from Wellington, New Zealand, informs us that the British Dominion had only just adopted a draft for foreign service law on the first of last month.

However, another story on the same date and through the same news service from Auckland, New Zealand, informs us just what our lend-lease bill is doing to the economic system of that island dominion. It reads:

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND, May 22 by air mail (C. T. P. S.)-America's leaselend program has been both good and bad news to this island dominion of Great Britain.

It was good news because it bolstered the British Empire in its battle against Germany.

* * *

But it was bad news because it permits England to purchase almost unlimited quantities of foodstuffs from America without the necessity of paying for it while the war lasts. Food is all New Zealand has to sell, and Britain has been her only important customer.

* * *

Nevertheless, it is recognized that the loss of her markets for meat, butter, and fruit will be a serious blow to New Zealand economy as long as the war lasts. * * *

Britain does not want butter, which is piling up here, preferring to turn to margarine, the ingredients of which will keep without refrigeration,

** * **

You will note that this press story tells of the butter that is piling up in New Zealand, in spite of the fact that Lord Woolton, British Food Minister, recently sent a plea to this country by radio asking us to reduce our consumption of butter so there would be more available for shipment to England. As a result of that plea, we are reliably informed, butter has been removed from the list of food supplies available to those on relief here.

And while our society debutantes and their mothers are bundling for Britain, and soon, I suppose, will be sacking for Soviet, Australia, according to news reports, has forbidden any more campaigns in that Dominion of the British Empire to raise funds to send to England.

While all this is going on, you gentlemen of the Congress, our elected representatives, are appropriating billions of our money for so-called national defense and lend-lease aid to Britain. What are we getting for all of that?

Before you grant this new request for excessive and dictatorial power, let us examine how past grants of such powers are being used and what we are getting for them. In so doing, perhaps we can establish a yardstick by which to gage the results we may expect if this new power request is granted.

Consider the case of the 0-9, that antiquated submarine of which Congressman Wickersham, Oklahoma Democrat, said in the House last Monday:

* * * they (those in charge of our armed forces) should at least send our lads into such risk in something more substantial than a zinc outmoded strawberry crate that was new 23 years ago. We do not face that amount of emergency-not yet. I think we should assure all members of the armed forces that they will have as good equipment as we are sending to England.

Billions for Britain, and zinc outmoded strawberry crates as submarines for the United States.

Yet, while her dominions are doing less than we are for Great Britain, while our sailors are asked to submerge to 400 or more feet in an antique submarine, while 10,000 soldiers at Camp Dix have but 60 rifles, and the coastal defense forts of our great New York metropolitain area are denuded of coast-defense equipment, Britain asks us to

increase our aid to her under lend-lease at least tenfold, according to an International News Service Washington release date lined

June 2.

Our merchant marine is stripped to a point where this lend-lease aid-to-Britain policy is driving our flag more rapidly from those seven seas than any enemy ever did since this Nation was founded. Those ships from which Old Glory is lowered now are sailing those same seven seas, carrying British-manufactured merchandise, in some instances manned by British Lascars at $1.80 per month, while our own merchant sailors who formerly drew $75 a month go on Government dole.

While we are being asked to face gassless Sundays, heatless Mondays, butterless Tuesdays, and so forth, so that there will be bottoms available to "deliver the goods"-our goods-to Britain free of charge, British merchantmen ply back and forth across the Atlantic bringing British-manufactured goods to flood our markets.

Newbold Morris, president of New York's City Council, and acting mayor while Mr. LaGuardia is flitting about the country telling us how to remove incendiary bombs, opens a British style show in New York City with the declaration:

"Great Britain is still the great producing power of the world and she's still in business," according to a New York Times story of June 4. Still the great producing power of the world because she can use more and more of her wealth-producing machinery for just that purpose while we turn more and more of our wealthproducing machinery into turning out wealth-destroying products to give to her so that she may protect her empire and be the great producing power of the world. Is this bill to further that program?

But that is not all. Let me read from a Washington TimesHerald article dated June 3, 1941, which reports the findings of Congressman J. Parnell Thomas on a 3-day inspection tour of Second Corps Area camps and forts, as follows:

Hardly enough small-arms ammunition on hand at Fort Dix to serve for ordinary guard duty and insufficient to quell internal disorders at neighboring industrial centers.

Sixty rifles on hand for a post of 10,000 soldiers and trainees at Fort Monmouth, N. J.

"Pitiful" lack of modern equipment such as anti-aircraft guns, direction finders, and sighting devices at Fort Hancock and Tilden.

