Page images
PDF
EPUB

that ordinarily prevail, have entered on a world movement of conquest by force with a view of subjugating people wherever they can get to them, and imposing on them a tyrranical system of treatment and of government. It is in that connection that violent attack has been made on the British Isles by these forces of world conquest; and that we should, before the movement gets into our midst, begin to resist, by aiding to every practical extent these peaceful nations that have been attacked and are resisting as fully as possible. I think that is a question that the Congress wants to consider.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, we have been extending our help to democracies, to any country, to any people that are attacked; am I correct?

Secretary HULL. I have just stated the case.

Mr. TINKHAM. I want to be sure.

Secretary HULL. I am talking about the movement of the three nations, parties to the Tri-Partite Pact.

Mr. TINKHAM. Do I understand that if Russia is attacked the United States will extend the same help that it will to England?

Secretary HULL. That is so theoretical I think it would not help to discuss it.

Mr. TINKHAM. I do not think it is theoretical at all.
The CHAIRMAN. Well the Secretary says it is.
Mr. Tinkham.

That is your answer,

Secretary HULL. The first question would come up whether a country needed help or would accept help.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tinkham.

Mr. TINKHAM. Wait a moment.

I desire to ask you this question, whether or not you personally and as Secretary of State are in favor of American ships running or aiding in breaking the blockade either of Germany or of England?

Mr. JOHNSON. I object. That has no relation to the bill.
Secretary HULL. I have not heard the question discussed.
Mr. TINKHAM. I think it is relevant to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary has answered.
Mr. TINKHAM. I did not understand you.

Secretary HULL. I have not heard that matter discussed.

Mr. TINKHAM. Is it not an important matter to discuss, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary HULL. Well, my statement here would get to a foreign capital in about 50 minutes; that is what it would mean if I discussed it with you here. You are not concerned about that phase of it. I am, and I cannot help it.

Mr. TINKHAM. But it is not a question of the attitude of a foreign capital, it is a question of our relationship to all Americans who want to know what policies are being made or adopted under this bill.

Secretary HULL. I have given a definite statement here of the scope and nature and extent of the present policy relating to the situation of danger.

Mr. TINKHAM. Is it your same answer to the next question, namely; our convoying American ships with our Navy?

Secretary HULL. I discuss these questions all the time. I discuss any question with anybody who comes around and desires to discuss them. Upon some

Mr. TINKHAM (interposing). But you would

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tinkham, the Secretary should be permitted to answer the question.

Mr. TINKHAM. I think he should. I agree with you. I thought he had finished.

Secretary HULL. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make it clear again that I think virtually every member of the committee recognizes what I think of the proprieties in the discussion of foreign policy. We have here representatives of newspapers from every part of the world. It is their duty to report everything as they interpret it, not perhaps as I interpret it. I am obligated to the Government, if my colleague there is or is not, to be a little bit circumspect in discussing all details of just any question that some interrogator might bring up.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, the Chair will state this: If any question is asked by any of the members of the committee which the Secretary does not feel he should answer during an open session, the committee will immediately go into executive session so that the Secretary can feel sure that he will be protected in that way. Mr. Tinkham, the Chair hopes that you will confine yourself to the bill and to the subject matter of the bill.

Mr. TINKHAM. I am certainly confining myself to the bill which I believe involves these very things.

The CHAIRMAN. That is very well. Please proceed.

Mr. TINKHAM. I want to ask the Secretary, if the fact that the President since the presidential campaign, has never mentioned the phrase "short of war," has any significance?

Secretary HULL. I think you had better ask the question about that of him. He has a sort of way of taking care of himself when you ask questions.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman feels that is not confining yourself to the bill.

Mr. TINKHAM. Let me ask this question: Does the Secretary think we will give all the financial aid without recompense, because in the bill it allows the President, as I remember it, in effect, not to demand any payment for what is done. I can read the text of the bill if the Secretary wants me to having done all of those things, does the Secretary think that if those who are being helped are still wavering or retreating does it not mean of necessity and is it not implicit in that policy of help, finally to furnish manpower?

