Mrs. ROGERS. Do you see any objections to Americans traveling on belligerent ships? Mr. FADDIS. Not if they travel at their own risk. I see no reason why they should not, but they should travel at their own risk. Mrs. ROGERS. That does not seem to inflame the people of the country, if they are injured. Mr. FADDIS. I do not believe it does, very much; no. They take the risk now. Mr. SCHIFFLER. How would you square that opinion with the Lusitania? Mr. FADDIS. Well, the Lusitania was only the culmination of a great many details. Of course, there was an unusually large number of people destroyed at one time, but I do not believe the sinking of the Lusitania caused our entrance into the World War. Mr. SCHIFFLER. Not solely, but it was the culmination. Mr. FADDIS. Well, it was one of a great many other incidents which led up to it. But when you come to talk about our entrance into the World War, it seems to me it was absolutely inevitable from the very start, because of the fact that the balance of power in the world was about to be disturbed. Mr. SCHIFFLER. Up to the 1st of March 1917, only three Americans had lost their lives on belligerent ships. I understand you would allow Americans to travel not only on belligerent ships but also on our own ships? You would allow the shipment of lethal weapons, and you would allow us to make all sorts of loans? Mr. FADDIS. No; I would bar loans. Mr. SCHIFFLER. How are you going to bar them? Mr. FADDIS. I would bar them. When you eliminate the act, there is no reason why legislation cannot be passed in order to cover the other. Mr. SCHIFFLER. I asked you if you would have positive legislation, and my understanding was that you said no; that you have enough now. You would eliminate all of this act? Mr. FADDIS. Yes; I would eliminate all of this act. Mr. SCHIFFLER. Then you would have to have no act? Mr. SCHIFFLER. You would have to have some act embargoing loans? Of course it would embargo armed merchant ships of belligerents and submarines and the use of our ports as bases; is not that so? You would have to build a new act would you not? Mr. FADDIS. I do not know that we would have to build any new act. I could not say whether you would have to build a new act to bar loans or not, but in the past that has not been necessary. Mr. SCHIFFLER. This act sets those things out. In section 1, we barred the sale of arms and munitions of war. that? Mr. FADDIS. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHIFFLER. Section 2, "Cash and carry." You would eliminate That goes out May 1. Section 3 is on loans and securities; you would prevent loans to belligerents, would you not? Mr. FADDIS. Yes. Mr. SCHIFFLER. Section 4 deals with South American republics. So you will probably allow-you would have to have something in 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 STATEMENT OF HON. HAMILTON FISH, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. FISH. I will explain this bill as I go along, Mr. Chairman. At the outset of my remarks, I want to make it very clear, in spite of the fact that I happen to be partisan in my views and have been for a number of years, that on this particular bill I have not been partisan, because I held the same views under the last Republican administration and opposed the attempt of former Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, who appeared before this committee, when he sought to determine the aggressor nation for the administration at that time. I fell in behind all of these efforts to amend the neutrality law, but not in any attempt by the administration to get the power to determine the aggressor nation. I submit to this committee that, if that power is given to a Democratic or Republican administration-it makes no difference which-it takes away from the Congress of the United States its constitutional powers to declare war. Now, to determine the aggressor nations and to quarantine and punish those nations is actually turning over the constitutional power of the Congress to declare war. I submit it is synonymous, or practically identical. I think most of the efforts to do away with the neutrality legislation are prompted by the desire of the administration, and some members of the former administration, such as Mr. Stimson, to give that power to the President and the Secretary of State. Furthermore, I am opposed to any changes of the neutrality law to give this administration, or any administration, the power to enter into collective-security arrangements, economic sanctions, military and naval alliances, or to enter into any form of foreign entanglements or war commitments. Those, fundamentally, are my two objections to the proposal made by some people-not all of them-who desire to change the neutrality legislation. Now, what is this neutrality legislation? I think, Mr. Chairman, the record will bear me out that I was the first member 11 years ago to propose neutrality legislation along these general lines in this committee, back in 1928, when former Senator Burton and myself proposed the original bills. What is the object of all of the neutrality legislation? To keep us out of war. We must make certain sacrifices to keep out of war; yet we all know that no legislation will keep us out of war. We all know, absolutely and definitely that the Congress, this Congress or any other Congress, can never reach any guarantee by legislation that will keep us out of war. We can however write legislation that will have the tendency of keeping us out of war, and I believe that is what we are all gathered around this table trying to do. I am going to try to limit my remarks to 10 minutes, because I know you want to give everybody a chance to be heard today, including other Members of Congress, and you can hear me at any time in executive session. The original neutrality bill was a flat embargo on the shipment of arms, ammunition, and implements of war, to all belligerent nations. That came about because we knew that, in the World War, we were shipping arms, ammunition, and implements of war to foreign na tions, and naturally those nations who could not and did not receive arms and ammunition and implements of war did their best to sink our ships; and if you reverse the situation, we would have done likewise. There was nothing immoral in Germany trying to stop these ships filled with ammunition, arms, and implements