies which
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 3
are located in our larger cities. One of these, and the one to
which I shall now refer, is the Pilgrims.
THE PILGRIMS
When the Pilgrims was organized in 1902, to aid in
developing Anglophiles in the United States, the Canadians,
being British subjects, were not solicited at first as members
of this charitable and exclusive propaganda service to sell
America to the British Empire. Like converts, many of
these members are more loyal to England than the British
themselves. In their fanatical zeal to serve Albion, I am
informed by a student, that one of them placed the English
crown on the flagstaff of the Columbia University. If this is
true, the Columbia alumni should “crown” him who gave
orders for the mounting of it, and replace the crown with
the eagle, so this noble emblem can rest in its rightful place.
The Pilgrim membership may be found in our military
organization, in the Government, and particularly among
professors, ministers, and authors. In wielding the pen, the
aid of these writers is more valuable, for can they not write,
as did Carnegie:
Give America to England as a hemostat for the bleeding wound
of the British Empire, which the surgeons left oozing after their
operation in 1776: the operation which amputated the United States
from the British Empire, and set America free.
These Pilgrims, being unfamiliar with the surgery of 1776,
evidently do not realize that Canada joined to the United
States will prove an equally efficient hemostat to stop this
hemorrhage in the British Empire. The American Pilgrims
no doubt fear this most sensible measure, because it might
antagonize the noble and wealthy in the English Government
and the Bank of England so much that they will pack up and
leave for home. Such exodus might also prove inconvenient
to our idle, wealthy, and charming ladies and their parents,
when in their crusade to obtain a new or slightly used husband
to hang on their family tree, they find it necessary to embark
for Palestine to satisfy their family ambition. It is this and
more that the Americans must fight to counteract the propaganda
which is now disseminated throughout the country and
in our daily press, in order to save America for the Americans.
Many of the members of these groups are ignorant of the
real purpose of these organizations and their influence in our
political life. Some of the members are so blinded by the
glamour and the exclusiveness of these clubs that they do not
realize that in supporting their activities they betray America.
I now quote from the annual meetings of the Pilgrims, held in
New York, 1913 and 1934:
[The Pilgrims, New York. Addresses delivered at dinner in celebration
of the t e n th anniversary of the Pilgrims of the United States,
New York, Tuesday, the 4th of February, 1913, at the Waldorf-
Astoria, 1913]
(Hon. Joseph H. Choate, president of the Pilgrims and chairman
of the evening, on rising and rapping for order, is roundly cheered
and toasted by the members and guests assembled.)
Mr. CHOATE. I am going to ask you, in the first place, to rise, as
you did just now for a much less worthy object, when I propose t he
loyal toasts. I ask you to fill your glasses and rise and drink to the
President of the United States and his Majesty, the King of England.
(The toast was drunk with great enthusiasm, cheering and singing
The Star-Spangled Banner and God Save the King.)
Before the chairman could resume, a delegation of members, consisting
of Messrs. F. Cunliffe-Owen, R. A. C. Smith, Herbert Noble,
George W. Burleigh, Lawrence L. Gillespie, and George Gray Ward,
presented Mr. Choate with a large and beautiful gold and silver
salver, richly decorated and suitably inscribed, Mr. Cunliffe-Owen
addressing him as follows:
“Mr. Choate, your brother Pilgrims making you the offering herewith
of the Pilgrim fare, bread and salt—bread signifying long life
and prosperity and salt to ward off from you all evil spirits and
every kind of harm—and we ask you. our honored president, in the
name of all our brother Pilgrims of the United States, to accept this
gold and silver salver as a memento of the occasion.”
Mr. CHOATE. I accept the salver with profound gratitude, and I
will eat the fare on some more suitable occasion. It will doubtless
do for me all t h a t you wish and foretell, but never having until
this moment heard of this munificent and wholly undeserved
gift, I can only now express to you my warm thanks and high
appreciation of your kindness.
I now read to you a message from the President of the United
States:
WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, D. C, February 4, 1913.
Please extend to the Pilgrims of the United States and their
guests at their tenth anniversary my hearty greetings and my
263563—19504
best wishes for a delightful reunion. I am unable to be with you,
but I cherish the earnest hope that your gathering may emphasize
the cordial relations which we know exist between Briton and
Canadian and American.
WM. H. TAFT.
