Mr. FADDIS. I should think it assists Japan a great deal at the present time.

Mr. VORYS. In what way?

Mr. FADDIS. Japan is able to get everything she wants from us today. China is not able to get anything from us. The fact is that Japan is able to come here and get it. She is getting what she wants, yet it is keeping our people from trading with the Chinese

Mr. VORYS. They have not tried the Neutrality Act, have they? Mrs. ROGERS. It has never been enforced.

Mr. FADDIS. In that case, I agree with the lady from Massachusetts, perfectly, that a law that is on the statute books which is not being enforced, should either be enforced or repealed.

Mr. EATON. Do you believe it would help Japan?

Mr. FADDIS. Of course it would, and it is helping Japan in this case and she is the aggressor nation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the neutrality law has not been invoked as to the Japanese-Chinese situation, so you cannot say whether it worked well, or not, because it has not been invoked; and that question was discussed at the last session of Congress, in which the matter was gone into on legal grounds, as to the authority of the President to invoke or not invoke it. But whether rightly or wrongly, the effect of it, some claim that it helped, and some that it did not. Of course, each country has the same rights, so long as the law is not in force. In other words, the situation in the Orient is just as though Mr. Faddis' bill was enacted into law: No neutrality. That is the situation we would be in, without any neutrality law.

Mr. FADDIS. I hardly believe it is in the same shape it would be, if we had no neutrality law.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. In other words, if you repeal the neutrality law, is not that just the situation that your bill would put us in with reference to all countries?

Mr. FADDIS. No; if we had no neutrality law, at all, there would be more attempts to carry on commerce with China, and China would be able to obtain more of the commodities that we might be able to ship to her.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. There is no provision of neutrality law that works against China or Japan.

Mr. FADDIS. Nevertheless, it has created a situation that has tended to restrict trade with China.

Mr. BLOOM. In what way?

Mr. FADDIS. The effect of its being on the books, although it has never been invoked, is that no one has known at any time since the Chinese-Japanese trouble started, at what time they might actually declare war and the neutrality act would be invoked, and that has tended to hinder anyone from making arrangements to supply the Chinese.

Mr. BLOOM. Who do you think would declare war? Would Japan declare war on China?

Mr. FADDIS. I do not believe so, not under the present circumstances; no.

Mr. BLOOM. Would China declare war on Japan?
Mr. FADDIS. She has not done so as yet.

Mr. BLOOM. Why does not either one or the other declare war on the other?

Mr. FADDIS. I cannot say. I am not in the counsels of those nations. Mrs. ROGERS. They do not declare war since the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

Mr. BLOOM. Any further questions of Mr. Faddis?

Mr. VORYS. I would like to ask Mr. Faddis, if you do repeal the neutrality law, you would like to have restored the situation where the United States would divide its neutral rights in the future? That is, if we are going to allow our merchantmen and American manufacturers to ship goods into troubled waters, are we going to defend the right of those boats and those manufacturers to trade? Mr. FADDIS. No; I do not know that I would advise going that far. However, this Nation was built up on the theory of the freedom of the seas. Back in the early days, we never saw fit to restrict commerce and deny them the freedom of the seas because a war was going on, except in case of the Embargo Act, which resulted very disastrously to the Nation. American shipping was allowed the freedom of the seas, and they traded with the world. I believe we should endeavor to retain the freedom of the trade lanes and markets.

Mr. VORYS. You would agree that, as a law-abiding Nation and as a peaceful Nation, there is no reason why we should get off the highways of the world while a couple of nations wanted to battle for the highways?

Mr. FADDIS. There is no reason in the world that I san see; and furthermore, I can see this difficulty in the future, in regard to our trade, in wartime: If we relinquish the right to trade with belligerents in wartime, then there will come a time when these dictatorial nations will demand that we also cease to deal with neutrals in wartime. In other words, I believe with Benjamin Franklin that, if you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you.

Mr. EATON. May I ask the gentleman a question?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes, Dr. Eaton.

