This incident is worth recording because it illustrates the difficulty of following the advice of those who urge that "the people," as contrasted with their authorized representatives, should be given a certain responsibility in the conduct of international affairs. A more clearly defined form of association was later devised with the same object in view.
THE Atlantic Charter had put the question of a future world organization to maintain security distinctly in the background. The Secretary of State, however, was determined not to let this matter lie dormant. In July, 1942, in a speech largely devoted to postwar considerations, he "came out flatly in favor of the establishment of an international security organization," with the United States as a member, and declared that the United States should be able to use force, under its auspices, to maintain peace.
During the following year, he devoted much time and effort to winning support in Congress for this cause. He kept in close contact with leading members of both parties and, as he records, "seldom lost an opportunity to hammer home again and again to Senators and Representatives, whether Democratic or Republican . . . that a world organization to maintain the peace, by force if necessary, was absolutely imperative, and the United States had to be one of its principal members . . . and that United States policy in this respect should be entirely nonpartisan with both Republicans and Democrats joining in its support." As a result of his efforts, carried on with extreme care so as to avoid stirring the embers of past controversies, the House, on September 21, adopted a resolution, proposed by Representative Fulbright of Arkansas, "favoring the creation of appropriate international machinery with