that of the Senate, not only to write a neutrality bill, but to include a declaration of policy, and it is the duty of the President to carry out foreign policies so enunciated. Under the Constitution, the President has not any of these powers on international policies, except to negotiate treaties and to appoint ambassadors. We are the ones who are supposed to write the policies, not the President of the United States. He is merely the organ to carry out the enactments of Congress. He is the instrument, the administrator of our laws, because we in Congress have no dealings with foreign nations. So I submit that this committee should write this bill, the House of Representatives should legislate and enact laws relating to our foreign policy in the same manner as the Senate.

Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Your statement that the Congress initiates the negotiations with foreign nations is entirely in conflict with the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Curtis-Wright cases.

Mr. FISH. No; not all.

Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman and I must have read different

cases.

Mr. FISH. No; we might have gotten different interpretations. I do not think that is very important, but it does say that the President is the organ of dealing with foreign nations.

The President has no other power beyond that to negotiate treaties and appoint ambassadors and carry out the policies we make; and I do not think the gentleman, himself, wants it to be understood that the Congress has not the right to make policies of that sort.

Mr. JOHNSON. Through history as it is traced, that same opinion goes right back to the very beginning and shows that the initial steps have to be taken by the President with reference to these various dealings with foreign countries. And he has the power so to do without any act of Congress. This is his inherent right under our system of government.

Mr. FISH. Not at all. He has the right of negotiation, and you and I on this committee have no right to deal with a foreign country. Mr. KEE. With the exception of the modification of the cash-andcarry clause, your bill is just about the same as the original neutrality bill, the present neutrality bill, is it not?

Mr. FISH. Yes; I keep practically everything in the present neutrality law except the cash-and-carry plan with that intolerable discrimination against our shipping interests.

Mr. KEE. I say with the exception of your modification of the cashand-carry plan?

Mr. Fisн. Yes. I do not say I have any pride of authorship in this. I might support anything that will have the same tendency to keep us out of war.

Mr. BLOOM. What section of the Constitution, Mr. Fish, do you refer to, with reference to the foreign policy of the President?

Mr. FISH. I refer entirely to the section that gives the power to appoint ambassadors and negotiate treaties, and submit that he has no other power except in dealing directly with a foreign country, because he is the organ of Congress in doing that.

Mr. EATON. May I ask a question?

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?

Mr. CORBETT. Yes, sir; I want to make an observation regarding contraband that is simply this: A nation at war has a right to name what is contraband.

Mr. BLOOM. Do they not have that right?

Mr. CORBETT. Yes; they have that right, but this does not mean that neutral powers may not protest.

Mr. BLOOм. Any further questions?

Mr. FADDIS. That is what a blockade means.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Faddis, I want to ask you if the effect of this would be to increase the initiative of the Executive as compared with the present power to name the aggressor, and so on?

Mr. FADDIS. I do not believe it would, if you would leave him entirely free of any instruction along this line; his initiative would not be increased.

Mr. VORYS. I understood you did not want the President to have the power to name the aggressor.

Mr. FADDIS. I said I did not favor any enactment of law definitely giving him the power to name the aggressor. I do not favor a policy of that kind.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. Is not the essence of the act its flexibility?

Mr. FADDIS. Yes; I want to give the President as much discretion as he was intended to have under the terms of the Constitution. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. He very often acts in a dual capacity, as Chief Executive and as the Commander in Chief. In that dual capacity, it is his duty to shape the policies of this Nation, so that the Nation will be in as advantageous a position as possible in keeping hostilities from breaking out; and, of course, in preventing us from becoming involved. I do not believe he can properly function in that dual capacity if he is bound down by such legislation as this neutrality

act.

Mrs. ROGERS. Did not the Supreme Court, in effect, decide that the President has the power over Congress, or anything else, in declaring the aggressor or deciding what shall be done, in the UraguayParaguay case?

Mr. FADDIS. I am not familiar with that decision; but, if that is true, I see no reason for giving him added power or added encouragement to do so by any legislation which we may enact. I certainly would be opposed to the enactment of any legislation that would give to the President the power to name the aggressor.

Mrs. ROGERS. Anyway, the legislation is a farce, is it not?
Mr. FADDIS. Do you mean this legislation?

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes; this neutrality legislation.

Mr. FADDIS. Well, the neutrality act to me is a farce, yes,

Mr. EATON. If we left the President free, he would have to deal with the aggressor, whether he names it or not. It is not necessary to declare war, but he would have to deal with the aggressor, would he not?

Mr. FADDIS. That is true. If a man attacks you, you do not have to declare he is the aggressor before you punch him in the jaw. Mr. EATON. No; I would not do that.

