Mr. BRANT. No.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Do you think that our present Neutrality Act1 helps Germany and Italy? Under the policy you suggest, I think, we would have to reach the conclusion of helping the so-called democracies. So far as neutrality as an abstract thing is concerned, what difference does it make whether our Neutrality Act helps the so-called democracies or at the present time helps the aggressor nations?

Mr. BRANT. I do not understand your question.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. You object to our Neutrality Act helping aggressor nations at the present time, but in the next breath you suggest helping the so-called democracies. In either case we are taking sides, are we not?

Mr. BRANT. Yes.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. The only difference I can see is your sympathies are on one side.

Mr. BRANT. It is not a matter of sympathy.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Are you against American ships proceeding to participate in trade with belligerents, and if they do so they do so at their own risk?

Mr. BRANT. Yes, sir: in any war zone.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. In a war zone?

Mr. BRANT. Yes.

Mr. SHANELY. In the event the question of armed merchant marine came up again-because it is unquestioned now that both the Germans and the Italians in the increase of their navies have some of the largest and best submarines in the world. Under this cash-and-carry principle would you or would you not find it necessary to put into effect the Wilson philosophy of 1916 relative to arming the merchant marine?

Mr. BRANT. That would be true under the conditions as they exist today if the cash-and-carry provisions expired, but that is just the condition I want to get away from.

do

Mr. SHANLEY. You want a renewal of the cash-and-carry provision, you not?

Mr. BRANT. Yes.

Mr. SHANLEY. And therefore you want that situation?
Mr. BRANT. Yes.

Mr. SHANLEY. Would the cash-and-carry provision preclude the use of American ships?

Mr. BRANT. Yes; absolutely from carrying cargo into the war zone. Mr. HENNINGS. Do you not think, Mr. Brant, that the primary purpose of the totalitarian states and, more particularly Germany, is to wage an economic war upon us through South America, through the invasion of our South American trade area?

Mr. BRANT. No; I would not say that they have any thought of directing an economic war against the United States.

Mr. HENNINGS. By selling, for instance, in South America?
Mr. BRANT. No.

Mr. HENNINGS. They are selling planes in Brazil, are they not? Mr. BRANT. If that interferes with the economic interests of the United States, that is merely an incident.

Mr. HENNINGS. That is incidentally a part of their plan?

1 See p. 613.

142658-39--39

Mr. BRANT. Yes.

Mr. TINKHAM. Everyone tries to trade wherever there is trade; that is certainly legitimate.

Mr. HENNINGS. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. What effect do you think Hitler's reply to the President had?

Mr. BRANT. You mean that it had in the United States?

Mrs. ROGERS. In the United States and in his own country.

Mr. BRANT. I think it is very difficult to appraise the effect at this time. I would not undertake to. The reply was very plainly intended to rally German public opinion behind Hitler through an expression of hostility to the United States, and my impression regarding that is that it indicates that there is a greater division of sentiment inside Germany than Hitler would like to have known.

Mr. BLOOM. What kind of sentiment?

Mr. BRANT. As to peace or war. I think he was willing to antagonize American public opinion in order to solidify German public opinion.

Mr. BLOOM. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Izac. I would like to ask some questions.

Mr. BLOOм. Mr. Izac.

Mr. IzAC. Do you not think Germany, in going into middle Europe, and gaining what she must have for the present, has her eye eventually on expanding into the South American continent?

Mr. BRANT. Yes; I do think so.

Mr. IzAC. Do you view that as a threat against our Monroe Doctrine?

Mr. BRANT. I cannot help viewing it in that regard.

Mr. Izac. And, do you not think, then, that we should take some steps at this time to nullify that activity in South American countries? Mr. BRANT. That is just the point I have been trying to make here more strongly than anything else.

Mr. IzAC. Where would you stop in that policy; short of war, I presume?

Mr. BRANT. Yes; I would stop short of war. If war broke out under existing circumstances I would encourage the arming of the nations that are resisting Hitler to the extent that it was necessary to prevent the destruction of what I consider to be the American line of defense against this Fascist expansion.

Mr. EATON. I would like to ask the witness this question. This is a mere supposition: If we could have universal disarmament, and throw the world open to free competition in trade you would not consider it a warlike attitude toward us if Germany or anyone else should come over here and try to get the South American trade then, would you?

Mr. BRANT. If you established universal free trade?

Mr. EATON. I do not mean in the technical sense free trade, but an open door for everybody to go into competition with everybody else. Under those circumstances you would not consider that warlike, would you?

Mr. BRANT. I would have no objection to that.

Mr. EATON. That would be the millennium, I think.

Mr. TINKHAM. I would like to ask a question that I have not heard anyone touch upon in any public discussion or otherwise. Sup

pose you had taken steps up to war, how can steps be taken, such as an embargo and other actions be taken without bringing on war? When you have marched down the road where war is, how can you possibly stop?

Mr. BRANT. You have no assurance whatever as to what will follow. Mr. TINKHAM. Then it is very misleading, is it not, to say, "Take all steps up to war?"

Mr. BRANT. I would not use such a term.

Mr. TINKHAM. You came very close to it.

Mr. SHANLEY. Does that not rather imply recklessness of the consequences, because I notice in answering Mr. Izac the witness said. he would use any weapons that were necessary to prevent a destruction of the American line of defense, and that might gradually, step by step so enrage the affected nations that they might consider it as an act of war, and would we not have to take the consequences?

Mr. BRÁNT. I think you would find the consequences of not taking steps to be far more serious.

Mr. SHANLEY. But the practice of not taking steps is the typical American policy. The other policy is venturing into the unknown. Mr. BRANT. You are venturing into the unknown in any instance. Mr. VORYS. There is no question of venturing into the unknown. We are there now.

