Page images
[ocr errors]


Mr. JONKMAN. Well, Secretary Stimson said last week that the great feature of this bill was that the power and responsibility of controlling the strategy of the distribution of these articles of defense would remain in the President. You said something to the same effect?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. And I think that the President then would be in a very responsible position because he would control the strategy of the war to some extent.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.
Mr. JONKMAN. Wouldn't we be pretty well in the war by that time?
Mr. CASTLE. I think we would. That is what I have said right

Castle along; but we would not necessarily be actually in the war to the extent of shooting guns at other people.

Mr. Jonkman. Let us explore it a little further. Do you think that the language of this bill, taking into consideration the control of that strategy would be construed as a mandate from the President to defeat the Axis Powers?

Mr. CASTLE. Construed by whom, in this country or abroad?

Mr. JONKMAN. The bill itself would be so constituted to give that authority and that responsibility botb? Mr. Castle. I think it probably would. I think it is a bill enabling

CASTLE. the President to make war, and I think everybody who has studied it admits that.

Mr. JONKMAN. If I understand the Secretary of War correctly he agrees to the position of chief strategist, but would not say the President was Commander in Chief-would you go so far as to say he would be Commander in Chief of the Allied armies ultimately?

Mr. Castle. I do not suppose technically, but he would be much more powerful than any commander in chief they have had.

Mr. Jonkman. He would be in a terrifically important and controlling position in respect to the outcome of the war in Europe?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; terrifically.

Mr. JONKMAN. Under those conditions, do you see any possibility of the American Nation staying out of war?


Mr. JONKMAN. I think Mr. Richards interrogated you with reference to authorizations and appropriations. Is it not your opinion that

. this bill both authorizes and appropriates to the President our entire Navy and our entire output of munitions of any kind whatsoever, our entire aggregation of munitions, puts them all under his control until they are depleted, if necessary, and that the only authorization or appropriation that would have to be made by Congress would be when he had either depleted them entirely, or to such an extent that additional appropriations for our own defense are necessary?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; that is true.
Mr. JONKMAN. It is perfectly true, is it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; that is perfectly true, except that he might want to build further guns, ships, and planes; he would have to have further appropriations for them, I assume.

Mr. JONKMAN. In other words, he would have to do that only to replace what he had loaned or leased for our own defense?

Mr. CASTLE. Replace or increase.

Mr. JONKMAN. For our own defense?
Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. And then he could immediately repeat the samo process?

Mr. CASTLE. Right away.

Mr. Jonkman. So that there is absolutely no end to it, is not that true?

Mr. CASTLE. Correct.

Mr. JONKMAN. Have such powers ever been granted to any President in time of war?

Mr. Castle. No; I do not think any such power has been granted officially to any chief of state.

Mr. JONKMAN. In other words, Congress during the World War retained that right of appropriations as a check on the President, and that has been entirely eliminated by this bill?

Mr. CASTLE. Entirely.

Mr. JONKMAN. And, of course, it abrogates the provision in the Constitution that no appropriations for carrying on war shall be made for a period longer than 2 years?

Mr. CASTLE. In a roundabout way; yes.
Mr. JONKMAN. I thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gregory?
Mr. GREGORY. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman,
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wasielewski?
Mr. WASIELEWSKI. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sikes?
Mr. SIKES. I have no questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Castle, I am not going to tell you what a great man you are; you know it.

Mr. CASTLE. I hope not. The CHAIRMAN. Following up the questions that Mr. Eberharter asked you, you know, from your experience in the State Department, that when the Democrats are in power the Republicans offer resolutions, and when the Republicans are in power the Democrats offer resolutions. Did you ever, acting as Secretary of State, in answer to certain resolutions that were introduced in Congress, mark the resolution with such a notation as this: "That it would not be compatible with the public interest to present the information requested"?

Mr. CASTLE. Very likely.
The CHAIRMAN. Very likely?
Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And is it not the generalcustom of the State Department to use their own discretion as a matter of public interest in furnishing the information, except confidentially to Members of Congress?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; that is necessary, Mr. Chairman, I think.
The CHAIRMAN. So that answers my question.
Mr. Castle. On the other hand, if I may say something further
The CHAIRMAN. Please do.

Mr. Castle. I think occasionally, especially with the press people-- , well, I think sometimes in my own days, as well as at any other time, the State Department said too little, and I will give you just an example of what happened. A group of correspondents, all good fellows, came in one afternoon to me and said, "We want full information about your negotiations with France for a new treaty.” I said, “It cannot be given out now because the negotiations are not over.” Now, that is a time when, as a rule, they withheld the information.

The CHAIRMAN. I meant that that is the general custom.

Mr. Castle. And then I said to them, “But if you will take it off the record, I will tell you the whole thing, and then in a week or 2 weeks you will have a scoop on the rest of the papers.” Some of them said, "Camarade," and went out, and the others took it.

The CHAIRMAN. Just to keep the record clear, you said something about changing the rules after the game has started. The legislation of changing our neutrality law was started long before the war started?

Mr. CASTLE. It was.

The CHAIRMAN. So, what we were doing was not changing the rules after the war started; is that not a fact?

Mr. CASTLE. I think the vote

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the vote; we know about the vote, but the resolution was introduced in Congress; it was under consideration by the committees before the war started. So that was notice to all powers as to what Congress might do; is that not a fact?