Mr. BLOOM. Any further questions?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes, Doctor Eaton.

Mr. EATON. You say the President is the organ of Congress in dealing with a foreign nation?

Mr. FISH. I mean of the Government.

Mr. EATON. Is he not the organ of the Nation?

Mr. FISH. Yes; and of the Government, and of the Congress, too. Mr. EATON. He is the instrument

Mr. FISH. He is the spokesman.

Mr. EATON. He is the man of the United States who deals with them?

Mr. FISH. Yes, sir.

Mr. EATON. And Congress' duty is to furnish him with the principles upon which he is to act, or to wrap him up in statutory law?

Mr. FISH. No; I say the Congress has the definite power to write these principles. If it does not write them, he has the power to deal with them as the sovereign representative of this Nation.

Mr. VORYS. Is it not the distinction, Mr. Fish, that the Congress, through its appropriation power, through the Constitution, has the power to declare war and keep us out of war, and to define the offenses against the laws of the Nation and the punishments of them?

Mr. FISH. You can put your finger right on it when you say "offenses against the laws of nations." That is the whole thing. That is what Congress has to do, and for some reason, we seem to think we have no powers at all while actually the Constitution gives us these powers and expects us to carry them out.

Mr. VORYS. What we do, what the Congress does under the Constitution, determines what our national policy shall be, and the President then executes them, with tremendously broad powers. But all he does is execute those powers, which the Congress has determined? Mr. FISH. Yes, with the approval of Congress and I would add, that is what he should do.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Do you think it is possible for Congress to define aggressor nations?

Mr. FISH. All I can say is, that in past history, up to the present time, aggressor nations have never been defined, and the historians are still disputing as to who started the World War. You will admit that Japan was the aggressor against China, and that Italy was the aggressor against Albania and Abyssinia. I think we could probably agree on those things. But if anybody is given, be he Republican or Democrat, that power to determine aggressor nations, to punish aggressor nations, that means giving him the power to declare war. I thank you very much.

Mr. SHANLEY. I do not think anybody doubts your sincerity in it, but this Curtis-Wright case, as Mr. Johnson suggests, is a very important one.

Mr. FISH. Do you not think we ought to take that up in executive session?

Mr. SHANLEY. I will yield to the gentleman on that.

Mr. BLOOM. Thank you very much, Mr. Fish.

We will now have the pleasure of hearing from Mr. Maas. (Thereupon, the committee proceeded to the consideration of H. R. 79; see p. 625.)

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN J. MAAS, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. MAAS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have introduced H. R. 79, which not only repeals the Neutrality Act in its entirety, but goes considerably further than that and establishes a definite international policy for the United States.

I think that it is essential both for our own people and the people of the world, to know what the American policy is to be. I think it is almost more important that we have a known policy than the details of the policy itself. It is very difficult for our own people to anticipate the future, and certainly very difficult for the people of the world to understand us, without knowning what our course is to be. I do not believe we can prescribe, in detail, a course of action in international affairs, nor to try to prescribe, in minute detail, dealings with foreign nations by our constituted authorities; but we must have at least a definite broad policy as a guide, which is now lacking.

I have only one sole interest. Perhaps I am quite provincial. My sole interest is in protecting the United States and in preserving democracy in this country. That is not such a heartless attitude as it may at first seem. I am not opposed to our assisting other nations. because of lack of sympathy for them, but because we have found, from practical experience, that we cannot solve the problems of other nations for them.

This is not a war between ideologies, whether or not we think it is. The wars that are raging in the world today are economic wars and we ought to be realistic enough to face the facts. Our trouble is, that we are living in an "Alice in Wonderland" existence, and we are not nearly realistic enough in this country. Our life-line is the whole Western Hemisphere. We are going to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, not essentially because of our great humanitarian feelings toward our neighbors, but because it is essential to our very existance that we defend the Western Hemisphere, and keep any European or Asiatic power from gaining any new footholds here.

What I have attempted to accomplish in my resolution is to state a definite policy, which is, that we will not invade any other nation for the purpose of acquiring territory, and that we will not interfere in local foreign quarrels; that we will never intervene in a civil war, nor an international war, so long as they do not conflict with our own interests, and by the same token, we announce to the world as a national policy that we do not intend to permit any overseas nations from coming over into this hemisphere, either politically or economically, and by economically, I mean establishing economic monopolies in any part of this hemisphere.

I think if the peoples of the world know that they have nothing to fear from us, that we are not going to invade them, that we are not going to interfere in their affairs, that then the peoples of the world will not be afraid of us; that they will not be misled into fearing military preparation for our own defenses, nor misunderstand the building of an adequate Navy and adequate air force, and adequate Army for this own hemisphere's defense.