Communist and Nazi penetration within the armed forces and in key civilian positions, such that subversive agents could "wreck the entire defense of the New York area."

Inadequate guard provisions for the great Government armaments laboratory at Fort Monmouth, which is working on secret military devices.

Efforts to have Communist sympathizers discharged from their civilian jobs in connection with Fort Monmouth have been unavailing to date, Representative Thomas asserted.

We suppose, now that we are asked to accept paganized Soviet Russia as an ally in what the war dancers ask us to believe is a holy Christian crusade, it will be treason to ask for the dismissal of Communists and their sympathizers from Government service and the defense industries.

Consider also the following information from a United Press story, dated Washington, June 11. This tells us, in part, that two divisions of our armed forces have been given equipment priorities

in an attempt to permit top-speed creation of an American expeditionary force.

With the people of this country 95 percent against foreign-war involvement, we must give priority rights to equip two divisionsa total of 30,000 men if they were at full war strength-and this story states they are not to create an expeditionary force. This story claims these two divisions, the First Army and First Marines, are being prepared to take over or to invade Martinique. Why should we invade that little island? Granting we could use it for so-called hemisphere defense, why not pass the bill introduced May 19 in the House by Congressman Case, of South Dakota, which would authorize our State Department to open negotiations to acquire that little island from the French Government in an orderly, legal American way?

You gentlemen are being asked to rush through in a hurry this bill to seize and destroy private property rights; and Mr. Case's bill, which would remove all possibility of German invasion of Martinique, and also prevent our invading it and thereby creating an act of war, lies in the morgue of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Ask about that bill and you will be told Chairman Sol Bloom has "no action scheduled for Mr. Case's bill."

If we continue to follow this lend-lose program, and include Russia and like democracies, Britain will dominate the world, because all other nations will have wrecked themselves supporting her. While we are giving her our ships and reducing our production of comfort goods in order to increase the production of war materials for her, she is increasing her world export business, particularly in Latin-America, according to reports of the United States Department of Commerce. These reveal Britain increased her exports to Central and South America by more than 10 percent in September, October, and November over the preceding 3 months of last year. Since that information leaked out to our press, it has become exceedingly difficult to obtain Commerce Department reports of British exports. Why?

We are being forced to reduce to a minimum our production of commercial aircraft in this country in order to give Britain fighter craft. But listen to this story printed by E. V. Durling on January 19 and syndicated by International News Service.

British aircraft firms are supposedly harassed by the demand for fighting planes. United States firms are answering hysterical demands from Britain for war planes. Yet aircraft manufacturers in England are making commercial planes for export and offering them for sale in South America.

In traveling about the country I use our commercial air lines services considerably in order to save time in an attempt to meet the many requests for speaking engagements. From my personal experience, I know that our commercial air lines are seriously affected by requisition of their planes and the question of priorities to replace them, although such priorities were promised them when they gave up their planes for Britain.

In one instance a commercial air line gave up some 20 of these liners, with the understanding that they were to be used by Britain as troop transports, and the commercial air line would be given priorities for new planes. They have not obtained the new planes, and the planes taken from them are in commercial service in India.

Now let me read you a story from the New York Journal American dated June 28, 1941:

Photographic and written evidence that the Government is needlessly taking over the best planes in our domestic air line service for British use today is in the hands of officials of the Air Transport Association of America.

Already, it is charged, the Government has compelled the lines to surrender 115 ships, or 32 percent of all available equipment.

Yet, in puzzling contrast to these demands for ships, is the evidence gathered by Col. Edgar S. Gorrell, president of the association, and several leaders of the air lines.

This evidence, as revealed to the New York Journal-American, shows:

1. About 200 Hudson bombers, made by Lockheed, are lying idle on airfields and even in vacant lots in New York, Miami, New Orleans, and Burbank, Calif. 2. These ships were made for British bombing use but have not been moved for 6 weeks and more.

3. In a letter written by executives of Lockheed to officials of O. P. M., it was stated that these bombers could be converted within 5 days, into troop transports by installing "jump seats."

4. Photographs have been taken of these idle bombers and also of surrendered air line planes which were claimed by the Government 6 weeks ago and have not been used since.

5. Although American air-line groups, in surrendering their best planes, have been forced to discontinue many regular flights and have admitted the passengers "margin of safety" may be decreased, Canadian air lines have expended and a completely new outfit, Trans-Canada has come into being.

"It seems peculiar," one air line official stated, "that we are called upon to cut deeply into our passenger service when England is managing to keep so many of its commercial lines open.

