« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Mundt. In writing legislation to help England, therefore, and the predominant opinion in the country seems to wish to help Eng. land, which you would like to do and I have said that I would like to do), in writing such legislation our first consideration should always be maintaining our own national defense and keeping out of war; is that not right?
Mr. MACNIDER. That is my belief, sir.
Mr. Mundt. After we have definitely safeguarded those objectives we can write into the bill all reasonable help to England which can be provided which will not run contrary to those objectives!
Mr. MacNIDER. If in the judgment of Congress it thinks it is correct.
Mr. MUNDT. I would like to elicit your opinion, Colonel Mac Nider, as I did that of the gentleman who testified this morning on the proposed amendment which I expect to offer to this bill and which I hope will do that thing which America most desires, namely, to keep us out of the war, which is consideration No. 1, and giving effective aid to England, which is consideration No. 2, both working towards the improvement and maintenance of our own national defense. I would like to know, if you care to express your opinion, as to whether you feel this approach which I am going to suggest is preferential to the approach written into House bill 1776, as is, recognizing, as we both must, that will then just be two approaches, and it is quite conceivable that a third and a fourth and a fifth approach might develop from these public hearings which would be better than anyone of them. My proposal, Colonel, is to strike out section 3 of the bill in its entirety. I think you have the bill there?
Mr. MacNIDER. Yes.
Mr. Mundt. My proposal is to strike out section 3, which begins on the second page with the language “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law.” In other words, that is the paragraph of abdication whereby Congress abandons its constitutional responsibility. I would strike out that entire section over to and including line 18 on page 3 and rewrite the section containing substantially this language, or this proposition: "That Congress would appropriate the sum of not exceeding” (and I do not want to put in the amount at this time because we are hoping to secure and we have had assurances of the Cabinet members that they will suggest what the maximum amount might be which is needed, although so far no one has testified as to that amount, but they have indicated that some time this week they could at least give us a maximum figure), let us assume one, two, or three billion dollars, and therefore my proposed amendment would read as follows in this substantial language in setting forth this proposition: “That Congress would appropriate the sum of not exceeding say $2,000,000,000 to be turned over to the President, who at his discretion could lend or exchange for equal value in terms of raw materials or in terms of island possessions and bases and so forth, or if he deemed it in the best interests of our national defense to give to such countries as he deems it essential in the interests of the national defense that money to supplement their purchasing power." which seems to be the crux of the situation whereby Congress would simply be supplementing the British purchasing power by gifts or loans or exchange tokens. Then there would be this further stipula
tion: “That money is to be expended in the United States and should be channeled through the office of production management to have that efficiency and coordination of procurement which Mr. Knudsen said was so important and which he gave as practically his sole reason for his support of this legislation. Do you not feel that type of approach would be a sounder one than the one indicated in H. R. 1776?
Mr. MacNIDER. I do, Mr. Mundt, but the only amendment that I can really be in favor of is that on the first line I believe it should read, "Be it not enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives."
Mr. Mundt. I think that I appreciate the gentleman's reason for making that statement. You and I know that under the legislative practices in a democracy it is a matter of give and take, and we have to sometimes accept more than we would like to accept and relinquish more than we otherwise would like to relinquish. We are looking for some optimum method whereby Congress can, retaining its constitutional powers, implement our aid to England and still not go one step further toward war or toward reposing powers in the hands of one individual, which might lead us into conflict.
Mr. MACNIDER. I appreciate that.
Mr. Mundr. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. MacNIDER. Thank you.
Mr. JONKMAN. Colonel MacNider, the people who are for this bill speak about an impending crisis in the next 60 or 90 days. Do you know of any such impending crisis?
Mr. MACNIDER. No, sir.
Mr. JONKMAN. If there is such an impending crisis, do you know any reason why it should not be frankly disclosed to the American people ?
Mr. MACNIDER. No, sir; because whoever is going to bring it must know it now.
