Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. FISH. That is the difficulty. You say that if Germany had control of the seas, overlooking the fact that our Navy is six times as great, and we are now building a two-ocean Navy. Frankly, I do not look at that as the solution; and I cannot assume that Germany has control of the seas, because that is not correct.

Secretary HULL. Then suppose we do this, if you are willing. Suppose we agree that I think that there is a possibility of these invading nations getting control of the seas in the event that they should get the upper hand of Great Britain, and that we would be taking a desperate chance if we assume that they could not. You may assume just the opposite, and if you do, then of course we cannot but disagree. Mr. FISH. You see, Mr. Secretary, I am a follower of yours in the Pan American program; I am also a follower of the Monroe Doctrine. Secretary HULL. Yes.

Mr. FISH. Which you failed to mention here today. And if any nation attempted to take over a nation through conquest, or if an aggressor nation should start out to invade any part of Latin America, that would be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, would it not?

Secretary HULL. That is about the only law that has not already been violated.

Mr. FISH. And we can assume that we will uphold it.

I assume that everyone would agree that if that is violated the assistance of our Navy would go out immediately.

Secretary HULL. Yes; if we have a two-ocean Navy.

Mr. FISH. Today, if anybody attacked us, violating the Monroe Doctrine?

Secretary HULL. Yes. But that is a different hypothesis from the one that I feel obliged to cling to just now.

Mr. FISH. But would it not be the fact, if any nation or any group of nations invaded or attacked South America that the Monroe Doctrine would be put into effect, and is it not worth while for us to announce that policy that we determine today?

Secretary HULL. I went to Habana for a conference with all of them on that point, primarily, and we had every kind of resolution agreed to and every kind of understanding of cooperative purpose and effort in the way of self-defense. But that does not take care entirely of the possibility that one of the powerful invading nations might get control of the seas. That is where you and I disagree.

Mr. FISH. That is where you say if Germany gets control of the seas. Secretary HULL. And you think it is not possible or probable.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, how can we say Germany would get control of the seas when our Navy is six times as great and we are building a two-ocean Navy? If you base a large part of your remarks on that assumption, that this Nation would have control, and if she did come over here therefore we will be in danger and therefore it is necessary for us to grant this kind of power to one man in order to immediately build up the defense?

Secretary HULL. I might say that if I were a conquering nation I would make gaining control of the sea my supreme objective, because I could not hold the lands of the world any more than Napoleon did; but if somebody gets control of the seas

Mr. FISH (interposing). Well, is it not the policy of the United States to get the greatest Navy in the world, a two-ocean Navy?

Secretary HULL. I hope that the policy is first of all to arm, arm, and arm just as expeditiously as possible and in the most effective

[blocks in formation]

Mr. EATON. I wish to thank the distinguished Secretary for his very illuminating statement, given in his usual simplicity, words and thoughts.

There is an overwhelming section-perhaps not an overwhelming, but a large section of the country-which even now takes it for granted that this is a war between Germany and England and not our war, and they base their attitude toward this and other legislation upon that assumption.

What I want to ask you and have you briefly discuss, if you will, is what is the basis of our great defense program? If England wins this war, we do not need the great defense program as against England, do we?

Secretary HULL. No.

Mr. EATON. If Germany and Japan and Russia and Italy united win this war, we will need this defense program and we will not have anyone to help us, if England is defeated?"

Secretary HULL. If, as I say, we are to learn from their treatment of other nations thus far and from some of their public utterances and public documents as to the purpose they have in mind by pursuing this series of unlimited conquests, I think they have sufficiently put us on guard that they could not complain if we should mistrust and do some things that we would not do if we trusted too much.

Mr. EATON. In this course of aiding England the problem is primarily aid to the United States in its own development of a program of defense, is it not?