"Recently, although several American companies were trying to obtain an O. K. on this route, Trans-Canada, a Canadian air-line firm, received ships and permission for the run from Toronto to New York. They now have increased to three round trips daily. They, at least, have the ships to do it."

Think of it. Our commercial air lines forced to reduce service to their clients, while a Canadian line, flying between New York and Toronto, increases its daily round trips. I suppose if this property seizure bill (S. 1579), becomes law, there will soon be an air line between Vladivostok, Russia, and Nome, Alaska, operating with plenty of ships, while our commercial air lines further reduce their service and margin of safety for our people in order to give troopcarriers to the Soviet.

I wonder how many of you have read the recent report of the House Military Affairs Committee on its investigation into the national-defense and lend-lease programs. There are many things of great importance in that report, but there is one particular thing I would like to mention. That is the committee's report relative to the aluminum shortage.

According to the newspaper story on this report that appeared in the New York Sunday American of June 28, the committee said:

The situation in regard to aluminum is more critical still. The aluminum industry relies on power, electric power. The unwillingness of some Government officials to provide hydroelectric energy from Government dams in such an emergency as exists today is at least short-sighted.

The committee then placed the blame for such refusal squarely upon the shoulders of Secretary of the Interior Ickes, and said:

Whatever may be the merits of any controversy between these so-called monopolies and the administration, it is the sense of this committee that a squabble at this time on the subject of monopoly is a tragic and sorry spectacle indeed.

Why did Mr. Ickes refuse to grant power rights to the aluminumproducing industry? Was he advised by Mr. Jones, of the O. P. M.? Not Jesse Jones, Secretary of Commerce, but John C. Jones, in charge of aluminum and similar production for the Office of Production Management. Will we soon learn that the reputed aluminum shortage in this country is the result of action similar to that described on the House floor on June 19 of this year by Congressman Martin L. Sweeney, Ohio Democrat, when he said:

Mr. Speaker, a group of businessmen in my district, willing to put up capital to help our national defense, came to Washington to secure priority on steel and power from the Boulder Dam. They were to engage in the business of extracting magnesium from certain deposits in Nevada. They asked for no money from the Government. They were finally turned over to John C. Jones, an Englishman, not a citizen of the United States, employed in the O. P. M. He told these men they could not secure the power or the priority. How do you like that-an alien telling our citizens what they can or cannot do.

Now, this Englishman, Jones, is not a citizen of the United States; therefore he cannot take an oath of office. He is getting his per diem from the United States Government. In due time, Mr. Speaker, I shall demand a thorough investigation. It looks to me as if the British have taken over the United States without firing a shot.

Mr. Speaker, these reputable Cleveland businessmen to whom I refer have a process to extract magnesium, a metal that is rare and vitally necessary to national defense. My information is that because they refused to disclose this formula to the English technnical adviser, Mr. Jones, who is employed in the aluminum section of the O. P. M., they were refused a certificate of convenience and necessity to secure power from Boulder Dam to go into production.

Boulder Dam is a project built by the taxpayers of America, and I vigorously object to any alien, no matter who he is, making final decisions on the question of the power that we taxpayers of America helped to create. The suspicion is prevalent among many Members of Congress that British capital and in many cases money furnished by the United States Government to British capital seeks to control the production of aluminum and magnesium in this country.

To me it seems to be dangerous, to say the least, for the Government to permit employment of aliens who, however, sincere they may be, would be inclined to discriminate in favor of their own nationals against citizens of this country.

The information furnished me on this British subject, Mr. Jones, is that he was employed as a metallurgist in the British Aluminum Co., Ltd., Warrington, England, and also consulting metallurgist, Arthur Seligman & Co., Ltd., New York City.

I make no complaint about the British Purchasing Commission, who are employing hundreds of their nationals here in Washington, so long as they are paid by the British Government, but I strenuously object to any agency of our Government delegating final authority to an alien to dictate to American businessmen. Just as the precious metal of magnesium shines, equally does this disclosure, in my opinion, stink.

It sounds unbelievable, doesn't it, that a British citizen, an executive of British Aluminum Co., Ltd., paid by our taxpayers' money, is in such a position, and being paid by our taxpayers' money. The same edition of the New York Sunday American, June 28, informs us in an Associated Press story from Washington that the Government now is going to erect several aluminum-producing plants to eliminate this alleged shortage. The story informs us that the plants will be built and owned by the Government, but operated by private firms under lease. Who will elect those private firms? Mr. John C. Jones, of Warrington, England? Is this what we may expect under this property seizure bill, S. 1579?