A message from His Majesty the King:
LONDON, February 4, 1913.
I am commanded to convey to the Pilgrims of the United
States, celebrating their tenth anniversary, the expression of His
Majesty’s gratitude for their kind and friendly sentiments contained
in your telegram of this evening.
PRIVATE SECRETARY.
A message from Her Majesty, Queen Alexandra, one of the best
friends we ever had on the other side of the water:
“I am commanded by Queen Alexandra to ask you to convey to
Ex-Ambassador Choate and the members of the Pilgrims of the
United States, now celebrating their tenth anniversary under His
Excellency’s presidency, Her Majesty’s sincere thanks for the kind
sentiments expressed in the telegram which Her Majesty has just
received, sentiments which I am to assure the Pilgrims are much
valued by Her Majesty.
“DIGHTON P R O B Y N . ”
Now, gentlemen, it remains for me to say a few words, and a few
words only. I think, if I continue in this office many years, I may
make longer speeches, but I will begin with something very brief
and very pertinent. I am a year younger than I was a year ago
when you did me the honor to elect me your president, and if I
go on, as I hope to do. and as I hope you will do, I shall be a very
young man at last.
We are here to celebrate ourselves and our friends on both sides
of the water, and among them the best friends that I have ever
known—and I knew well their sentiments some years ago, which
1 believe have continued and which I believe are not well represented
in the heart of his present Majesty—I will tell you, in the
first place, that King Edward VII, and his Queen Alexandra
were two of the most constant and devoted friends t h a t the people
of the United States ever had. They lost no occasion to manifest
their good will to their kindred in America, and his present Majesty
King George V was always most cordial, most friendly, and most
determined, so far as I could Judge from the sentiments that he
expressed—most determined, I say—that the cordial relations between
the two countries which have now been transmitted to him
by his father should forever continue. We have no difficulty with
the royal family. We have no difficulty and never have had that
I know of with the people of England. The people of England and
the people of the United States are always friendly to each other.
Now and then the governments of the two countries come to different
conclusions for a brief time on some subject of mutual
interest.
It is 10 years since this organization was founded and they have
been 10 years of success and constantly advancing prosperity, and,
so far as I can understand, of constantly strengthened good will
between the people of the two countries. And what I claim for
the Pilgrims is that they have done their fair share on both sides
of the water to promote this great interest in the world, the preservation
of peace between the two countries that combine all the
English-speaking people of mankind.
It was not my good fortune to be present when this society was
founded in America on the 4th day of February 1903, but I had
had the good fortune to be present in London, 6 months before,
when the Pilgrims of Great Britain held their first dinner, under
the presidency of that grand old soldier and royal hero, Field Marshal
Lord Roberts. He believes in making his nation a great fighting
nation, but not to fight against the United States. He would
consider it the most barbarous, the most unnatural, the most
unthinkable contest that ever could be raised. Let me read to you
a dispatch from Field Marshal Lord Roberts, which is much better
than anything I can say:
“Greatly touched by the Pilgrims’ charming and hospitable invitation.
There is none I would sooner accept, but unfortunately
it is quite impossible for me to be with you on February 4. So sincerely
wish it were otherwise. All prosperity to the American
Pilgrims.”
And from Lord Charles Beresford, who was with us at the foundation
of the Pilgrims In England:
“All good luck to Pilgrims. Congratulations on brilliant success
of efforts to bring together two great English-speaking nations.”
Now. gentleman, that is the object, and the sole object that I
know of, that this flourishing society has—the sole reason for its
existence; to promote good will, good fellowship, abiding friendship
and everlasting peace between the United States and Great
Britain. And, for one, I have no fear of failure.
We are now entering upon the celebration of the one hundredth
year of peace between the two nations. In 2 years more that celebration
will be complete. It is going on all the time, from day to
day, from week to week, and from month to month. You will
hardly hear so much of anything else for a long time to come.
Well, how has it been accomplished? How is it that we have been
able to keep the peace, notwithstanding the alarming controversies
that have arisen from time to time, controversies which
between any other two great nations would probably have provoked
and resulted in war? Why, it is because, in the long run, in the
main, the people of the two countries are one. They are united in
sentiments and in the general object they have in view and in
their valuation of things that go to make civilization. We might
have fought a dozen wars in the last hundred years, but we have
4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
kept the peace always. And how is it? How has it been done?