of war from going to their enemies, and to my mind it was consistent. Our action, at that time, was consistent with international law. International law permitted the shipment of arms, ammunition, and implements of war, and it still does. So we know from experience, and are able to base our views upon. our experiences in the World War. The Congress determined by practically a unanimous vote, that it would prohibit the shipments of arms, ammunition, and implements of war in the future which we have done, and they prepared a definite law which was supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Then some people thought that we ought to go further with the neutrality law, and in the last Congress there were introduced in the House and Senate bills that went much further, with the cash-andcarry feature. I admit that I supported the cash-and-carry feature reluctantly. I think now, and thought then, that it should be modified, and my bill carries no such provision. While I know very well, Mr. Chairman, that any bill having my name will never pass, I am only advocating a principle, and I do not care who endorses it, or who else introduces it, as long as the principles are included. My bill, very simply, provides for a prohibition against shipment of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to all belligerent nations. I cannot understand why we should continue to be the slaughterhouse of the world for profit or for money, or why we should endanger our peace and security by being involved in a war by selling arms, ammunition, and implements of war to belligerents. I go much further than any single member of this committee on this proposition; I would even prohibit the shipment of arms, ammunition, and implements of war in time of peace, as well as in war, but that is not included in this bill. The bill I propose carries into effect what we have all agreed on for years, to prohibit the shipment of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to all belligerent nations, and continues the prohibition against the loaning of money and the extension of credits to belligerent nations. It does not continue the present cash-and-carry plan, which expires May 1. We are not likely to approve any legislation before May 1, and we will probably have to write new legislation in place of the cash-and-carry plan. Some of us on the committee are perfectly satisfied to have just this ban on arms, ammunition, and implements of war, on loans, and on the right of our citizens to travel on belligerent ships, which is also in my bill. Mr. JOHNSON. You want no cash-and-carry plan? Mr. FISH. No. As for the cash-and-carry plan, I have not changed my views from the last time when I spoke against it. I asked for the modification of it at that time, but of course it was voted down, because it was not in the committee bill. The way the cash-and-carry plan now is framed, there is an intolerable hardship and discrimination on American ships. It says American ships are prohibited from carrying of what we call contraband, or materials, munitions of war, which are different from arms, ammunition, and implements of war. They cannot carry, for instance, foodstuffs, cotton, or copper, or anything else, but an enemy ship, or a belligerent ship, or a neutral ship may come here and take all they want, while ours are tied up in a harbor, which to me is utterably un-American policy, an unsound proposal, and intolerable hardship and discrimination on our merchant marine. I I, therefore, advocate in the new cash-and-carry plan, that American ships be permitted to carry all of these so-called contrabands, everything that is considered as contraband today; if foodstuffs are contraband, everything else is contraband. Let us call it contraband, because others call it contraband. I say that we can carry anything we want, outside of arms, ammunition, and implements of war. say let the manufacturer ship the goods by the cash-and-carry plan, or some other similar plan, to the foreign owner, let them carry these goods to belligerent nations, or any other nation, but when they carry such contraband to belligerent nations, they do so at their own risk. They insure the ship, and they have nothing to lose, but they carry it at their own risk into what we call the war zone or to the belligerent nation. During the World War I think Norway lost a thousand ships, but she did not go to war. Recently, in the Spanish Civil War, Great Britain lost about a hundred ships, but she did not go to war. Therefore, we say to our citizens, "You can do this at your own risk," and we can say to these shipowners, "You can ship these goods and you can insure your ship, but if you insist on going into the war zone or selling to belligerent nations, you are not going to involve us in war.' That would be my modification. I would not go into the question of contraband, because nobody can describe what contraband is. I would simply let the American ships do exactly what every other nation's ships are doing, but state in advance, "If you carry goods to enemy shores, and your ship is sunk that is your own risk and we are not going to war over it." That would be a sacrifice, of course, under the principles of international law which gives us the freedom of the seas, but we do not want to be involved in a war reaffirming or reasserting our rights under international law. We are carrying out the same precedent established by Great Britain, and by Norway and Holland and Sweden and all of the other nations that were able to stay out of the last war. What everybody is thinking about in America is, "How can we keep out of war?"-that is the question we have got to try to solve here, and I am making these suggestions in my bill for anybody to share who wants them. I will go along with any group on any bill that is sound and will have a tendency to keep us out of war; but I will fight to the very last last any attempt to delegate away from the Congress of the United States any of its constitutional powers, to give the President the power to determine aggressor nations, to enter into any collective security arrangements, which will endanger the peace of this country. I do not agree with what some of the witnesses are going to say here. I think that the Congress of the United States makes its own policies, and I think it is the duty of this committee, as much as |