Mr. BRANT. Yes; we are in it.

Mr. EATON. And getting deeper in the mire every minute.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Corbett.

Mr. CORBETT. Am I correct in believing that the witness recognizes or believes that there are certain definite dangers to the security of the United States from future activities of the so-called aggressor nations?

Mr. BRANT. I think there is if they become triumphant.

Mr. CORBETT. That, however, I believe runs counter to the opinion of all our military and naval authorities.

Mr. BRANT. If you are talking about a physical invasion of the United States I have no such fear.

Mr. CORBETT. I share that lack of fear.

Now, on the question of economic penetration, if this part of Germany's plans succeed in eastern and southeastern Europe, how can you imagine a country of their present resources building up economically not only those regions they have already taken, but those in which they contemplate economic penetration and, at the same time, going into Africa and South America and engaging in capitalistic enterprises? Certainly we can match them with our resources, and it seems we have created an awful bugaboo about this economic penetration.

Mr. BRANT. The economic penetration towards the east seems largely designed to make Germany self-sufficient as a war machine, and the economic penetration of Africa and South America is directed both toward expansion of the economic zone and in South America, toward the disposition of surplus Germany population.

Mr. CORBETT. I would differ just slightly on the statement that penetration eastward and southward in Europe is merely to bring about self-sufficiency, since back in Bismarck's time there has been an attitude there that developing those regions will help the economic prosperity of Germany very definitely, and also open the way for

trade with Asia or parts of it. That was part of the philosophy, I suppose, behind the Berlin-Bagdad scheme of developing that trade. Mr. BRANT. I see no limit whatever to the proposed expansion of Germany in an economic or a military sense.

Mr. CORBETT. I am sorry; I did not hear you.

Mr. BRANT. I see no visible limit to the expansion of Germany either in an account or a military sense under their present plans. Mr. EATON. Our fear of the totalitarian nations is well grounded. Now, if we look at the actual penetration of the effects of those dictatorships upon our lives at the present time you will see the force of it. France, a democratic country, is under a dictatorship. England, for the first time in its entire history is putting conscription to work, and at this moment, in this peace-loving nation, we are arming to the teeth, and if we go very much farther we have hanging in the background legislation such as will place this Nation under a dictatorship more complete than Germany, because that places everything in the hands of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.

Mr. BRANT. You cannot escape it, and I think a German-Italian victory in Europe would practically fasten dictatorship on the United States.

Mr. EATON. Yes; and upon the world.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Brant, the committee feels highly honored in having you appear this morning, and we thank you very much for your enlightening statement.

Mr. BRANT. It has been a privilege to be here.

Mr. BLOOM. The committee will now adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10:30, to meet in executive session.

(Thereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the hearings were concluded, and the committee adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 3, 1939, at 10:30 a. m.)

APPENDIX

[PUBLIC RESOLUTION-NO. 67-74TH CONGRESS]

[S. J. Res. 173]

JOINT RESOLUTION Providing for the prohibition of the export of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to belligerent countries; the prohibition of the transportation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war by vessels of the United States for the use of belligerent states; for the registration and licensing of persons engaged in the business of manufacturing, exporting, or importing arms, ammunition, or implements of war; and restricting travel by American citizens on belligerent ships during war

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That upon the outbreak or during the progress of war between, or among, two or more foreign states, the President shall proclaim such fact, and it shall thereafter be unlawful to export arms, ammunition, or implements of war from any place in the United States, or possessions of the United States, to any port of such belligerent states, or to any neutral port for transshipment to, or for the use of, a belligerent country.

The President, by proclamation, shall definitely enumerate the arms, ammunition, or implements of war, the export of which is prohibited by this Act.

The President may, from time to time, by proclamation, extend such embargo upon the export of arms, ammunition, or implements of war to other states as and when they may become involved in such war.

Whoever, in violation of any of the provisions of this section, shall export, or attempt to export, or cause to be exported, arms, ammunition, or implements of war from the United States, or any of its possessions, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and the property, vessel, or vehicle containing the same shall be subject to the provisions of sections 1 to 8, inclusive, title 6, chapter 30, of the Act approved June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 223-225; U. S. C., title 22, secs. 238-245).

In the case of the forfeiture of any arms, ammunition, or implements of war by reason of a violation of this Act, no public or private sale shall be required; but such arms, ammunition, or implements of war shall be delivered to the Secretary of War for such use or disposal thereof as shall be approved by the President of the United States.

When in the judgment of the President the conditions which have caused him to issue his proclamation have ceased to exist he shall revoke the same and the provisions hereof shall thereupon cease to apply.

Except with respect to prosecutions committed or forfeitures incurred prior to March 1, 1936, this section and all proclamations issued thereunder shall not be effective after February 29, 1936.

SEC. 2. That for the purposes of this Act

(a) The term "Board" means the National Munitions Control Board which is hereby established to carry out the provisions of this Act. The Board shall con

sist of the Secretary of State, who shall be chairman and executive officer of the Board; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of War; the Secretary of the Navy; and the Secretary of Commerce. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, or by other law, the administration of this Act is vested in the Department of State;

(b) The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the several States and Territories, the insular possessions of the United States (including the Philippine Islands), the Canal Zone, and the District of Columbia; (c) The term "person" includes a partnership, company, association, or corporation, as well as a natural person.

Within ninety days after the effective date of this Act, or upon first engaging in business, every person who engages in the business of manufacturing, exporting, or importing any of the arms, ammunition, and implements of war referred to in this Act, whether as an exporter, importer, manufacturer, or dealer, shall register