Why, as I believe, it has been accomplished by the preservation on
both sides of absolute good faith in their dealings and in ultimate
fidelity to the promises that they have made to each other. I do
not mean to say that they have not quarreled. They have quarreled
many times, and sometimes not a little sharply.
They have threatened very much on both sides—much more
than you will ever hear them do again; but every quarrel has
ended in reconciliation, in peace established either by diplomacy
or by arbitration—arbitration, the great boast and glory of
America.
We have a little difference Just now, but I do not look upon it as
half as serious as the differences t h a t have arisen in former times,
10. 20, 40, 50, 75, 100 years ago, and there is nothing in it that cannot
be readily settled upon the principle of adherence on both sides to
the doctrine, to the principle, of good faith and of honest dealing
with one another.
I had something to do with the negotiation of the treaty which
has formed—I won’t say a bone of contention, because I haven’t
heard anything like the gnawing of bones; not at all—but this little
difference that has arisen
It so happened that that negotiation was carried on in London
for several weeks between Lord Pauncefote and myself and approved,
as we went along by John Hay and by Lord Lansdowne. Well, if
there ever were two men who deserved the gratitude of their respective
nations and each of the other’s nation, it was those two men,
Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote, for their perfectly plain, perfectly
honest, perfectly straightforward, method of dealing with one
another.
Their principle, their rule of action, was to say what they meant
and to mean what they said, and their effort was always to express
in perfectly plain English what both had equally in his own mind;
and when they said, as they did say in that treaty t h a t the ships of
all nations shall have free passage on equal terms through the canal
without any discrimination whatever, they thought they were using
plain English. And I must say, now that both of these great men
and diplomatists have passed away—I must say, as the survivor
of them both, that they lived and died without believing or suspecting
that their words were capable of any other than the plain
meaning that they bore upon their face.
Well, but the wit of man passeth all understanding, and different
meanings have been discovered for those very plain and simple
words, and thus a difference has arisen as to the interpretation of a
treaty. And how are you going to adjust and settle t h a t difference?
Well, I should say, as any gentlemen would settle differences t h at
they could not adjust which had arisen between them—refer it to
some other gentlemen; and my first proposition would be to refer
it to the Pilgrims on both sides of the water. We would not have
any difficulty. In the first place, we would take a secret vote, if you
please, separately on both sides of the water. We would let our
brother Pilgrims of Great Britain answer the question—try their
hand at this little puzzle: it is only a puzzle—the question is how
to put it together. Let them give their answer first and seal it up,
not communicate it to us, and then let these 500 law-abiding,
country-loving American Pilgrims answer the question for themselves
by another sealed and secret vote.
Now, the people of this country are not going to allow anybody—
any Congress, any Government, any President—to break
their good faith which they have pledged to the mother country.
How are we going to maintain the peace for the next 100 years?
These English-speaking people are going to increase on this side
of the water in the next hundred years from one hundred millions
to four or five hundred millions, and England and her dominions
across the seas will increase in like proportion. How are they
going to keep the peace. There is only one way. It is by keeping
their word, by keeping their good faith, by being always honest in
their dealings with one another. So I am not afraid. This little
puzzle will be adjusted. I hope that Mr. Bryce will stay here long
enough to settle it with Mr. TAFT. We know both are great lovers
of peace. If not settled by them, why other men—I won’t say
equally good; I won’t say equally good, although I may think so—
other men will arise in their places and settle it, and then we shall
have 10 years of balmy and delightful peace, and then some other
question will arise and the puzzle solvers on both sides of the Atlantic
will put their heads together and it will be settled, and so
again and again and again and again, and our great-grandchildren
celebrating in 2013 the second centenary of the Pilgrims, will have
cause to bless their fathers that they founded this society and kept
the world on the right track.
Now, gentlemen, I have read to you the various messages that
we have received from our very eminent friends across the water
and at Washington, and we did hope to have with us tonight His
Excellency the British Ambassador, but I suspect that he has
eaten as many dinners as he could stand—his secretary nods
assent—and no man can stand the public dinner every night. I
was never able to do it myself. And so we have the pleasure of
welcoming here tonight as the representative of Mr. Bryce, the
British Ambassador, the counselor—I call him counselor—I do not
know whether he exactly likes to be called counselor, for they
might think he is a counselor-at-law, instead of, as he is in fact
the first secretary of the British Embassy, and I call upon him
to give us his message from Mr. Bryce. I have the pleasure of
presenting to you Mr. Mitchell Innes, Counselor of the British
Embassy at Washington.