Secretary HULL. I have not heard that discussed by anybody.
Mr. TINKHAM. You do not want to answer in any other way?
Secretary HULL. No; I have not heard anybody discuss that.
The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary has answered the question.

Mr. TINKHAM. I gave him an opportunity of answering in any other way that he wants to.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but the Secretary has answered that question, Mr. Tinkham, and that is his answer.

Secretary HULL. I have not discussed it nor thought of it.

Mr. TINKHAM. Do you not think, Mr. Secretary, you should think of the implication of the policy of this bill in its final analysis and its final effect?

Secretary HULL. Well, if you want to confine it just to the bill instead of dragging in all these other things, the bill definitely pre

scribes certain aid to Britain and there is nothing, no implication in it beyond that.

Mr. TINKHAM. It does not apply to Britain alone, it provides for any country in the world. That is No. 1. And now there is No. 2: How is it possible, and of course we have to consider what steps must of necessity follow, how is it possible for the Congress to pass such a bill as this and not follow up in the final analysis with manpower?

Secretary HULL. Just as it has been. An illustration I remember is that that argument was made when we had up the Neutrality Act. The Neutrality Act made it possible for law-abiding nations attacked by lawless nations to come over here and buy military supplies. And that enabled some of those countries resisting the movement of world conquest to hold out with much more certainty. And yet we have kept further and further away from that so far as that phase was concerned. Mr. TINKHAM. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a very short

statement.

The CHAIRMAN. There are no statements to be made. I will say to Mr. Tinkham that other members asked to be permitted to make statements.

Mr. TINKHAM. Oh, this is merely a remark.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, all of the other members have asked questions and the Secretary has tried to answer them.

Now, Mr. Tinkham, will you kindly confine yourself to asking questions upon this bill that is before the committee and that will then be in order. Any other questions or any statements that do not particularly refer to this bill will be objected to.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, we cannot refer in discussing this bill to those implications of manpower if we pursued the policies under it. Do I understand that?

The CHAIRMAN. No. If it refers directly to the bill you may ask the question.

Mr. TINKHAM. Well, I think it does. I think manpower is implicit in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not see where it is here. I wish you would kindly point it out to me.

Secretary HULL. Mr. Chairman, I have plenty of time. It is entirely agreeable to me for the gentleman to think that this is the quickest way to get along. I have already stated that I thought we would suffer by pursuing the course of aid to Britain less than we would if we sat down like a piece of statuary here until an invader reached our shores. So, with that in the record, I am willing for him to take 20 or 40 minutes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I object, Mr. Chairman, if the rule is started whereby a member of the committee can make his own statement, it will delay the consideration of this matter.

Mr. TINKHAM. I will make no statement if the gentlemen do not want me to.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair will state he has already refused other members of the committee permission to make a statement here. I do not see how I can comply with your request under the circumstances.

Please confine yourself to the bill.

Mr. TINKHAM. Mr. Secretary, do you consider we have abandoned all neutrality status?

Secretary HULL. Well, we, as I said, have been the outstanding leader among the nations of the world in upholding and keeping alive the laws pertaining to neutrality. And we have hammered all the doctrines, policies, and practices into each of those invading nations during the past few years. When we see that that fails in every sense, it is a question of whether and when we will undertake to adopt the law of self-preservation.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, we have-excuse me, please continue. Secretary HULL. And when we adopt the law of national defense, in the present extreme situation, there is no applicability of a combined doctrine of self-defense and neutrality in the general sense, where the two conflict.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, we have abandoned neutrality according to your theory?

Secretary HULL. We are keeping it alive but the warring nations have abandoned it, if that will make it a little clearer to you.

Mr. TINKHAM. Then, you do not consider that the President's neutrality proclamation of September 5, 1939, has been repealed by facts?

Secretary HULL. The law of self-defense has begun to assert itself and it should have commenced to do so at an earlier stage than it has. Mr. TINKHAM. Well, there is a great question, Mr. Secretary, as to whether what is being done is defense or offense.

