have well-defined legislation in existence at that time. But, if we go ahead and enact a complete legislation which will express our attitude on these affairs, then, no country can come on and say it will constitute an act of war, because we have got our law in effect before their war breaks out.

That is the serious necessity of this legislation. You gentlemenforgive me, I am not preaching-but I think you ought to report the legislation now, so the other nations will be on legal notice of what we are going to do in event of war. Then they can't take exception. Mr. SHANLEY. Do you think other commodities should be added? Mr. MAVERICK. I think the one of automobile trucks should. Mr. SHANLEY. You add that and somebody else another, and so on; and before you get through there will be dozens added.

Mr. MAVERICK. The list includes a great many things. I will admit that. But my experience in the World War is that transportation and ammunition were the principal necessities. War is fought by ammunition and rapid transportation. That eliminates motor trucks, rubber, fuel, and things of that kind.

Mr. FORD. There are new inventions coming on from time to time, and it might be necessary for the Chief Executive to continue to embargo article after article. Isn't that true?

Mr. MAVERICK. Yes; the President in addition ought to have the authority to do that.

Mr. Izac. Suppose a nation were able to provide all the guns and ammunition it needed, but didn't have any food, so it would expect to get that food from the United States. What are you going to do in case that happens? Are you going to embargo food to that nation or are you going to say there will be trade as usual?

Mr. MAVERICK. You have got me right down to where I can't answer. I can only say what our general philosophy should finally develop into, and that is a general embargo against belligerents for practically everything.

Mr. JOHNSON. You would not want that in every war? It would depend upon the gravity of the war?

Mr. MAVERICK. It would depend, of course. I think the President and Congress have abandoned the idea of going into the League of Nations or the World Court. You are either in or you are not in. So if you begin to have sympathy for some nations being destroyed by Fascist countries, we repeat the error of the world war. If we go to war against "fascism" it will do no more good than when we went to war against German "imperialism." It is not our moral duty to get into a war for any "ism."

Mr. EATON. Do I understand you are standing there and telling us that we cannot approach this thing unless you denude yourself of all morality? Do you mean emotions or morality?

Mr. MAVERICK. I was just going to answer that.

When we started into the World War we had an emotional concept. I think the time has come for us as a Nation to say that we are going to stay out of war and are not going to make any money out of war. That is a higher moral concept than making money.

Mr. EATON. I am glad you are taking that high stand. I was worried about you. [Laughter.]

ness.

WE SHOULD SEARCH OUR OWN SOULS AND GET BUSY AT HOME

Mr. MAVERICK. Here is the proposition, we Americans have always been expressing high moral "ideals" about other nations' busiOur trouble is we have so many conditions here that should be attended to and remedied, but we try to Christianize the world and send a missionary to China or some place, to which I am not objecting, but we have so much to do at home.

I think it is about time for us to search our own souls and to say from now on we will do a better job with ourselves. That is about the only way I can express it. Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. The way you express that, we not only have to have our laws neutral, but our minds also. That is sometimes difficult to do.

Mr. EATON. As I understand Mr. Maverick's argument we must have no moral reaction to a given set of conduct.

Mr. MAVERICK. Let's get down to brass tacks. When this Spanish war came up I thought of "Spain" as the government. The emotions of many were on the side of the Spanish Government. But when you get down to brass tacks there is nothing we can do to correct the internal conditions of the Spanish Republic.

We ought to preserve ourselves-and I don't say that in this narrow nationalistic sense because we are a big nation with the Atlantic on one side and the Pacific on the other, and a friendly nation to the north, Canada, and a friendly nation to the south, Mexico.

Mr. VOORHIS. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. VOORHIS. I was just wondering if there isn't something to this idea. It would be a very vital contribution to world peace if America takes the attitude we seem to be going to take with reference to Latin American countries, namely, the attitude of noninterference in internal troubles. Further than that, there may be a time when a nation should definitely determine to keep out of war in order to preserve certain values of civilization itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Mr. Maverick?

Mr. MAVERICK. That is all. I am very much obliged for your kind and patient consideration.