Secretary HULL. That is the sole theory of the matter; that if we see a movement of force moving in a straight direction to this hemisphere, according to the acts and utterances of those involved, we can either sit still and wait until it gets here and crosses our border, as was the case of other countries, or we can begin to resist before it reaches our actual borders by aiding-in a thoroughly justifiable way, a way that would command the respect of the invader-a country that is putting forth a superhuman effort to check and resist successfully that world movement.

Mr. EATON. My personal view is that we must do everything possible in our power to help England, and so far as we can, the other allies, save the world from totalitarian despots. But I am wondering if this particular legislation does not establish here in America a considerable set of principles that are not unlike the totalitarian system abroad; and is it necessary, in order to secure a proper defense, to thus affect the established principles of our government for 150 years?

Secretary HULL. As I said a while ago, in answer to another gentleman, if we concede the supreme importance of aiding England by facilities and supplies, military supplies, as speedily as we possibly can, under the doctrine of self-preservation and self-defense, the mechanics of the service should be susceptible of solution by the wisdom and statesmanship of this Government in all its branches.

And I am sure that these can be easily agreed to because of the fact that, in this extreme emergency we must not be handicapped in carrying out this plan to aid England in the speediest way.

Now it is easy to see, if every person has his own way, that the whole thing would be over before anything would be done. It is a matter of speed and speed and more speed in the most practical possible way.

I believe that I have stated and felt as deeply about the respective functions of the Government as almost any person, and I feel that way very profoundly. I would not myself knowingly become a party to any act or acts that would be destructive of our system of government.

So, it is a question of dealing with a most grave and extremely urgent emergency problem, and the spirit in which it is dealt with could conceivably determine the course of the fight around the British Isles.

That is the problem we have, and I hope that everyone may, in the spirit of this situation, see his way clear to sitting down with each other and, keeping in mind that problem, make sure that the Nation adopts a course of action that will do what this measure proposes to do.

That is the principle. The reason I do not go into details now is that I have agreed with the Secretary of the Treasury that he would discuss the detailed provisions of the bill.

Mr. EATON. Of course, we all understand that in the very complexity of this difficult and uncertain world situation, nothing but infinite wisdom could find the correct answer to most of the problems involved. But you think that we can accomplish the purposes of this bill without violating the fundamental concepts of the Constitution? Secretary HULL. When I used to be a Member of Congress every person was a very profound constitutional lawyer. I do not know whether they all still are or not, but if each one is, of course, the war would be over before they could agree. Do not misunderstand me for a moment about the extreme importance of not pushing this measure through without such consideration, such full and careful consideration as you should give to it, and I am sure will give to it. But I think that you will have to have the principle of the measure and enough of its provisions to prevent the handicapping of this undertaking.

Mr. EATON. Thank you.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tinkham?

Mr. TINKHAM. Mr. Secretary, I want to read an article to you and ask you to comment on it.

This is a bill for the destruction of the American Republics. It is a bill for an unlimited dictatorship with power of the possessor and leave of the American people. With power to make war and allies for war. With this power Mr. Roosevelt could do almost anything, notwithstanding, as is provided: "The provision of any other law."

Mr. Roosevelt's power to do anything that he pleases with the person and property of an American citizen, to aid any governments he pleases, to aid in any conflict which he chooses to make his own, would be unlimited.

Under this bill, Mr. Roosevelt might from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of this act, and he may exercise any power or authority conferred upon him by this act through such departments, agencies, or offices as he shall direct. From that American dictatorship will arise. Congress is asked to abdicate. All other laws are to be suspended. Mr. Roosevelt decides, and his decision is final.

I ask your comment on that statement.

Secretary HULL. I imagine the author of that statement will be reading it when England is conquered and South America is conquered, if such should unfortunately happen, without the thought of any particular method of dealing with the situation.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, you evade answering directly and categorically that statement?

Secretary HULL. Except to say that according to my best information there were numerous people in Holland and Belgium and Poland reading just such statements to their Parliaments that are now under the domination of Germany.

