Page images
PDF
EPUB

Germany and Italy have paid no attention to such provisions, which are representative of international law on the subject, but have at will and without notice occupied by force the territory of neutral countries, and, having subjugated those countries, are using those territories in operations against their adversaries. One of these countries, namely, Denmark, had a formal treaty, signed May 31, 1939, with Germany by which it was agreed that in no case would force be resorted to; another, namely, Norway, had a formal assurance, on September 4, 1939, from the German Government that under no circumstances would Germany interfere with Norway's inviolability and integrity and that Norwegian territory would be respected. Neither agreement nor the law of neutrality served as any protection to these and other countries when it suited the convenience of the belligerents to occupy their territories. Nothing but force has prevented these belligerents from carrying out their preconceived determination to conquer and subjugate other peaceful countries and peoples. Their purpose of world-wide conquest has been boldly proclaimed. They readily admit that their philosophy is inconsistent with and directly opposed to that of the democracies and insist that the latter is outmoded and must give way to their own notions regarding the conduct of international relations. Having in mind what has taken place and is taking place under our very eyes, it is idle for us to rely on the rules of neutrality or to feel that they afford us the slightest degree of security or protection. Nothing but a realistic view of current developments can be regarded as a sane view. Mr. Chairman, if I may illustrate what I have read here?

The CHAIRMAN. Please do, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary HULL. Countries like Holland, Belgium, Norway and Denmark, and others, assuming that this was an ordinary war in which the belligerents as well as the neutrals observed the laws of civilized warfare, announced their policy and their adherence strictly and technically to the laws of neutrality and felt assured that they would not be molested. They were permitted to remain in that state of innocent security or blissful ignorance until the troops of Germany were ready to step across their borders. Then the question of selfdefense did not arise, because there was no time for self-defense. They had relied solely on international law and its observance by belligerents and neutrals as a guarantee of safety and failed to prepare for self-defense.

The question presented is, therefore, whether in view of a universally recognized world movement of force based on determination to invade and to conquer and to subjugate, peaceful nations shall wait until the invaders cross their boundary line, still clinging to the forms and shadows of neutrality laws, or whether they shall recognize that this is a world movement of conquest without limit as to extent of territory and invoke the law of self-defense before it is too late to assert it successfully, as was the case with so many of those magnificent little countries in Europe. That is the question. We can take our choice. And in these circumstances, where we have a situation of an outlaw country moving straight at another country, there is no occasion to invoke neutrality. Only the law of self-defense can be invoked, from any practical viewpoint.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. A nation has the same right to use self-defense, that an individual has. As I understand, Mr. Secretary, from your statement, based upon conditions as they exist now, it is not a theory but a condition that confronts our people and other democracies, and we must employ practical means of self-defense if our country is to be preserved.

Secretary HULL. If we have learned any lesson whatever from the disastrous experience of those many little countries that have been swallowed up and are now under the heel of the invader; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Secretary, do you care to say anything now on the matter of the discretionary power granted the President in the bill? I think that question will arise, and that is the reason I am asking the question.

Secretary HULL. I have held the view from the beginning of this crisis that the essence of the problem is aid to those countries which are strenuously resisting this tidal wave of world conquest; and to do so as fully and as speedily as possible. I have not stopped really to go too much into the mechanics. If a house is afire, there is not so much to be gained by discussing with somebody the question as to what particular well water should be drawn out of, whether this one or that one, in order to quench the fire. So I have assumed that the Congress and the Treasury, and others, would find no serious difficulty in working out a plan that would not be hampering, would not be handicapping, the carrying out of this all-supreme and allimportant urgent purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shanley.

Mr. SHANLEY. Mr. Secretory, I certainly want to congratulate you on a very clear and straightforward statement. When you place this whole question on the basis of defense you strike at the very heart of the preservation of America and cut through legal verbiage to show America that from your point of view the very foundations of our democracy are imperiled.

Secretary HULL. I could not in good conscience advise my fellow citizens to follow the suicidal course of Holland and Belgium and all those unfortunate peoples who relied primarily upon the rules of neutrality and on the belligerents' observing that neutrality, to their everlasting destruction. In other words, there is a time for neutrality and there is a time for self-defense. I do not propose to advise any person to follow the example of those countries which have first come in contact with this world movement of force.

Mr. SHANLEY. Therefore, as I understand it, our rules of neutrality have become a Frankenstein, in your estimation. You object to others employing their rules of neutrality as a weapon against us when we have been compelled to rely upon them as a shield. However, I know that you will admit that this is a complete departure from our precedents and places us in the roll of a supporting state. Secretary HULL. There is a point always, when there is an attack by a force engaged in military conquest, where a victim nation decides that neutrality is of no avail and where every possible step in national

defense should be taken. The point I am making is that we have striven and striven for the friendship of all these nations, and we have tried every conceivable plan to bring that about. But we have reached the stage now where we think we know that the time is here when we should rely on self-defense. I think that makes it a little clearer, as I have had in mind and sought to practice in the State Department, that we have been during recent years with various countries observing the law, including neutrality.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pfeifer.
Mr. PFEIFER. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jarman.

Mr. JARMAN. Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you would be prepared to say that second to our national defense, this is the essence of this

matter.

Secretary HULL. Unquestionably. That is always the case where the danger is universal, world-wide, and imminent. When I say danger, I mean danger to this hemisphere, and that includes danger to the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arnold.

Mr. ARNOLD. I have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burgin.

Mr. BURGIN. Mr. Secretary, in view of the position of a great many observers that this is likely to involve us in war, is there any more danger, if we pass this legislation, of our getting into the war than if we do not pass it, in your opinion?