Mr. CASTLE. I think that that is true, although I remember at the time it was introduced I was saying I hope to heaven they will be quick about it and do it before the war begins.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is fine; I am glad we got to that. You mentioned something about the British Parliament. Does the British Parliament act and legislate under a constitution?

Mr. CASTLE. There is no written British constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. Very true; that is what I wanted you to say. There is no written constitution, so that there is no constitution that the British Parliament can act under or by.

Mr. Castle. While it acts under and by long-established tradition, it has no constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. Long-established laws; is that not right?
Mr. Castle. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they can change their laws at any time, and there is no appeal from the law except to the parliament itself; is that not a fact?

Mr. CASTLE. True.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, there is only one more question, Mr. Castle, that is, so as to have your statement correct, as the Chair may be wrong: In the year 1776 the Declaration of Independence led to war; is that correct?

Mr. CASTLE. No; I think that is a little incorrect.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to change your statement, or do you want to leave it that way?

Mr. CASTLE. It is harmless.
The CHAIRMAN. It is harmless, but it is incorrect?
Mr. CASTLE. It is obvious as to what it means.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Mr. Fish would like to ask you some questions.

Mr. Fish. Mr. Castle, if these questions have been asked, I do not expect to have you take up the time of the committee by answering them. Do you know whether Canada and Australia are being paid in gold for the English purchases at the present time?

Mr. CASTLE. No, I am sorry; I have no idea. Mr. Fish. Therefore, you probably would not know whether Canada, Australia, and South Africa are lending any money to England at the present time?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not know it; I have heard it as pretty authoritatively said that they were. That is all I know.

Mr. Fish. But they are not actually loaning as we propose to do in this bill; you do not know, as a matter of fact, any of those countries or Dominions are lending any money to England?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much, Mr. Castle. I recognize that you are a great man, but you are a great witness also.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to make a statement at this time of the list of witnesses who will be here tomorrow. The witnesses for the majority members of the committee will be the Honorable William C. Bullitt; Mrs. J. Borden Harriman; Gen. John F. O'Ryan, Hon. William Green, president, American Federation of Labor; Miss Dorothy Thompson; and Mr. William L. Shirer.

The Chair also wishes to state at this time that an executive session is set for Monday morning, and that we will call General Marshall, Chief of Staff, Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, and General Brett, Assistant Chief of the Air Corps.

Mr. Eaton. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if they are the gentlemen who were supposed to testify this morning here?

The CHAIRMAN. You might ask Mr. Fish that question. Mr. Eaton. I thought the chairman was in possession of most all wisdom.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you want to go into that.


COMMITTEE OF ONE MILLION, DETROIT, MICH. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gerald L. K. Smith. Is Mr. Gerald L. K. Smith in the room?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You are National Chairman of the Committee of One Million, from Detroit. You do not mean a committee of 1,000,000 from Detroit?

Mr. SMITH. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, have you a prepared statement?
Mr. Smith. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have copies for the press?
Mr. Smith. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask of you, Mr. Smith, how long it will take to read your statement and how long you expect to take?

Mr. Smith. It will take me about 4 minutes to read the statement. The CHAIRMAN. Be seated, or stand, as you wish, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith. I will stand to read the statement, and I will be seated to answer the questions.




[ocr errors]


We, of the Committee of One Million, present to this committee 2,000,000 names of American citizens signed to a petition supporting a national defense second to none and opposing American intervention in foreign wars.

This statement has been authorized by 1,021 leaders from 38 States and represents a careful analysis of approximately 100,000 personal letters written to our committee.

We oppose the passage of H. R. 1776 for five major reasons:

1. This bill, if passed, will grant to the President powers which thus far have been granted only to the dictators of the world among whom are Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Discretionary powers given the President under this bill would authorize him to loan or lease natural and manufactured resources to any nation on earth not even excluding Russia. The President's passion for power as demonstrated at other times during his administration emphasizes the double importance of not weakening the authority of the legislative branch of our Government as this bill certainly would do if passed.

2. This bill repeals and abandons the Monroe Doctrine by receiving Britain as a partner in Western Hemisphere politics and by the United States in turn joining with Britain in the prosecution of Europe's wars. The Monroe Doctrine, concerning this subject, reads in part as follows: Our policy in regard to Europe

is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers.

In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so.

3. This bill, if passed, will imperil our much-needed and sorely neglected national-defense program. Assuming that the worst thing that could happen in Europe would be Hitler's victory, the best thing that could happen in America would be for us to become so thoroughly prepared in national defense that we would be safe regardless of the outcome of the European and Asiatic wars. Two elements of national defense are (a) materials and manpower, (b) complete national unity. This bill would, if passed, dissipate our supply of materials and divide our Nation on foreign policy. America cannot unit on European defense but we can unite on American defense.

May I remind the committee that I am now interpreting our findings in the reading of approximately 100,000 personal letters involving this issue of intervention.

4. We do not trust English politicians. In fact, we do not trust (and I believe that our 2,000,000 constituents typify the American attitude) any foreign politicians. England's behavior after the last war is remembered by our people and resented. A statement made by the Honorable Winston Churchill in 1936 is typical of a British attitude which our people have not forgotten. Churchill said in part:

Legally we owe this debt to the United States, but logically we don't, and this is because America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If she had done so, the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917, thus saving over a million British, French, American, and other lives and preventing the subsequent rise of Fascism and Nazism.

We, of the Committee of One Million, are alarmed over the fact that those who are the most aggressive in supporting this bill are individuals who are known to be favorable to our full participation in this war.


« PreviousContinue »