United States to inaugurate any specific embargo bill aimed at any particular country.

Mr. BLOOM. What do you think?

Mr. COFFEE. I think it is. I would not have introduced this bill if I had not thought it was. I agree with Senator Pittman that if we are going to have a "cash and carry" provision, as provided in this bill, with no discrimination between belligerents, we would have to allow the sale of munitions of war to any belligerent country on a cash and carry basis. The objection immediately raised, however, is that while it would be thought we wanted to show friendliness for Great Britain and France because they control the seas of the Atlantic, it would immediately be regarded as an act of friendship to Japan and not China, because the latter country does not control the Pacific as does Japan. The effect of the bill would be to aid and abet Japanese imports. Senator Pittman answered that argument by saying he thought it would be very proper to couple up his bill with a specific measure providing for the embargo on shipments of munitions and materials of war to Japan. Recently, a poll was taken of leading newspapers of the United States on the question of what they thought about the embargo on the shipment of munitions and materials of war to Japan. It was found that 690 out of 700 newspapers examined editorially, urged a boycott of Japan. That is the most amazing proportion of newspapers in American history in agreement on a particular question.

With respect to neutrality. These newspapers are somewhat divided on the question of taking a stand in support of the Thomas resolution, as introduced by Senator Thomas in the Senate, which is familiar to you gentlemen on the committee, distinguishing between aggressor and victim subject to the consent of the majority of Congress. But they all, that is, the 690 out of 700, agreed there was a different situation in the Orient. No one could justify the action of Japan in violating all treaties and invading a friendly country. No kind of excuse could be offered, such as Germany offered in connection with her European activities, of repatriating citizens under another flag.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Coffee, what is the boycott that was advocated by the newspapers? Was it the same as your resolution?

Mr. COFFEE. No; I do not say that it would go quite so far.

Mr. BLOOM. What was the boycott you referred to on the vote taken by the different newspapers?

Mr. COFFEE. The advocacy in the newspapers was to the effect that we should boycott the purchase of Japanese goods and boycott the shipment of materials of war and munitions of war to Japan. Most of them did mention something about a law. I do not want to mislead the committee by saying they all advocated specifically any kind of a particular piece of legislation but they did advocate-aİl of them-voluntary action to that extent.

Mr. BLOOM. Would your resolution really name Japan as the aggressor nation?

Mr. COFFEE. Well, there is nothing in the resolution.

Mr. BLOOM. I know, but would it not imply that?

Mr. COFFEE. Well, it probably would. It probably would imply that it was an aggressor nation. Yes.

Mr. BLOOM. Then what would follow?

Mr. COFFEE. What would follow?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes. If we declared Japan an aggressor nation? Mr. COFFEE. We have declared it-in repeated declarations on the part of the Secretary of State and on the part of our President, that they are the aggressor already. In his official statements, the men in charge of our foreign affairs, I do not refer to this committee, or the Senate committee, but the President and the Secretary of State and his assistants, in one form or another, have made that declaration several times that Japan is the aggressor-that they are invading China, and so forth.

Mr. BLOOM. Well, they did not use the word “aggressor."

Mr. COFFEE. Well, they may not have used that particular word. Mr. ALLEN. Are you interested in punishing Japan for her acts of aggression or for the fact that she broke her treaty?

Mr. COFFEE. I am emphasizing the treaty violations on the part of Japan and I am particularly distressed that we should become a partner to the building up of a potential enemy and then build an enormous Navy, because it is repeatedly told to us that Japan is our one naval menace in the world today. The excuse given by the Naval Affairs Committee and the naval appropriations subcommittee of the Navy is that Japan constitutes a naval menace and that therefore we must spend an enormous sum of money to prepare our selves against Japan. We are sending over these goods all the time to build her up. Without our constant aid Japan would not be in the position which she occupies today.

Mr. ALLEN. Do you feel that her campaign in China would bog down if we withdrew our indirect support?

Mr. COFFEE. Absolutely. Every expert on the subject has agreed as to that. Without two things alone-without petroleum, that is, gasoline-particularly high-test gasoline and without scrap metal, her whole fight in China would end inside of 4 months.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Coffee, I would like to ask you this. You mentioned a while ago the possibility of getting crude oil from the South?

Mr. COFFEE. Yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is in the Dutch East Indies. Now, what about iron ore and scrap iron? Can they get it anywhere else?

Mr. COFFEE. Nowhere else.

Mr. RICHARDS. Nowhere else?

Mr. COFFEE. Well, maybe in small quantities but nothing like the proportion that they get in this country. And they cannot get hightest gasoline anywhere else.

Mr. RICHARDS. And the iron angle of it? How about iron; can they get iron and scrap iron from other countries?

Mr. COFFEE. They can get scrap metal but nothing like they get from the United States, in that quantity. I have the official figures here of the comparison with other countries, somewhere here in my file, the proportion they get from America and the proportion they get from other countries.

Pig iron: From the United States they get 41 percent, from Manchuria, 22 percent; from British India, 24 percent; Belgium, 1 per

cent.

Other iron: United States, 60 percent; Germany, 5 percent; Belgium, 5 percent, etc., and it dwindles down to 1 percent.

Copper: From the United States they buy 93 percent; from Canada they buy 32 percent. Incidentally they get the greatest amount of their lead from

Canada.

Mr. RICHARDS. Would you follow that follow that up with-what do with-what do you think about the food angle of it, say, cotton, wheat, corn, and things like that? They buy a lot of that.

Mr. COFFEE. They buy a lot of cotton. That is right. Which is used, of course, both domestically and in guncotton and in connection with munitions. They buy a lot of cotton from the United States. It is not listed here among these materials of war.