Secretary HULL. Well, I am concerned about defense.

Mr. TINKHAM. Well, the implications of this bill are that is is offense and not defense, it seems to me.

Do you consider that the bill runs counter to the so-called Hull Reciprocity Agreement or not?

Secretary HULL. I want to bring you back to this question of national defense, if I can. That is a construction that I think we do not have to worry about at this time.

Mr. TINKHAM. Does in any way this bill and its effect and its natural consequences repeal, in your opinion, the Pan-American safetyzone principle?

Secretary HULL. There may be some conflict in some of its provisions, but that is wholly a minor and inconsequential matter.

Mr. TINKHAM. What objection is there to naming the countries which we are to assist so far as the provisions of the bill are concerned? Secretary HULL. If you could look into the future and see what other countries may be attacked by these same three nations in connection with this same world movement, then you would have, I think, a most satisfactory answer to your question.

Mr. TINKHAM. When they are attacked can you not come to Congress rather than getting an inclusive world power?

Secretary HULL. Oh, I would hope we would all be working as one person as we go along. My door has been open for 8 years and you never have darkened it in quest of information from me.

Mr. TINKHAM. Let me say, as long as the Secretary has said that, that the information I have received there from time to time was most disturbing because I saw that there was a trend to war, inevitable war, to any one who is trained either in history or who has had experience during the last 50 years with the movement of events.

Secretary HULL. Frankly, I thought you wanted to be disturbed and I sent you the information.

Mr. TINKHAM. May I ask you what you think of the propriety in the bill of giving miscellaneous countries with whom we may be allied by this bill defense information including military secrets? Whether you think that is a sound provision?

Secretary HULL. That is a matter which the War and Navy Secretaries will be glad to discuss with you.

Mr. TINKHAM. Let me ask you, I suppose you will answer the same way to any question I will ask of you on these lines.

May I not ask you, with your training, legislative and otherwise, whether it does not seem to you that we are under this bill becoming a totalitarian country to fight totalitarian countries elsewhere?

Secretary HULL. Well, that is a metaphysical question. I do not know whether I can give you an answer that would satisfy you. I do not think there is much I care to go into on that kind of question, because I do not know how it would be of any particular help to any of the other members of the committee.

Mr. TINKHAM. Well, it seems to me it is of importance to the committee to know if your opinion is that we would set up a totalitarian government here if this legislation was passed. Certainly the committee does not want to do that consciously. In my opinion it will, if it passes this legislation, and your opinion might help.

Secretary HULL. I do not think it would aid some of the Congressmen unless I expressed an opposite opinion from that which I entertain. Mr. TINKHAM. Will you repeat that? I did not hear it.

Secretary HULL. I say I am not sure my opinion would be helpful to some of the Congressmen unless I stated the opposite of the opinion I really entertain.

Mr. TINKHAM. I think you may be wrong in that particular. May I ask you as an expert in these matters whether under the terms of the bill an act of war could be committed by the President with the powers given?

Secretary HULL. I did not catch the first two or three words.

Mr. TINKHAM. My question was whether under the provisions of the bill the President could commit an act of war?

Secretary HULL. Oh, the President or even any naval officer in command of a ship could commit an act of war any hour or any day in the year in normal times outside of that bill, so far as that is concerned.

Mr. TINKHAM. That would be a breach of law when he did it but, when this bill is passed, it would not be a breach of law provided an act of war could be committed. And my question is, in your opinion as an expert under the terms of this bill, Can the President commit an act of war?

Secretary HULL. I do not have any more to say than that under all the general authority that he has there is every kind of way to commit an act of getting into trouble with other nations if the Executive desires to do it.

Mr. TINKHAM. If he can get into war under the terms of this bill it simply gives him additional authority rather than general authority to do so.

Secretary HULL. Well, he has got all the authority he needs so far as that point is concerned. If we can get back to the matter of national defense a part of the time I think would be very important.

« PreviousContinue »