« PreviousContinue »
The total amount turned over by the trade unions, their funds, the funds in their treasuries, totaled millions of dollars.
Now, in addition to that, as the emergency has become greater, the workers have made sacrifices, just like the workers in any country will make when the emergency requires.
Mr. EBERHARTER. Then, as I take it, while labor, trade-unions, and organizations which you say are willing to make sacrifices when necessary, they don't want some few employers to take advantage of this emergency in order to break down the labor gains that have been made recently.
Mr. GREEN. That is what we are trying to jealously guard against is to protect and preserve the gains we have made and then we wish that the interests of the employers shall be equally protected, and then, standing together, let us all give the best we have, and can give, in defense of our country.
Mr. EBERHARTER. That only occurred to me, Mr. Green, that if the amendments you suggest are adopted, that it makes it impossible to waive the provisions, say, of the Walsh-Healey Act, and National Labor Relations Act, or any of those other labor gains; it makes it impossible to waive those, and how would the labor unions do in case of a serious emergency?
Mr. GREEN. There doesn't seem to be any reason, Congressman, why they should be waived now; we are not at war.
Mr. EBERHARTER. I appreciate that. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but there certainly is no necessity of waiving any of those labor gains now, but if we put it into this act, and the emergency does become more serious, what should be done then?
Mr. GREEN. If war occurs, if we become involved in war and I hope we won't, then the Congress will be still functioning, and the Congress will take such action as the emergency may require.
Mr. EBERHARTER. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Green, there was considerable confusion when you started your testimony. I thought that I heard you say something in answer to the question of Mr. Vorys-did you say that the membership of the A. F. of L. had been polled on 1776 as it is, or that the executive board
Mr. GREEN. I wouldn't want to leave any wrong impression, Congressman. I said that of course H. R. 1776 was drafted following the adjournment of the convention. The convention expressed itself upon the general principle of extending all moral and material aid possible to Great Britain, and they did that by unanimous vote. The power to carry out the instructions of the convention is placed upon the executive officers and the executive council. The executive council interprets the H. R. 1776 as an instrumentality through which the expressed wish of the convention may be carried out.
Mr. Mundt. Then you repose in Congress and in the President the obligation to see to it that that modification “all means short of war" is kept clear in this legislation, don't you?
Mr. GREEN. Oh, yes; we think that there is no necessity for you to become involved in the war.
Mr. Mundt. You do not want to take any unnecessary chances of getting into the war?
Mr. GREEN. That is right.
Mr. Mundt. One other question. Is your support, President Green, predicated on the adoption of the amendments to be suggested, or, if no amendments are made, does the A. F. of L. favor the bill as it is?
Mr. GREEN. We have made these recommendations and we hope Congress will accept them, but if Congress would refuse to accept them, like the average good American citizen, we will go along with the law, but we hope that you will accept them.
Mr. MUNDT. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green, the committee thanks you very, very much. You have been very patient, and you were supposed to be on at 3 o'clock, but you realized the situation, and I thank you very,
Mr. GREEN. Thank you for the opportunity of coming.
Mr. Fish. On behalf of the minority, I want to thank you for the testimony and to assure you that the utmost consideration will be given by all of the members to what you propose today.
The CHAIRMAN. There are certain people in the hall that have petitions the committee would like to receive, but unfortunately there is a very important meeting that is going to take place in a very few moments, and the committee will have to adjourn as soon as the petitions are presented. There will be no questions asked, and no one will be permitted to ask any at this time, because we have run over our time.
I want to read a telegram first that I have here from Mr. William L. Shirer:
Mr. Shirer deeply regrets illness, flu, prevents appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee tomorrow.
Now, we also have Mr. Louis Waldman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Waldman, the only thing the committee can do at this time is to receive your petition. Of course, if you have a statement to make the committee will have to examine you, and that will take beyond the time we have. I am awfully sorry, the committee regrets it very much, but there is an important meeting that we must attend.
Mr. WALDMAN. I have a statement, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS WALDMAN, LABOR ATTORNEY AND
NATIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, NEW YORK
The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the reporter.
Mr. WALDMAN. My name is Louis Waldman, 302 Broadway, New York City. I am national chairman of the Council for Social Democracy, and I have submitted my statement, as the chairman describes it, to the Chair for the use of the committee.
If the committee has about 2 minutes, I should like to make a statement.
The CHAIRMAN. If you do that, we shall have to cross-examine you.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; I have given my statement to the committee, and by virtue of that fact I have submitted it to the press. The statement is part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. The reason I want your name and address is so that the press can receive it as a petition or statement received by the committee.
(The statement submitted by Mr. Waldman is as follows:)
I support the lease-lend bill because I am convinced that its passage is necessary for our national defense.