Mr. EATON. If Congress repealed the alleged Neutrality Act now existing, would you be willing to substitute for it a statement of principles expressing the position of the American Nation in these troubled times; that is to say, would you remove the straightjacket of statute law, which proposes to govern conditions that no man can foresee, and simply place back of the Executive a list or statement of fundamental principles to which we will adhere, for instance, the freedom of the seas? Would you be willing to substitute that for the vacuum which you propose to create?

Mr. FADDIS. I would have to know what principles would be included in that statement before I could answer that question, Mr. Eaton, but I believe that, with the Neutrality Act, the Chief Executive of this Nation is entirely too much hampered in time of war. It seems to me that it puts him very much in the position of a commander of the Navy would be put in, if he were sent out to accomplish a certain mission and were given absolute directions as to what kind of campaign he could conduct. It puts him very much in the position the captain of a ship would be put in if he were ordered to fasten the rudder of that ship and steer in a certain direct course, regardless of what obstacles he might encounter. I believe that the

President of the United States, at this time of the history of the world, should not be hampered by any hard and fast rule forced on him by what has been more or less a national hysteria.

I believe that very few of the men sitting on the floor of either the House or Senate, that voted for this Neutrality Act, in the first place, really believed that it would accomplish anything. I believe most of those who voted for it really believed it was a dangerous experiment, but back of it was a national hysteria that seemed to almost demand something of this kind. I believe that with our experience since that time, and our knowledge of what is going on in the world, regarding the tendency of these dictators to rape and murder and arson and territory-snatching-that we can see where it is leading us into a very dangerous position. To my mind, at least, it is putting us in a position where we are going to be unable to defend ourselves; because we are going to be unable to take advantage of any circumstance that might offer anything in the way of guaranteeing our national security.

To me, there is a vast difference between national defense and national security. In a military sense there is a great deal of difference between the word "defend" and "secure." The word "defend" means to prevent the enemy from seizing. The word "secure" means to go outside of the boundary of that which you are going to defend and not only prevent the enemy from seizing it, but prevent the enemy from doing any damage to it.

I can easily conceive of a situation in this world where an enemy might be able to do us a great deal of damage, and not be within striking distance of our shores. It has been said that international trade is the life blood of civilization. You can trace the rise of mankind from the stage of savagery by his knowledge of trading. When he learned to exchange his surplus products for the surplus products of others his standard of living advanced. Civilized views and higher standards of morality followed. I am convinced that if we adopt a policy of isolation in this country; if we allow ourselves to be completely encircled and shut away from trade by these dictatorial nations we will go back, our standards will go back, and our prosperity is bound to decrease. We will go back to the days when every family wove their own cloth, made its own clothes, tanned its own leather and made its own shoes, made its own furniture, raised its own foodstuff, and so on.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Faddis, Mr. Shanley would like to ask you a question.

Mr. SHANLEY. I understand, if you repeal this present act, it puts you in the status of the old days, in which we had the first neutrality act. That allowed us certain privileges under international law. Now, are you going further and adopt the so-called Thomas amendment and stating that as a policy—and I think this probably answers Doctor Eaton's question that the President has the right to judge the merits of any quarrel in the world and apply force to inflict punishment on the aggressor? Is your bill positive, in other words? After you have eliminated neutrality, you want legislation to permit the President to attack the aggressor?

Mr. FADDIS. No, sir. I have not advocated anything of that kind. I do not believe in the policy of allowing anyone to name the ag

gressor. It seems to me that might put us in as bad a state of affairs as the present law. If for some reason or other we want to take sides, or for some reason or another we find it is necessary to assist somebody, we can do it without actually naming the aggressor. It seems to me this naming of the aggressor is also vary dangerous. I see no necessity for it.

Mr. SHANLEY. As I understand it now, your fight for freedom of the seas is simply to limit the extent of contraband, as we did in the pre-neutrality days. In other words, you think we have got a right to ship as much as we want and where we want, providing it is not contraband, and the President's duty is to insist on the freedom of the seas, and insist also, as we did in dealing with the British, that we had the right to ship as neutrals?