Mr. KEE. Mr. Coffee, of course, you understand that we are trying here to write a Neutrality Act. Wouldn't you say that this proposed measure of yours would be considered an unneutral act, rather than a Neutrality Act?

Mr. COFFEE. Well, it all depends on what one's definition of neutrality is. If we imposed the Neutrality Act today on China in the Sino-Japanese situation we would then find that we are a partner of Japan because under the Neutrality Act as it exists, with the cash and carry provisions, if they ship in their own bottoms, Japan could come over here and buy materials and China could not buy anything. Therefore, I say neutrality, in its practical workings, has not, and cannot prove to be a neutral undertaking

Mr. KEE. Wouldn't this act make us a partner of China?

Mr. COFFEE. No. It would deny to the United States, it would refuse the honor to ourselves of aiding and abetting the Japanese in providing means whereby they can violate treaties to which we are a signatory, and at the same time build themselves up as a potential enemy of the United States.

Mr. KEE. You just stated a moment ago that your bill, in effect, did name an aggressor nation.

Mr. COFFEE. Well, it does not. You may construe it that way, but it does not say anything about it. It merely sets forth that we should embargo the shipments. It does not have any whereases or any explanation-it just provides for an embargo on the shipment of these goods to Japan. I stress the treaty violations of Japan as the basis for that.

Mr. KEE. Wouldn't you consider that passing an act naming a single nation in the world as an aggressor nation would not only be considered an unneutral act but more or less an act of hostility on our part?

Mr. COFFEE. Well, there has been a lot of argument on the question. In this Congress your two committees are hearing different witnesses as to whether the Neutrality Act of 1937 should be continued; whether we should pass the Thomas amendment which provides for discrimination between aggressor and victim, subject to the consent of Congress; or whether we should support the Pittman bill providing for the cash-and-carry proposition. And the peace societies, those who have made a study of this question throughout the United States, are divided as to what is the best procedure to pursue. Miss Rankin, who represents the National Council for the Prevention of War, and Stephen Raushenbush, Mr. Libby, and such men as Charles Beard all insist we should rigidly support a neutrality bill such as was passed, or even strengthen it. Mr. Fish, I was interested in noting, now says

we should allow the shipment of these goods and materials of warnot munitions or materials of war. He has a bill pending in Congress preventing the shipment of materials of war in time of peace. So he was arguing against his own bill here before this committee. But I don't want to get away from the subject. I merely want to say this: There are a great many peace societies who say that a bill distinguishing between aggressor and victim should be passed. We do not need to call it a neutrality bill. It can be construed as such, but it might not be a neutrality act. But to prevent the shipment of munitions and materials of war, we should make some attempt to distinguish between those countries that are treaty violators-that is what the Thomas amendment says-and those who are not. And personally, I am in favor of making that same distinction.

Mr. VORYS. None of the other bills we have are neutral, are they, in that they are impartial?

Mr. COFFEE. They cannot be made impartial. You have got to look at this thing realistically. We can listen here to a man talk on international law and what the international law might provide. But as he has pointed out, the London Naval Conference of 1909 has recapitulated those goods which the countries up to that time had generally agreed should be contraband goods. And yet England in 1914 repudiated and violated her own London Naval Conference. Mr. VORYS. What we do by a law is entirely one-sided?

Mr. COFFEE. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. If we do not do anything we may have a one-sided view?

Mr. COFFEE. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. Therefore, the only thing we have before us is what we can do on one side that will help, and the result of which will be to help the people we think ought to be helped.

Mr. COFFEE. That is the way I feel, exactly.

Mr. VORYS. Now, another thing. Your bill just goes ahead and does for Japan the thing that the Thomas amendment, and so forth, urges; isn't that true?

Mr. COFFEE. That is right.

Mr. VORYS. It just gets right to the place, without any fuss and frills, that the Thomas amendment gets around but it does not create any precedent when a situation arises exactly such as Japan is now? Mr. COFFEE. That is the way I feel. We have had embargo bills before. There is nothing unprecedented about an embargo.

Mr. BLOOM. Would not the Pittman bill apply this same embargo on everything?

Mr. COFFEE. He has the cash and carry provision.

Mr. BLOOM. In his amended bill?

Mr. COFFEE. That is what I understand. I understand if they are in a position-I may be wrong-if they are in a position to pay cash and carry in their own ships.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Coffee, do you wish to return at 2 o'clock?

Mr. COFFEE. No; I do not think it is necessary, unless the gentlemen have some questions.

Mr. BLOOM. Thank you very much. Any statement which you wish to insert in the record you have permission to do so. We will recess until 2 o'clock.

Mr. COFFEE. That is very kind of you.

Mr. VORYS. I want to ask if Mr. Coffee could not select from his data-not a whole lot of mere propaganda stuff-but some figures and statistics that might be helpful to the committee.

Mr. COFFEE. I will be very glad to do that.

Mr. BLOOM. I have already given permission to Mr. Coffee to insert any matter which he might wish or think necessary to give the committee further information.

We will recess until 2 o'clock.

Congressman Coffee submitted the addition statement which follows:

In the following table are shown Japan's chief imports necessary for war purposes, and the percentage of their total which came from the United States and other chief countries:

The committee reassembled at 2 o'clock p. m., pursuant to recess. Mr. BLOOM. The committee will come to order, please. Miss Rankin, will you kindly give your full name and whom you represent?

STATEMENT OF MISS JEANNETTE RANKIN, WASHINGTON, D. C., FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Miss RANKIN. My name is Jeanette Rankin, former Member of Congress. I am representing myself.

Mr. Bloom and members of the committee, I may have nothing to add to what I have said to each of you personally, but I am one witness that has her mind made up on several points. One is that war cannot be made fair and just. That there is no such thing as an absolutely