Mrs. ROGERS. May I say that I think there are probably few people in the country who have made as much of a study of international law and foreign relations as the witness.

Mr. VORYS. Section 4 says that

All contracts made for the disposition of any defense article or defense information shall contain a clause by which the foreign government undertakes that it will not, without the consent of the President, transfer title to or possession of such defense article or defense information by gift, sale, or otherwise, or permit its use by anyone not an officer, employee, or agent of such foreign government. Well, suppose we delivered some howitzers out of our arsenals, can you tell us what sort of contract we could require that would prevent those guns in a British battery that was, we will say, destroyed in action, from getting into the enemy's hands?

Mr. CASTLE. Of course, nothing can be done. I mean, that is the danger of that particular article, in my mind, that if we, for example, turn over a very secret bomb sight to the British and the Germans happen to seize it, that is the end of it, so far as we are concerned. I do not think the British would be held legally to have violated the contract, but we would be the ones who would be out.

Mr. VORYS. Can you think of any contract or agreement we could require that would prevent an American-delivered plane from being disposed of to Germany by crashing when its motors go out? Mr. CASTLE. No, sir.

Mr. VORYS. It is a perfectly futile section, is it not?

Mr. CASTLE. They could not sell to Germany; probably they would agree to that, but they would not want to sell to Germany. Mr. VORYS. And they cannot sell to any other nation?

Mr. CASTLE. No, sir.

Mr. VORYS. But there is no writing that can be prepared which would prevent their disposing of it, or having it taken from them by force?

Mr. CASTLE. Nothing in the world.

Mr. VORYS. Along that line, Mr. Castle, it has been testified by all of our Cabinet officers here that really the sole reason for our going into this sort of aid to Britain is that the British Fleet is vital to our defense, but that we would have no control with reference to the disposition of the British Fleet?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. Those officers have said that no agreement we could make with reference to the fleet would be binding or effective under all circumstances.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. Well, if we cannot make an agreement with reference to the British Fleet, can you think of any agreement we could make with reference to anything else that would be effective?

Mr. CASTLE. I cannot. I think the British Fleet, however, is unlikely, as a whole, to be captured. I think the talk about the fleet has been what is going to happen to us if they give it over to the Germans, if Germany should win and the British should surrender their fleet. Now, as I understand it, they have said that they would not surrender their fleet, but if they are the kind of people who would surrender it, I do not think we want to help as much as we are trying to.

Mr. VORYS. Is not the best insurance as to the disposition of the British Fleet the British people themselves, and their own dominance?

Mr. CASTLE. Exactly, and I agree that I have great trust in them. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burgin.

Mr. BURGIN. Mr. Castle, you say you are in favor of aid to Britain. In what way?

Mr. CASTLE. In what way am I in favor of it?

Mr. BURGIN. Yes.

Mr. CASTLE. I am in favor of letting them have all the war materials that they can get in this country through private manufacturers. If Congress decides to repeal the Johnson Act, or if Congress decides on some other method by which we could lend money to the British, I have no particular objection to that.

Mr. BURGIN. Would you be in favor of it if it is necessary to repeal the Johnson Act?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not want to see the Johnson Act repealed, but I can envisage circumstances where, in time of crisis, that might be the thing to do.

Mr. BURGIN. Would you be in favor of that if it were necessary to save Britain from danger?

Mr. CASTLE. If it were necessary to save Britain, but it would take a lot of argument to make me believe that such a thing would be necessary. I mean, it seems to me in Britain at the present time we have got little time. This thing is likely to be more or less decided one way or the other fairly soon, and I do not think the repeal of the Johnson Act would affect the situation at the present day.

Mr. BURGIN. Would that, in your opinion, be an infringement of international law?

Mr. CASTLE. The repeal of the act?

Mr. BURGIN. No; aid to Britain, repealing the act, letting them have money?

Mr. CASTLE. No; that would not be an infringement of the international law, if changing the law as to the shipment of munitions has not been taken as an infringement of international law. If that has not been the other would not be.

Mr. BURGIN. I understood you to say that you would set up a private corporation and let the Government loan money to a private corporation, and they could loan it to Britain. That would be the same thing, would it not?

Mr. CASTLE. No; I did not say that.

Mr. BURGIN. You did not?

Mr. CASTLE. No.

Mr. BURGIN. You are of the opinion that the President should have declared an embargo in the Japanese-Chinese War, I believe. I think I heard you say that over the radio one night in a speech on the Neutrality Act.

Mr. CASTLE. I do not think he should have declared an embargo. Is that the question?

Mr. BURGIN. Yes.

Mr. CASTLE. No; because I felt that that might well lead to war if he did it, and I did not feel it ought to be done. I think what you heard me say is this: That if, at the very beginning of the trouble in the Far East we had taken a very definite position and stuck to it. it would have been much better. We have a tremendous amount of pin-pricking that has been done. I think that we have now gotten Japan into a very nervous and excitable frame of mind, where the situation is dangerous.

Mr. BURGIN. What about China?

Mr. CASTLE. What do you mean about China?

Mr. BURGIN. Our present policy not to place an embargo has assisted China, has it not?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not think it has at all. If I thought it had, that might change my opinion, but I do not think it has in any way. Mr. BURGIN. You rather lean to the opinion that Japan should dominate in the Pacific, do you not?

Mr. CASTLE. No; I do not to that opinion, but I think that Japan, being the most progressive and forward-looking, is likely to dominate, whatever we say about it, and I think if we were in pretty good relations with Japan we might be able to quiet them in a way that we cannot possibly do if they are looking upon us as their enemy. I may be quite wrong in that, but this has nothing to do with the point

at issue.

Mr. BURGIN. You feel that the people as a whole have not been aroused to this situation?

Mr. CASTLE. You mean the situation in Europe?