The purpose of the bill, to extend immediate and more effective aid to Great Britain, is sound. The method provided, that of giving the President the power to extend the necessary aid, is within the best American tradition. This bill does not entail, as some critics contend, the abdication of the legislature, the establishment of a dictatorship by the President, and the destruction of democracy.
On the contrary, since the discretion delegated to the President in the bill is for the dealing with foreign affairs and for the promotion of national defense, the President is the sole and proper constitutional authority to exercise that discretion.
Foreign affairs are the special province of the President. It has been so from the time our Nation was founded. Those who see in this bill a peril to our democratic institutions because of the supposed delegation of power are confusing domestic and foreign affairs.
The United States Supreme Court has frequently stated that "congressional legislation * * within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. (U. S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304.)
Transactions with foreign nations require caution and unity of design and their success almost always depends on secrecy and dispatch. The President, through his diplomatic representatives, has the better opportunity of knowing conditions which prevail in foreign countries. Especially is this true in time of war.
The provisions of the lend-lease bill which grant discretion to the President find overwhelming support in our legislative history from the inception of the National Government to the present day. In 1796, Congress gave the President authority to permit the exportation of arms, cannon, and military stores, the only prescribed guide for his action being that such exports should be in "cases connected with the security of the commercial interest of the United States
How familiar is the echo of history! Practically every volume of the United States Statutes contains legislation which leaves the exercise of power in foreign affairs to the President's unrestricted judgment. The United States Supreme Court had many an occasion to review these acts and fully sustained the constitutionality of granting discretionary power to the President in foreign affairs. Thus, the purpose and method of the lend-lease bill are sanctioned by a course of similar legislation for over a century and a half.
The issue really is whether we have faith in the capacity and leadership of President Roosevelt to defend the United States by mere effective aid to Britain. On that the American people have already spoken.
It is of the utmost importance that this bill pass without delay. Our people are not and cannot be indifferent as to whether the Nazis or Great Britain wins the war. Why did we take the unprecedented step of adopting peacetime conscription? Why did we, almost unanimously, adopt a defense program involving some $20,000,000,000? Why have we set up a National Defense Commission? Why are we mobilizing and organizing our human and industrial power? The answer is that we care and care most deeply who wins this war. We did not embark on this vast preparedness for national defense as long as Great Britain's power stood unimpaired. It is only because the people of the United States are overwhelmingly convinced that our security would be immediately jeopardized by a Nazi victory that we are engaged in our present urgent efforts for national defense.
The critics of the bill, therefore, who say that we can trust Churchill no more than Hitler, or who assume a lofty air of impartiality toward the outcome of the war as between Great Britain and Nazi Germany, are not addressing themselves so much to the bill as they are arguing against the advisabilty of our policy of national defense. And yet some of the opponents of the bill strangely enough urge the acquisition of still more air bases abroad. For what purpose and against
whom, if not against a rampant Nazi Germany? Would they advocate an expansion of aerial defense and the acquisition of bases if England were not now fighting for her very life with the result in the balance?
Some people have said that the United States is safe from invasion by Nazi Germany. I am not a military expert. On military questions I am ready to accept the judgment of the Secretaries of War and the Navy and their technical advisers. An examination of totalitarian technique and philospohy discloses that whether a country is in danger from nazi-ism is only partly a military question.
For a long time now I have observed and studied the technique employed by totalitarians to achieve their ends. The Nazi menace to the United States is real and immediate.
The pattern of totalitarian conquest is clear to the students and observers of totalitarianism. Military invasion is the last and not the first step in that pattern. In line with their technique the Nazis have already invaded the United States and other countries of this hemisphere by setting up networks of Nazi and pro-Nazi bodies to act as the shock troops of the attack on our institutions and our interests in this hemisphere. You need only consult the evidence already adduced by the Committee of the House on Un-American Activities, headed by Congressman Martin Dies, by other Government agencies, and by various voluntary bodies. What is known is necessarily only a part of what actually exists.
The Nazi masters have used this technique successfully to conquer and dominate the German people. They used it successfully to conquer and dominate Austria. They used it to conquer the democracies on the Continent such as Belgium, Norway, France, and Holland.
It is part of their technique to lull their marked victims into a sense of false security while they undermine their strength from within and prepare for the final act of destruction from without.
What we are confronted with today is not a war between nations in the general sense. It is really a civil war waged by the totalitarian partners and their tools within each democratic country to destroy the democratic way of life. In this civil war they recognize no neutrality, no pledges, no frontiers, no barriers.