Mr. JONKMAN. Would you say, and I do not know whether you are acquainted with weather conditions in Europe, but would you say that the frequency of storms on the English Channel would be tremendous in 60 or 90 days?
Mr. MacNIDER. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. JONKMAN. Do you believe that a successful victorious military invasion of the British Isles can be made by Germany in the next 60 or 90 days?
Mr. MacNIDER. I do not know that, either, sir. But I certainly would not want to be trying it.
Mr. JONKMAN. You say that as a military supposition it is improbable?
Mr. MacNIDER. Well, I did not say it is improbable. I do not know whether it is impossible. But I mean they are a pretty tough folk to try and invade.
Mr. JONKMAN. In other words, last fall it was frequently said that if Hitler did not try to invade England before the winter storms set in he would never be able to make it. Do you remember that? Mr. MACNIDER. Yes.
Mr. JONKMAN. Because in the meantime England and the channel coast would have become an armed camp and they would be ready to repel an invading force, which situation did not exist last fall?
Mr. MACNIDER. Yes, sir.
Mr. JONKMAN. Secretary Knox testified the other day that according to him convoys or the providing of convoys would be an act of war. He also testified that he would object to a restriction in this bill against the granting of convoys because it would tie the President's hands. If Congress was to pass the bill under those conditions, would it not impliedly be transferring the war-making powers from the Congress of the United States to the President?
Mr. MacNIDER. That is the way it sounds to me, sir.
Mr. JONKMAN. I would like to read you a statement from John Bassett Moore, the great international law authority, and authority on constitutional law, and I want to see if you agree with him. He says:
There can be no doubt that under the guise of certain phraseology the pending bill assumes to transfer the war-making power from the Congress in its constitutional capacity to the Executive. This is evident upon its face.
Would you agree with that proposition ?
I have consistently opposed this tendency during the past 8 years, but my voice has not always been heeded even by those who wish to maintain our neutrality. It is evident that the tide of totalitarianism in government which has swept over many other lands has not only reached our shores, but has gone far to destroy constitutional barriers which, once broken down, are not likely to be restored.
Do you agree with that?
Mrs. BOLTON. A few minutes ago you gave us a little word that you felt the people that you know back home were against this bill.
Mr. MAONIDER. Yes.
Mrs. BOLTON. I want particularly to thank you for that word, because we are the representatives of the people, and we feel that every bit of information that has to do with real, thoughtful consideration of these matters should be in our hands, and I want to thank you especially for expressing yourself. I think that we who live east of the Hudson are very much in need of having the ideas of the Midwest and the far West brought to the Congress.
Mr. MacNIDER. I cannot speak for all the Middle West. I can simply speak for my own community, Mrs. Bolton.
Mrs. Bolton. That is a rather large community?
We were told that the bill was brought to us in Congress because of the very acute need of England. There has been a great deal of discussion of the lack of defense for America. There has been a good deal of discussion about how much of those guns and various matériel
that are involved in our own defense can safely be given to England at this time. It is a moot question, that is, as to what is to be spared. That is quite evident from the testimony of the Secretaries, as it seemed as if it were going to be a difficult thing to decide. The bill puts the power of decision entirely in the hands of the President-any President-and we have to trust implicitly the judgment of that President.
In your opinion, would we be unfair in our judgment if we were influenced by the announcement in the papers this morning that our airplanes were going to Russia and not England? Would you think that might have a bearing on our judgments?
Mr. MacNIDER. Mrs. Bolton, I do not know how to answer that.
Mrs. BOLTON. Would it seem to you that it was a peculiar moment to give planes to Russia ?
Mr. MACNIDER. Yes, indeed.
Mrs. BOLTON. A few moments ago when there was some questionsometimes we do not always hear, but I understood that you were challenged in regard to the Monroe Doctrine and as to your sense of what it was. I wonder if I might clear the record and ask you if this is your understanding of it!