Mr. BURGIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASTLE. Oh, yes; I think the people as a whole are very, very keenly alive to the situation. So far as this particular bill is concerned, I think the people as a whole are not awake to quite the implications of the bill.

Mr. BURGIN. You mentioned in your opening statement that measures here have failed to aid England.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. BURGIN. And both candidates of the major parties made an issue of it in the campaign.

Mr. CASTLE. That is true, and then I spoke of the fact that in the polls there was an overwhelming desire to aid England, and an equally overwhelming desire to keep out of war.

Mr. BURGIN. Do you have any opinion that you could express to this committee as to what is aid short of war, aid to Britain short of war?

Mr. CASTLE. Well, we have been discussing various angles of that. Certainly anything that we can sell privately to Britain is the greatest help to them possible. That has nothing to do with war.

Mr. BURGIN. I know, but when they run out of anything to pay for it with.

Mr. CASTLE. They have not run out yet.

Mr. BURGIN. They make the statement here that they will real

soon.

Mr. CASTLE. In about a year. Well, let us face the issue then. Mr. BURGIN. You do not feel that the people are thoroughly aroused enough to go any further now?

Mr. CASTLE. No; I do not.

Mr. BURGIN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Starnes.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Castle, let us get back to H. R. 1776.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. You referred to the fact that the British Parliament. was continuing to function, even though Great Britain is actually at

war.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. Did the British Parliament function during the years 1914 to 1918?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. As it is now?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. When this country went to war in 1917, Congress granted certain special powers to the President, did it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Certainly, and that always must be done in time of war, naturally.

Mr. STEARNS. Congress can continue to function to some degree? Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. You are aware, of course, that there are certain differences between the Constitution of the United Kingdom and the Constitution of this country?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. In Great Britain the members of the Cabinet are members of Parliament also, are they not?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; they are.

Mr. STEARNS. There is no such division over there between the legislative and the executive as exists in this country?

Mr. CASTLE. No, sir.

Mr. STEARNS. In case the Prime Minister felt the need of some emergency power, how long do you think it would take him to get it from the British Parliament, Mr. Castle?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not think it would take him long, and I do not think it would take very long to get an emergency power right here, if it were not a power which we felt to the real disadvantage of the country, and I think Britain looks at it that way.

Mr. STEARNS. You do not think if this bill fails to pass and the President asked for some specific power; you do not think there would be as extended and as long discussion in both Houses of Congress as in the present case?

Mr. CASTLE. I cannot believe there would be if we were at war. I think the knowledge of the need of the quick action would make Congress move quickly.

Mr. STEARNS. Granting that our separation of powers is a better system when time is not in question, do you not think that it is because of a certain difference in our constitutional set-up that it becomes necessary in times of emergency to grant the President certain special powers?

Mr. CASTLE. Certain special and specific powers.

Mr. STEARNS. But there is where the Constitutions differ.

In the granting of power to the President, that is something that really becomes necessary because of the difference between our Constitution and the British Constitution; that is true, is it not?

Mr. CASTLE. That is true.

Mr. STEARNS. So that the essential difference between persons like you and the proponents of the bill is not so much a question of the violation of constitutional rights, but as to the gravity of the present emergency?

Mr. CASTLE. No; I do not think that that is true at all. I think we disagree as to the gravity of the present emergency, and I certainly, as an individual American citizen, should not have any objection to the granting of specific powers to the President which I believed would

1

be to the advantage of the country, but I should have very grave objections to the granting of these broad blanket powers which he could use to do almost anything.

Mr. STEARNS. You would object to this bill, even if we were at war? Mr. CASTLE. I should; yes.

Mr. STEARNS. There is one other thing I might have missed that you answered, as it is not always easy to hear what is going on at that end of the bench. I understood you to say to Mr. Kee that this bill granted the President power to convoy.

Mr. CASTLE. I think I said that to Mr. Kee, but I felt that it did not. I do not think it specifically grants him that power, but I think he probably would feel that he could use it if he wanted to and needed it, because you remember he said at his press conference the other day that he thought he had the power anyway.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, that may be, but I wish you would show us anything in this bill which in any specific way grants the President that power. Would you mind showing that to us if he has that power? I would not support a bill to take it away from him, but in this bill is there anything which specifically grants that power to him? Mr. CASTLE. I do not think there is anything specifically that gives him that power; no.

Mr. STEARNS. This bill deals entirely with the transfer of defense articles, their transfer in a legal sense rather than in a physical sense? Mr. CASTLE. And a great many specific powers, such as the repair of warships in our ports, and it seems to me it would give him the right to take ships which have sought refuge in our ports and turn them over to Britain.

Mr. STEARNS. This bill refers to defense articles.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. STEARNS. It does not refer to the personnel of the United States Navy, and gives him no additional power in that respect which he does not now possess. Therefore, there is no power here that would make it possible to use our ships for convoys.

Mr. CASTLE. There is no specific power in the bill, so far as I know.

Mr. STEARNS. In other words, you do not see any amendment that would get that out of this bill; it is not there?

Mr. CASTLE. I think the powers are so very broad and general that he could do almost anything.

Mr. STEARNS. It seems to me the power granted in this bill is very specifically and definitely confined to defense articles.

Mr. CASTLE. And he claims to have power over the personnel. Mr. STEARNS. You are talking about what the President might do. I am talking about what is in the bill. I want to help in any amendments that may be brought out. If that is not in the bill we do not have to worry about taking it out of the bill. That is all, Mr. Chair

man.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Courtney.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mundt.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Castle, following up the inquiry and the colloquy you had with Mr. Stearns, you did not want to go on record, did you, as stating that you felt there was no amendment which could be written, which would preclude the possibility of convoys, being written into the interpretation of this bill?