The Nazi masters understand only one thing-power. And only by superior power can their aggression be checked, their designs destroyed, and their menace avoided. It is only by supplying necessary arms to Great Britain, now making a gallant fight, not only for herself but for free men everywhere, that our safety and security can be assured.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for coming here, and we hope you will bear with us. We tried to give everybody a fair opportunity to be heard, but unfortunately, the hearings have dragged on longer than we expected them to, and we must adjourn in time to attend this very important meeting.
Mr. WALDMAN. We hope that you will report the bill favorably and expeditiously.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, that does not require any cross examination.
STATEMENT OF EX-SENATOR ERNEST W. GIBSON, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE TO DEFEND AMERICA BY AIDING THE ALLIES
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gibson, you may present your statement, and give your name and address, and whom you represent, so that your petition or statement may be in the record. Unfortunately, time will not permit us to stay longer.
Mr. Gibson. My name is Ernest W. Gibson, Jr. I am the national chairman of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.
(The statement submitted by Mr. Gibson is as follows:) I am here representing the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, and am here to speak in support of this pending bill, which I call the "Stop Hitler Bill,” and which I believe is so regarded by the vast majority of the American people.
The Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies is exactly wbat its name implies. It believes that the best defense America has is in all out material aid to the Allies. We feel that the only chance for peace that this country has is to provide sufficient material aid to Britian and her Allies, that the British Isles be not conquered. I cannot stress that point too strongly. This committee's sole fundamental belief is that security and peace for us here in the United States depends upon a British victory. We consider ourselves the true peace committee of this country:
We believe that if Britain should fall we would then be the subject of an attack both by force and economic pressure. This attack might come and probably would come first through South America. We believe Hitler meant what he said when he said he was going to conquer this world and use labor for his gold. We know that he has reduced to slavery the workman of the conquered countries, and we are not surprised that labor in this country is for this pending legislation, because if Britain falls the labor of this country will have to compete with the slave labor of practically 80 percent of the world.
German leaders have said that they would make the United States subservient to their wishes through economic pressure. The German Minister of Agriculture recently said that Germany would establish literally a system of slavery in Europea system which, with characteristic German thoroughness, has already been worked out. One has only to see the latest March of Time picture to see slave labor in operation. The German Minister of Agriculture has said that against this slave labor the United States, with its high standards of living, would be unable to compete, and that after Germany had caused an unemployment problem, not of seven million but of thirty to forty million, President Roosevelt would have to beg Hitler for terms.
If Great Britain should fall, we believe it will be imperative for this country to prevent any European dictatorship from securing bases in the Western Hemisphere. To prevent that, this country immediately upon Britain's collapse would have to take urgent steps to defend against seizure all possible bases in the Western Hemisphere. Right here I might point out that previous witnesses who disagree with our belief that a British victory is indispensable to the peace of our country concede that no dictator should be allowed to secure bases in the Western Hemisphere. What a distorted sense of values they have.
Compare these with the fantastic military budgets over a very long future and probably millions of lives which would be the cost of allowing Britain to fall. The last is the prospect if the isolationists have their way.
If Great Britain should fall it will probably not be when Mr. Churchill is Prime Minister but under some leader who would be subservient to the conqueror. In that event our relations with Canada would take on a wholly different aspect. In that event it wonld be doubtful if the British Navy would be available to us. Right here let me point out that if England falls, leaving the British Navy entirely out of the count, the Axis Powers plus Japan have 20 battleships to our 15. Some of the Italian battleships may have been seriously damaged and two of the units included in the 21 are German pocket battleships. On the other hand the 2 Italian ships and at least 1 new German ship are much faster and more powerful even than any of ours yet in commission. In addition there are several powerful French units remaining under the French control which undoubtedly would become available to Germany then. I am no naval tactician, but I don't like this prospect.
Though this country is now proceeding with its two-ocean Navy, the only ships that will be completed in the next 2 years are those which were laid down before this program was initiated. According to the testimony of the Secretary of the Navy, the new battleships scheduled to be completed by the end of 1942 are: Axis Powers, plus Japan, 8; the United States, 3, making a total strength for them at that time of 28 as against our 18.
Our two-ocean navy bill not to be completed until 1946–47, when we would have 32 battleships, and this would be but slightly superior in numbers and composition to the Axis Powers' fleets plus Japan, of 1942. We cannot expect that they would not do anything while we were building. Japan has already indicated it means to try to keep step with our new program. If Germany defeats Britain she would inherit Britain's position as a paramount world sea-power and may be expected to make the most of it. A German-controlled Europe and Japan would have at least five times our capacity to build warships. With this, the greater resources and manpower and slave labor they would control, they would have a good prospect of beating us in a final race. If we add to this picture the possibility of the British Fleet going in with the Axis Powers, you can see why the American people have cause to wonder what is going to happen if Britain falls.