263553—19504
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read the speeches given
by the American members of the Pilgrims, for they, like
all converts, and more un-American and pro-English than
the British themselves.
The address of Joseph H. Choate is an example of Anglophile,
pertinent at this time in view of the conditions that
exist today. I shall now requote some of these statements
in order to show how deceptive they can be. Mr. Choate
states:
We have no difficulty and never have had that I know of with
the people of England.
A statement that is perfectly true, because the people of
England have little or nothing to say in the British Government.
Our trouble has been with the British Government,
which has never at any time been friendly toward the United
States—but the gentleman did not make such statement.
Furthermore, it is well to note the servile attitude of the
speaker to the Crown of England, and his praise of the
rulers, which again is perfectly all right, yet he has failed
in his speech as others have in theirs, to say one good word
for the Government of the United States. He then goes on
to say:
The people of England and the people of the United States are
always friendly to each other; another statement which no one
can criticize, but to which I want to add that the people of all
countries—the common people—have always been and are now
friendly to each other. If war depended upon them there would
be no war. The trouble lies with the rulers of the different
governments. It is they who advocate war; war of destruction,
not only of property and human life but of Christian civilization
itself.
So in view of this, let us remember that no country has
been at war so much as England and no country has brought
about more misfortune and suffering than the British Government.
This should be clear as we review the early history
of our own colonies, of India, Ireland, and the 400,000,000
opium addicts in China, all of which may be charged to the
greed of the British Government. Mr. Choate, in making his
statements, spoke for the people of the United States, when
in reality he should have hesitated even to speak for himself.
His sole concern appeared to have been our friendliness toward
Great Britain, but not their friendliness toward us; and again
he placed the United States in the position of a suppliant to
the British throne.
Mr. Choate then referred to a dispute which arose in regard
to the passage of ships through the Panama Canal, and intimated
that it was the understanding of Hon. John Hay and
Lord Landsdowne that the British should have equal rights
with us in the use of this Canal; a right which the British
have never conceded to the United States in the Suez Canal.
We have even been driven out of foreign markets by England
for many, many years, and in her wars she has brazenly furnished
us with a blacklist of firms with which we are not
supposed to trade; and we, like fools, comply with her demands.
Continuing his discussion on this topic, Mr. Choate expressed
himself as being quite willing to leave the decision of
the Panama Canal in the hands of the British and American
pilgrims, which anyone can readily understand would be a
one-sided decision; i. e., all for England and nothing for the
United States.
Mr. Choate then makes his most extraordinary statement,
upon which every Member of Congress and the people of
this Nation should ponder—particularly in view of the happenings
since 1912:
Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody—
any Congress, any government, any President—to break the good
faith which they have pledged to the mother country.
In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position
that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the
same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years
ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book
entitled, “Triumphant Democracy.”
I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and
that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 5
from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which
we destroyed constitutional government, international security,
and paved the road for us to become a colony of the
British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by
adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under
the control and domination of the Bank of England and the
international banking groups that are now financing the
British-Israel movement in the United States. It was also
the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became
involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone
does not know is that we were committed to this war in
1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in
1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple
Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan’s
own testimony before the Senate committee investigating
the munitions industry.
Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has
stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic
and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire
through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English
groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British-
Israel movement.
Let me now quote a message sent by George T. Wilson,
chairman of the American Pilgrims, to his brother Pilgrims
in London, when they celebrated our entry into the World
War. This message states the real hopes and the purpose
of the Pilgrims:
Sir HARRY E. BRITTAIN,
Chairman (London) :
I should like to read two cables which have arrived within
the last few minutes from New York. The first is from our
good friends and fellow members, the Pilgrims of America, and
it reads as follows:
“At last the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes are nailed
to the same staff not to come down until the Job is done. Our
boys in khaki are anxious to rub shoulders with yours in France
and share your struggle and your triumph in freedom’s cause.
The Pilgrims’ dream of 15 years at length has come to pass.
(Signed) George T. Wilson, Chairman.” (Loud cheers.]