Secretary HULL. For some time I have agreed with the countries who rely primarily on neutrality as the basic means of keeping out of trouble. But when I saw the invader express his approval of neutrality laws until he could get ready to swallow up his intended victim as in the case of Holland, of Denmark, and Belgium, where he had nothing to do but take the step of crossing the border line and so handcuff all of these innocent people before they could even get their hands free or cock the gun, so to speak; when I saw how this situation developed, I reached the definite conclusion that the surest way to keep out of trouble, to prevent an invasion of this hemisphere most likely in the south, where there is an unlimited amount of raw materials and foodstuffs beckoning to 400,000,000 industrial people in Europe is not to sit still with our hands folded and say we would not resist until the invader crossed our borders. I think that would be disastrous.

Then the question became whether we should begin to resist and say so frankly, since all protection under the law had been scrapped. And that question seemed to resolve itself into the conclusion that if we did begin to resist freely under the law of self-defense, with nothing to ask from any other country except to be let alone and be allowed to live in peace, the invader would have more respect for us if we began to make it evident that we were making adequate defense plans than if we sat still as they did in so many other countries until they were swallowed up as a squirrel is swallowed by the boa constrictor. I think that is the safest course. I want you to know that in my view there is danger in any direction. If some rulers have their own

way we may probably within a surprisingly short time find ourselves in a world of the vintage of ten centuries ago. It is a serious thing from any standpoint that it may be viewed. I want to be frank with

you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Courtney.

Mr. COURTNEY. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eberharter.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Secretary, are you prepared to say now whether or not the legislation as presented to us is, in your opinion, the best method, the best procedure for the defense of this country? Secretary HULL. As I say, the Treasury and the Navy and the Army are to appear through their respective Secretaries and discuss the provisions of the bill as it relates to the production of supplies and the transactions that are involved.

I am trying to get before you primarily the high points in international developments during recent years and their culmination at this time in a grave state of danger with which the peaceful nations living in the world are confronted.

I can only repeat what I have said, that in my opinion, the most practical course in prosecuting as speedily and effectively as possible steps in our national defense is not merely to arm here at home and wait for the invader to cross our border, but if and when we see another country resisting this same movement which probably would be headed straight toward South America on account of the attractiveness for foodstuffs and raw materials there, we would not command certainly the disrespect of the invader if he sees that we are taking steps, as I say, to resist by aiding those who are now right in line between us and the invader and resisting to the utmost.

The policy and steps that are being proposed and are being undertaken constitute the most practical plan for doing this, unless you can think of any better way than that in the light of the lessons we have learned from the nature of these movements of subjugation and conquest, taking the long list of other nations, as peaceful, charitable, and as patriotic as any people on the planet.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gregory.

Mr. GREGORY. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wasielewski.

Mr. WASIELEWSKI. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sikes.

Mr. SIKES. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hamilton Fish.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate you on your very able presentation on perhaps the most important issue that has ever been presented to the Congress of the United States, an utterly nonpartisan question.

Mr. Secretary, would you have any objection if the committee could write this bill and bring it within the constitutional limitation? Secretary HULL. Well, I would want to have something to say about what the Constitution provides.

288128-41

Mr. FISH. I assume, Mr. Secretary, that you realize the bill as written today vests the control of power in the hands of one man and takes away the constitutional power from the Congress.

Secretary HULL. Mr. Fish, if you will remember my statement, I have tried to say two or three times that I did not want to go into a discussion of the mechanics of this business, the detailed provisions relating to production and distribution, because the Secretary of the Treasury, as the author of the bill, is here, or will be here, I am sure, later to talk to you, along with the Secretary of War.

Mr. FISH. That is precisely the purpose of my question, to find out whether you had any objection to a full consideration by this committee and the Congress to various amendments to make it comport to the Constitution.

Secretary HULL. I have always contended here and elsewhere for the fullest consideration of every important measure, and I am too old to change my position now.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, there is only one point in your very remarkable address that I disagree with, to some extent.

Secretary HULL. I am most gratified and encouraged.

Mr. FISH. I am a great admirer of yours, Mr. Secretary, as you have always known.

Secretary HULL. I can reciprocate.

Mr. FISH. You said that Germany could easily cross the Atlantic and attack us; more easily through South America and Latin America. Mr. Secretary, is it not a fact that our Navy, that you failed to mention, is six times greater in strength than the German Navy, and what would that Navy be doing if the German Navy sought to come over here through Latin America?

Secretary HULL. I think, Mr. Fish, the way I have tried to put that general matter was that any country that might get control of the seas in a movement of world conquest, and representing three or four hundred million industrial population that perhaps lacked 40 percent of sufficient food and, further, 60 percent of sufficient raw materials for their people to work with, would have every human. incentive, being in control of the seas, to head straight in the direction of the great undeveloped foodstuffs and raw materials, with none of those countries in a position to defend itself.

Mr. FISH. You are not proposing, Mr. Secretary, or assuming that no one could come over here after the war; you are not proposing that Germany, if she should win, could not trade with South America and buy foods there which she wanted?

Secretary HULL. That is where we might differ to some extent again. This is not only a movement of a world nature for purposes of conquest and subjugation, but one which, according to the experiences of the people in all occupied and conquered countries, seeks to subject them to a code of government based on tyranny and despotism. If we assume that this means anything, it would be difficult to assume that the opposite would be true in their dealing with us or South America.

Mr. FISH. You are not assuming that Germany, if she should win the war, would not be permitted by us to buy meats and wheat from Argentina, are you?

Secretary HULL. I guess if she should control the seas we would have very little more to say about it.

« PreviousContinue »