Mr. Izac. Would you say that the attitude of the men that served in the World War was a policy of strict isolation?

Mr. MAVERICK. The attitude of 95 percent of the ex-service men is to stay out of any war. Many, or most of us, have boys 16 years old that are better looking and stronger and of better appearance than we, by reason of superior dietetics. When you look at them, you see kids in your minds with their brains spilled out-I don't want to make an emotional speech-but we don't want those boys to get killed; and that is the reason the ex-service men do not want their boys to get into any war. I don't know whether this is on

the record.

Mr. Izac. I wanted that in the record.

Mr. MAVERICK. We do not have any remedy against foreign propaganda. I am more or less fanatic on the subject of freedom of speech, but it does look as if there should be something

against foreign propaganda. I do not advocate putting a man in jail because he expresses his sentiments. But I think if a man is in the pay of the Japanese Government, the German Government, or the British Government, or any government, and is disseminating propaganda which can be definitely traced to him, that we should be able to do something about it. I will just give you my experience about foreign propaganda that I know about in a small way.

In the State of Texas where I live, in San Antonio, when they cook up revolutions in Mexico, they usually always hire an intelligent Texan who is generally of Latin descent to represent one faction or the other. He usually gets a considerable sum of money to make speeches for his side. Many of the troubles we have had in Mexico were because of foreign propaganda being disseminated by fellow Texans employed on one side or the other.

Mr. JOHNSON. It looks as if we can control propaganda in a war why would it not be proper to regulate it to prevent a war?

Mr. MAVERICK. It seems to me it would be all right if we did not prevent our own citizens from speaking their opinion. For example, down home up until 2 or 3 years ago we were always rowing among ourselves as to which side we were on in the various Mexican revolutions.

Mr. VOORHIS. Just one more question. Do you think the time will ever come when the American people will have prudence enough to size up propaganda when they hear it and repel it themselves? That is the only effective way to combat it.

Mr. SHANLEY. I think eighty-odd percent of the people don't care one way or the other.

Mr. JOHNSON. Isn't it true that war is produced by a state of mind, and when the minds of the people are inflamed to a certain degree war is almost inevitable, and about all we can do is to try to remove the causes?

Mr. MAVERICK. The only thing I know that we can do is to enact enough laws to delay war for a period of time, long enough to allow the people to cool off. Then if they do not cool off, they will repeal the laws and go to war anyhow. All you can do is to hope for the best.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is all. I appreciate very much, Mr. Maverick, your views and the views of Mr. Sauthoff and Mr. Voorhis which you have expressed here this afternoon. The committee will meet tomorrow at 10 o'clock, and all of you try to be here then.

We will examine about four witnesses tomorrow.

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. Friday, Feb. 19, 1937.)

AMERICAN NEUTRALITY POLICY

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1937

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Sam D. McReynolds (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will continue consideration of House Joint Resolution 147. There are very few members in attendance so far, but inasmuch as there are many committees meeting this morning, I presume, as many members as find it convenient will come later.

At any rate, to save time we may proceed, as we have several witnesses present who have statements for the record.

Who is present, Mr. Barnes?

The CLERK. Mr. Roy Burt and Mr. Charles A. Weil are present. The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Weil. We will give you a chance to be heard at this time.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. WEIL, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Weil, what is your full name?
Mr. WEIL. Charles A. Weil.

The CHAIRMAN. State your business, please.

Mr. WEIL. I am in the hide and leather business.

The CHAIRMAN. You are in the hide and leather business?

Mr. WEIL. Yes. sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you read these bills before the committee?. Have you read the chairman's bill?

Mr. WEIL. I have read most of them that have been called to my attention.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you read the bill of the chairman?

Mr. WEIL. Yes; I have.

The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to hear any remarks you want to make.

I note you have a formal prepared statement, and I will say to you that you are at liberty to express your views before the committee and the committee will receive your formal statement. We simply want the facts.

Mr. WEIL. I try very hard to confine myself to facts, and if the chairman wishes, I will present a synopsis of the statement which I have prepared.

103