I shall now quote a speech delivered by Nicholas Murray
Butler, to a meeting of the Pilgrims to New York, in 1934:
ANNUAL PILGRIM MEETING, 1934
President BUTLER. YOU have before you the report of your committee
on nominations proposing the names of seven gentlemen
for election to the executive committee, their terms to expire in the
year 1935. Are there other nominations?
Mr. CHARLES H. WARREN. I move t h a t the secretary cast one ballot
for the names mentioned in the report of the nominating committee.
The motion was seconded.
President BUTLER. It has been regularly moved and seconded that
the secretary be instructed to cast one ballot for the names mentioned
in the report of the nominating committee. This requires a
unanimous vote. So many as are in favor will please say “aye”;
contrary-minded, “nay,” if any. The vote being unanimous, the
secretary is so empowered.
Secretary CHURCH. Mr. President, I report I have so cast a ballot.
President BUTLER. The secretary reports t h a t he has cast a ballot
for the gentlemen named in the report of the nominating committee.
Therefore. Mr. Burleigh, Mr. Darrell, Mr. Demorest, Mr Lamont,
Mr. Noble, Mr Satterlee, and Mr. Shields are elected to the executive
committee, terms to expire in 1935.
Fellow pilgrims, let me first recall to mind the fact that Sunday
was the one hundredth anniversary of t h e birth of that distinguished
and beloved American, linked with Great Britain, who served so
long as our president, Joseph H. Choate. In the presence of t h at
anniversary and in your presence, I salute his memory and bear t r i b ute
to the service which his years on earth rendered to the great
cause which we have so much at heart.
There have been happenings in the year 1931 so grave, so far
reaching in their importance, and so massive in their historic interest
that it is no slight task to make choice among them of those of
which it is permissible to speak in your presence for a few moments
this afternoon. Let me first, however, pay tribute to that splendid
spirit of the British people which in time of storm and stress, of
national embarrassment and portending danger, enabled t h e m , in
accordance with the best ideals of the race, to put aside and behind
all partisan differences and all prejudices of party affiliation and
to unite in t h a t most impressive demonstration which they gave at
the last general election. That spirit was voiced by Mr. Snowden on
the floor of the House of Commons in the stirring words which he
quoted from Swinburne’s famous ode:
“Come the world against her,
England yet shall stand!”
[Applause.]
263553—19504
It was not only a magnificent exhibition of political capacity and
political power, but it might w e l l be an example to other peoples on
this earth, facing problems such as those which are before mankind
today, to forget their superficial and often artificial differences and
to unite all their power and all their patriotism to solve their great
problems solely in the interests of the nation and of the world.
Great Britain has shown that it can be done.
I recall that a year ago it occurred to me to say something on
this occasion of the movement going on to bring into existence a
British commonwealth of nations, a new form of political organization
to take the place of the centuries-old organization of the
British Empire. I invited your attention to the fact that that
movement was going forward, more Anglicana, informally, quietly,
illogically, under the pressure of opportunity in events and without
any formal or public announcement. During the year, however,
without the world paying much attention, and hardly noticed in
these United States, that movement, which has been under way for
the better part of a generation, came to its climax and has now
been formally written into the public law of Great Britain.
I hold in my hand the few printed pages which constitute the
State of Westminster, 1931 (see appendix 2), beyond question
the most important act in public law since the ratification of the
Constitution of the United States. This statute, covering but three
or four printed pages, contains three specific provisions which are
its essence and which I should like to emphasize.
First, what is to be a dominion?
The expression “dominion” is to mean the Dominion of Canada,
the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand,
the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland,
six dominions in all.
What is to be the relation of local self-government in each of
those dominions to the British Parliament? The Statute of Westminster
reads:
“No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement
of this act by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or
inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England,
or to the provisions of any existing or future act of Parliament
of the United Kingdom or to any order, rule, or regulation
made under any such act, and the powers of the parliament of
the dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such
act, order, rule, or regulation insofar as the same is part of the law
of the dominion.”
In other words, absolute legislative self-control is devolved by
the Parliament of Great Britain, where that control has rested
. for 800 years, upon the parliaments respectively of the six Dominions.
What certainty and security have these dominions that their
local self-government shall be permanent and complete?