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Bolton, pardon me, but unless you put the whole annual message of President Monroe, of December 2, 1823, into the record, there will be objection to it. I will have to object. The Monroe Doctrine, as we all know, is a message to the Congress by President Monroe. Now, to understand the Monroe Doctrine, of course we all have our own opinion as to what the Monroe Doctrine really means, but to have the record clear I have no objection to having the entire message of President Monroe appear in the record. But to read parts of it I object.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fish. The lady does not want to discuss the entire Monroe Doctrine, but only an extract of the Monroe Doctrine. The proposal you make is that if we want to discuss one section of the Constitution of the United States we have to put the whole Constitution in the record ?
The CHAIRMAN. Not at all.
Mr. Fish. All she is asking is to read one or two lines and maybe three lines at the most which will prove exactly the contention of the witness whose testimony was directly challenged by a member of this committee. And in all fairness I ask that permission be granted to the lady to read the very wording of the Monroe Doctrine in this respect.
The CHAIRMAN. The Monroe Doctrine is a message. It is not what you think or anyone else thinks, Mr. Fish, and I have no objection to having the entire message placed in the record, but to read one or two parts of it does not clarify what the Monroe Doctrine really means. What the lady intends reading is not in her own words, and I think it is wrong to read an excerpt. We are not here to debate the Monroe Doctrine and if you want to have the entire message of President Monroe put in the record, I have no objection. But if you read a part of it, I have objection, or if you want to read all of it, I have no objection.
Mr. Fish. According to the contention you make, even if we wanted to discuss one phase of the Declaration of Independence, we would have to put the entire Declaration of Independence into the record ?
The CHAIRMAN. Not at all.
Mr. Fish. If we followed your statement out logically and wanted to discuss one angle of the Farewell Address of George Washington, we would have to put in the entire Farewell Address of George Washington into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Not at all.
Mr. Fish. I submit that that is a very unfair position for you to take to cut off the lady from reading an extract from the Monroe Doctrine.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not the intention of the Chair to cut off the lady. Any question she may want to ask is all right. But the Monroe Doctrine is not a special or specific thing. It is an entire message which takes up several pages and to clarify the Monroe Doctrine which I am willing to do, let us have the entire message of President Monroe at that time.
Mr. Fish. Mr. Chairman, if you object, of course I will have to appeal from the decision of the Chair. I hope you will not do this. It is perfectly obvious that the lady is within her right in quoting an extract from the Monroe Doctrine. She does not care to take a half hour to read the entire Monroe Doctrine.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Fish, may I be permitted to speak to my own question?
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Bolton?
Mrs. Bolton. Mr. Chairman, I was merely trying to clarify the situation in which I think the committee finds itself, to simplify the question whether it was a certain very small passage of the Monroe Doctrine, as it is so called, whether that was the understanding which the witness had of the Monroe Doctrine. Now, if the Chair objects, then I shall want, of course, to ask unanimous consent to have the entire material put into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not object to the entire material being printed into the record if you print it all.
Mrs. Bolton. But I think it is unfortunate that a small clause should not be permitted to be read to clarify the witness' position.
The CHAIRMAN. We are not debating the Monroe Doctrine. The Chair will hold we are not debating the Monroe Doctrine.
Mrs. Bolton. I am not debating the Monroe Doctrine.
The CHAIRMAN. We are debating a bill which we have before us under consideration. The Chair does not object to placing the message of President Monroe, under date of December 2, 1823, into the record. The Chair does not object to reading the whole message if you wish to.
Mrs. Bolton. The Chair is not interested in finding out whether the meaning of the witness was a certain meaning or not?
The CHAIRMAN. Well, if we are going to open a debate on the Monroe Doctrine, why we will stay here for quite a while and as Dr. Eaton said yesterday, if we are going to proceed in this manner, why the war will be over before we get through.
Mrs. BOLTON. That is the statement of the gentleman on your right.
The CHAIRMAN. If you want to open a debate on the Monroe Doctrine, each member should have the right to express an opinion on it.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the witness be permitted to answer the question. Somebody challenged him as to his