Mr. TINKHAM. Is the Secretary so unfamiliar with the geography of Europe as to reason that the United States, and the great southern people, who on the one side are protected by 3,000 miles of ocean, and on the other side by 6,000 miles, are in the same position as some country with a short sea route from the centers of Europe?

Secretary HULL. Well I would rather leave that question to the military experts.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words you evade that question?

Secretary HULL. Well, I would rather leave that to the experts. The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest that the member be a little more considerate in his interrogation of the witness.

Mr. TIN KHAM. But he does not answer.

Secretary HULL. That is perfectly all right.

The CHAIRMAN. But suppose he says he does not wish to answer. MR. TINKHAM. I have read this statement and he does not answer, does not wish to comment on it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right.

Secretary HULL. The Congressman understands my system and I understand his system, I think, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TINKHAM. May I ask you, Mr. Secretary, whether you or your office drew this bill?

Secretary HULL. I have stated three times here that the Treasury Department drew up this bill. And that is why, when I noticed that you have not observed the statements I have already made, I am not more careful about answering you now.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, you did not draw the bill in your own Department?

Secretary HULL. That is what I have said several times.

Mr. TINKHAM. Now, of course, you are premier, as it were, of the Cabinet, and do you mean to say or imply that you were not consulted before the bill was drawn?

Secretary HULL. Oh, I have been consulted in connection with most of these matters that pertain to foreign affairs. This was primarily a matter that relates to the speeding up of production and the development of maximum amounts, primarily for disposal for all possible assistance to Britain, and naturally the Treasury, the Army, and the Navy are here to give you full information on that phase of it. Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, although the bill covers our foreign relations, making commitments of immense importance on our foreign affairs, you say it constitutes a fiscal bill rather than a foreign policy bill.

Secretary HULL. It is a fiscal bill, in its provisions, except the situation I dealt with in my statement, and I frankly dealt with all provisions relating to the law, and I also sought to discuss before the committee here all of the developments of the past 8 years leading up to the question of danger. That is my primary function.

I would be glad to come back here and go over the items in detail if the situation would be helped by a discussion of the financial and other phases.

Mr. TINKHAM. I might say that as a member of the committee I am interested very little in the financial side, but I am very importantly interested in the comments relating to international policy which are more devastating

Secretary HULL. As I say, the Treasury is here to talk over the finances.

Mr. TINKHAM. But I want to talk to you.

Secretary HULL. I do not know but what I have spoken over my time already.

Mr. TINKHAM. I hope you will give plenty of time to answering the questions I desire to propound to you.

You have continuously talked about the support for law and morality. May I ask you how it is possible for you to talk of law and morality-and I am certainly for those principles-when you have proposed before this Committee that in effect all international law be done away with, because in a fight there are breaches of it, but no hostile act against us which involves the principles of international law?

I think I am correct in what you stated, that we have not had a cause for war as yet, and we are not in the situation we were in during the World War, when we had a different status and under international law, to sail the seas. How can you propose and how can you support this as a principle of law and morality and then say that our international law is abolished, so far as the United States. is concerned?

Secretary HULL. No; that is just what I have not said.

Mr. TINKHAM. I think the record will disclose you have said that. Secretary HULL. Well, we will leave it for the record.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that the gentleman should ask specific questions relating to the matter before

us.

Mr. TINKHAM. I have asked a question and he said he had not made the statement.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let the record speak for itself, as he said.
Mr. TINKHAM. May I proceed?

Secretary HULL. It is entirely agreeable to me for him to proceed in his own way.

Mr. TINKHAM. You have said it is the policy of the United States to defend any country that is attacked by the present governments that are now belligerents, and I asked you whether or not I am to understand that means in defense of what would be other democracies, or whether that is to be limited to so-called democracies, or is to extend to any other country that is attacked?

Secretary HULL. I have tried to make myself clear to the committee that certain nations, repudiating all laws, all standards of conduct

« PreviousContinue »