The Statute of Westminster reads:
“No act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the
commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend,
to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is
expressly declared in that act that that Dominion has requested,
and consented to, the enactment thereof.”
Those three brief paragraphs, I repeat, are the most important
contribution to the public law of the world made since the ratification
of the Constitution of the United States. They introduce
into the government of mankind a new form of federal relationship,
not a federal relationship such as exists between our
own States and the Federal Government, but a federal relationship
which consists in loyalty and devotion to a person who is the
symbol of unity; but the legislation power is as multiform as the
Dominions. The British people consciously, after 25 years of discussion
and experimentation, have formulated this great statute,
enacted it into law without dissent, and have started this new
ship of state out on the sea of human political experience. I submit,
my fellow pilgrims, that t h a t is so stupendous a happening
and so amazing an achievement that we would do well to pause
for a moment to remark upon it. Let me say two things about it
in addition, and you will pardon a word of personal reminiscence.
In June and July 1921 the Imperial Conference was sitting in
London, and the sort of question which underlay this movement
was uppermost in the minds of the conferees. There were other
delegates to the conference, but the Prime Ministers of the several
Dominions as now defined and the Prime Minister in the
Government of Great Britain itself were, of course, the leading
personalities. Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister. He did me
the honor to ask me to come to Chequers for the week end to
meet these gentlemen and to hear them discuss the problem of
the possibility of a British Commonwealth of Nations.
They spent the whole of Saturday, and Saturday evening, and
all of Sunday until luncheon under the trees and in the library
at Chequers discussing informally and familiarly and with profound
knowledge and that grasp which only comes from experience,
the problems that were before them. There was the
Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Meighen. There was General
Smuts from the Union of South Africa. There was the Prime
Minister of Australia, Mr. Hughes. There was the Prime Minister
of New Zealand. Mr. Massey, and there were two representatives
from the Government of India, the Maharajah of Cutch and Mr.
Srinivasa Sastri of Madras.
It was my privilege and good fortune to be questioned by these
gentlemen as to the working of our own Federal system. In
6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
particular, they wished illustrations of what happened when there
was conflict of authority and of jurisdiction. They pointed out
that we had in our great cities officers of the Federal Government.
How did they operate without inducing conflict of authority and
feeling with the State and municipal officials? How were these
almost invisible lines of administrative power kept from overlapping
and from friction? What was the function of the courts?
What the limit, if a n y , of their authority? I assure you it was no
small pleasure and pride to be able to answer questions to that distinguished
and influential group as to how a different form of
the federal principle bad been operating for more than a century
and a half in the United States.
Finally, when the luncheon hour came on Sunday, and these
informal discussions were brought to an end, Mr. Lloyd Green turned
the conversation into lighter vein and called attention to t h e fact
that it was fortunate indeed that their minds were meeting,
that the words British Commonwealth of Nations were beginning
to be used by them, and that the day was Sunday. A benediction,
as it were, upon their efforts!
“Yes,” I said, “Mr. Prime Minister, but if you will pardon an
American, there is something more important than that. Tomorrow
will be the Fourth of July.” [Laughter.]
By pure accident they had brought their discussion of the reorganization
of the British Empire and its Dominions to a conclusion
at the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
(laughter), surely an interesting coincidence.
One thing more. We do not realize, my fellow Pilgrims, the
foresight of our own fathers, how far those nation-builders saw
into the future, and what an amazing grasp they had upon the
fundamentals of political life and social organization. I sometimes
think we are in the habit of taking them too much for granted.
There is on exhibition in this city today one of the two existing
signed copies (the other being in the Record Office in London) of a
document which in American history stands in importance and
significance side by side with the Declaration of Independence itself,
and probably not one American in a million has ever heard of
its existence. That Is the paper which John Adams called the
Olive Branch Petition. (See Appendix.) That petition was presented
to King George III in July 1775, over the signatures
of 46 Members of the Continental Congress, praying for precisely
the relationship which the statute of Westminster has
written into public law, the public law of England, for the Dominions.
And who signed it? The first name is the name which
stands at the head of the signers of the Declaration of Independence
a year later, John Hancock. Among the 46 names are
those of Samuel Adams, John Adams, Roger Sherman, John Jay,
Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry
Lee, and Thomas Jefferson. Washington did not sign because he
was in command of the troops in Massachusetts, and the Congress
was meeting in Philadelphia. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker
Hill had been fought. And this very proposal, which 160 years
afterward has been worked out in the life of the British peoples,
were presented to them by the signers of the Declaration of Independence
a year before they signed that Declaration as the
alternative step. It is one of the most extraordinary things in the
history of government, and we pay little or no attention to it.