Mr. FADDIS. Yes; and I would deny the right of anyone to name the contraband, because today it would be impossible for us to export anything that could not be claimed to be contraband. After all, there is rubber, tin, wheat, cotton, wool, copper, and a great many other commodities that are just as important, or even more important, to some of these warring nations and are lethal weapons. A great many of these nations can produce all the lethal weapons they need themselves, but it is to the outside world that they must look for foodstuffs and other commodities. I do not know that I would allow any nation to say what is contraband and what is not contraband, because today there is hardly anything that is not contraband in wartime. Mr. BLOOM. Have they not done that in all previous wars? ? Mr. FADDIS. Yes; throughout the past, during wartime, various nations have attempted to say what is and what is not contraband. Mr. BLOOM. Yes; I am talking about contraband.

Mr. FADDIS. Do you mean who the other nations could deal with, and what was contraband and what was not?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes. Is not that governed by international law? Mr. FADDIS. I am not an international lawyer, and I do not know. Mr. EATON. That is the only law, Mr. Chairman, when neutrality is affected.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand, Mr. Faddis, your resolution is to repeal the existing neutrality law, and you do not offer any substitute in lieu thereof? You leave our rights and the subject of neutrality as it existed prior to the enactment of the first neutrality law, of which the present act is an amendment?

Mr. FADDIS. Yes; I rather see this Nation revert to the status that it occupied for 150 years prior to the present Neutrality Act.

Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, let it retain such rights as a neutral nation would have under international law, as decreed by international law?

Mr. FADDIS. Yes; that is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. And the President, of course, is, under the law, without statute or fundamental law-he has the right to preserve our rights with reference to international dealings with other countries? Mr. FADDIS. Yes, sir; I would leave it in the hands of the President and the Secretary of State as it has been for 150 years prior to this time.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Corbett, do you wish to ask a question?

there, because you certainly would not want the implication of this act, which to prevent us to embargo loans to South American republics, that is, at war? You would have to have an act for that; and you certainly would not want to eliminate that.

Mr. FADDIS. There would undoubtedly have to be other legislation enacted to pick up some particular parts.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. I am trying to get what parts are wrong.

Mr. FADDIS. That is something I am not prepared to say. I am not a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I have not given this matter the study that you gentlemen have. I am only looking at it from the broad viewpoint, in the manner in which I have made my statement, where there is danger to the security of the Nation, that it hampers the President in his activities and dealings with foreign nations at this time. That is my chief objection to it. Mr. RICHARDS. I want to get your philosophy as closely as I can. You stated just now that it was inevitable, from the beginning of the last World War, that we were to get into it. It was inevitable, under old international law, that we were to become involved in the World War, yet you contend that we should repeal this act, which would carry us back to nothing but international law as a means to preserve our neutrality.

Mr. FADDIS. Yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. Do you feel it is inevitable, if Europe goes into a war, that we become involved?

Mr. FADDIS. That is something I could not tell you now.

Mr. RICHARDS. If you feel it was inevitable that we would get into that war under international law, without any law pertaining to neutrality, then it would be natural that you would feel now that, if we went back to that same system, we would become involved in any war that would disturb the balance of power now?

Mr. FADDIS. NO; because I do not attribute the cause of our getting into the other war to the fact that the old international law was in existence.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. Wherein is the situation today different, Mr. Faddis, than the situation in the prior wars?

Mr. FADDIS. The European nations are not actually at war today and, if they do go to war, no one knows what trend the war will take. It might be over in 1 month and might not be over for 3 years.

Mr. VORYS. You said, I believe, Mr. Faddis, that the reason you felt our entry into the last war was inevitable, was because it threatened the balance of power in Europe. Do you feel that the threat to the balance of power now would involve our getting into it, eventually?

Mr. FADDIS. I am not venturing any opinion on a war that is to come. I am not talking about any war that is in the future. We do not know that there is going to be a war.

Mr. BLOOM. Any further questions? We thank you very much, Mr. Faddis, for your information. The committee is very grateful

to you.

Now Mr. Fish would like to be heard at this time, as he has a very important committee meeting. So we will now hear from Mr. Fish.

142658-39--2