What happened? The Olive Branch Petition was sent to England
by the hands of William Penn’s grandson. He was to take it to
the Government. For weeks he could not be received. Finally he
was received, not by his Majesty, but by the Colonial Office, and
was then told that inasmuch as the petition had not been received
on the throne, no answer would be given. As John Adams had said,
“We have the olive branch in one hand and the sword in the other.”
When the olive branch was rejected, recourse was had to the
sword, and these very same men in 12 months signed the Declaration
of Independence and history took its course.
It is one of the most astounding things in the history of
government that these men off in this distant series of colonies,
economically in their infancy, financially helpless and dependent,
had the vision of organization which has come now to all the
British peoples, and for which surely every Pilgrim wishes the very
greatest possible measure of success. [Applause.]
So it is, gentlemen, in the history of our race. Ideas, how
slowly they travel, arguments, how slowly they are apprehended;
action, how slowly it follows upon conviction ! To be sure, as
we look back we can see that these 46 members of the Continental
Congress were in advance of the opinion of the world. British
opinion could not at that time have accepted that course of
action. They could not think in terms of a parliament whose
legislative authority ended at the island shores. Therefore, revolution,
Independence, separate nationhood, were of the essence of
the great undertaking, and so they happened. But in the intervening
years a lesson has been learned by all, by the Motherland
and its captains of the mind, by the Dominions and those who
speak their voice, and now with great fortune and wisdom they
have in the Statute of Westminster written into the public law
the principles of the Olive Branch Petition of 1775. [Applause.]
Let me only add that this great principle of federation of one
kind or another is the principle which is to mark the life of
nations in the days that are to come. Those that are of like race
and faith, that have similar economic habits and interests, that
have a common language, they will tend more and more to group
themselves into units as our United States of America have done.
The British Commonwealth of Nations will, perhaps, be the only
one of its type because Great Britain is the only far-flung empire
263553—19504
which has gone out for 500 years and put its hand on the
distant places of the earth for their enrichment, their betterment,
and their increasing civilization. Other proud and powerful
and ambitious nations will find ways and means, without losing
their independence, their self-control, or limiting their pride, to
bring themselves into new economic units for cooperation, enrichment,
and the benefit and satisfaction of all their peoples.
This principle of International cooperation, in one form or another,
whether it be our form, whether it be the British form,
or whether it be the forms which are slowly coming on the continent
of Europe, that is the principle which we may look forward
to as guiding and shaping the life of the world for the next
century- or more. But as we Pilgrims look particularly at our
own field of historic interest and affection, surely we may in the
dark year of 1S31 take profound pride and satisfaction in remarking
the significance, the far-reaching importance, of this Statute
of Westminster and the prophecy of it by our own nationbuilders
in July 1775.
The audience arose and applauded.
Mr. Speaker, I have included Mr. Butler’s address, in
order to show how far we have drifted toward this British
union. In this speech, you will note he brings out the fact
that the olive branch petition has now been adopted by
England and extended to her colonies. He further intimates
that in view of this adoption, it is now in order for
us to Join the British Empire. He makes the further statement
that this movement has gone Anglican, or more
English, which is quite true, for we are just about on the
verge of capitulating to the forces which are driving us
into the British Empire. To show this, let me quote:
That petition was presented to King George III in July
1775, over the signatures of 46 members of the Continental
Congress, praying for precisely the relationship which the Statute
of Westminster has written into public law, the public law of
England, for the Dominions. • • •
I recall that a year ago it occurred to me to say something on
this occasion of the movement going on to bring into existence a
British Commonwealth of Nations, a new form of political
organization to take the place of the centuries-old organization
of the British Empire. I invited your attention to the fact that
that movement was going forward, more Anglican, informally,
quietly, illogically, under the pressure of opportunity in events
and without any formal or public announcement. During the
year, however, without the world paying much attention, and
hardly noticed in these United States, that movement, which has
been Under way for the better part of a generation, came to its
climax and has now been formally written into the public law of
Great Britain.
Comments
Got something to say?