vital necessity to our national defense, such as battleships, warships of all kinds, submarines and destroyers alike, and the new cargo ships now being constructed for our own merchant marine, and which are so vitally needed for the American Navy, whether Britain wins or loses.

Third, we should prohibit the use of American warships to convoy any merchant ships to Britain, and this would be in keeping with the President's own declaration that no such convoying is contemplated.

Fourth, prohibit the use of American armed forces in Europe, either aviators, soldiers, or sailors, and this, too, would be in keeping with the President's declaration to Congress.

Fifth, we should provide specifically that Britain need not pay in cash for such items we advance, but rather that she pay us in those raw materials which we so urgently need for our Army, Navy, and national defense minerals of which she has either a world monopoly or would control; and I suggest such minerals as, say, chrome ore, of which we get 70 percent of our total supply from the British monopoly; or platinum, of which we get 41 percent of our total supply from Britain. I would add nickel, of which Britain has a monopoly, and cobalt, monazite sand, so vitally needed in our gas industry; phosphate, of which Britain has such a tremendous supply and which we must import; rubber, over which Britain has a world monopoly. If these items are not enough to pay for what we intend to give her in munitions, then Congress can include such minerals as asbestos, graphite, mica, shellac, tin, wood pulp, manganese, and vanadium.

Take wood pulp for instance. I am certain Canada would like to help pay for any items we send Britain, and Canada could help pay by giving our Government huge quantities of wood pulp. I am certain our friendly neighbors to the North would welcome such an opportunity to help the Mother Country, even though it meant some sacrifice on their part.

In all such transactions Britain could turn the minerals over to the United States Government-say to the R. F. C. or the Department of Commerce and I am certain every man in this room will agree that Jesse Jones would be able to sell these minerals or distribute them to American industry in a way that would extend the greatest benefits to our national defense.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Smith, you said you were not an expert. Do you believe that in subjects like this, where experts differ and where the ultimate decision involves not only military questions but questions of economics, and the kind of government you like and cultural problems, that the ultimate decision must be made by those who are not experts, based on ordinary commonsense and judgment after considering what experts say?

Mr. SMITH. Definitely; inasmuch as these people that are not experts elect public officials.

Mr. VORYS. Well, public officials themselves are not experts either, not all of us Congressmen are experts on military affairs or foreign affairs, or economics, or finances, and so forth, but if it is not understandable to just a common, ordinary person, with good sense, if there is something that such a person cannot understand or cannot be told, then there is something wrong with the proposal; isn't that true?

Mr. SMITH. Definitely.

Mr. VORYS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burgin.

Mr. BURGIN. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Smith, do you not think that it is very important that Members of Congress who are not experts on military and other matters should obtain the best possible information before arriving at any decision, rather than depending on themselves?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. I believe that expert opinion belongs both to the Congress and to the people, and should not be confined to executive

sessions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Courtney?

Mr. COURTNEY. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mundt.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Smith, did I understand the chairman brought out in introducing you to us that you were president or chairman of a Committee of One Million?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. I am known as the national chairman.

Mr. MUNDT. National chairman of the Committee of One Million? Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. MUNDT. May I inquire what the purpose of the committee is, its platform and program? Is it a political organization or a nonpartisan organization?

Mr. SMITH. It is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, nonprofit, patriotic organization.

Mr. MUNDT. You believe in a program of strong national defense, do you?

Mr. SMITH. Not only that, we presented through Senator Vandenberg a petition calling for national defense second to none, signed by over 1,000,000 people.

Mr. MUNDT. Would you say that your committee more or less reflects the position indicated by many polls taken that approximately 9 people out of 10 in America want to keep out of war first and, secondly, provided they can do so and keep out of war, they wish to aid England in her fight?

Mr. SMITH. The petition which I have presented by proxy here today demonstrates the fact that more than 2,000,000 people have used our committee as an instrumentality through which to express their convictions against intervention, and in favor of national defense. They represent that section of the population which impresses us as being most positively against war and against intervention, and we believe that they represent by far more than a majority of the people. Mr. MUNDT. Did I understand you to say that those names came from over an area of 18 States?

Mr. SMITH. Thirty-eight States?

Mr. MUNDT. Thirty-eight States?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; but the concentrated strength of our committee is between St. Louis and Pittsburgh, and between Louisville and Detroit. As an illustration of the sentiment in the State carrying the greatest load involving national defense, our committee has over 320,000 enlistments in Michigan alone.

Mr. MUNDT. That is all; thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eberharter.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jonkman?

Mr. JONKMAN. Mr. Smith, in your statement which represents the views of your committee, you say you do not trust politicians..and you say that there is a universal feeling that we should continue to aid England. That we are agreed upon?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. JONKMAN. Is that feeling based on any other purpose than that it will eventually be to our benefit to do so?

Mr. SMITH. I think it is a humanitarian impulse.

Mr. JONKMAN. You think they are willing to take that position that England win, even though it might not involve what would eventually be a good defense for ourselves?

Mr. SMITH. The people who write to me do not have the impression that England is our first line of defense, but they do have the impression England is in great pain, and should be helped just as a neighbor should be helped; and, just as a father rescues his own children first, they want America's defense guaranteed first. The people who write to me and support my position believe that this war is England's war.

Mr. JONKMAN. You understand, of course, that that is not the theory of this bill, of a charitable, neighborly act, but the theory underlying this bill is we are justified in aiding England and the other countries because it is for our own defense. In other words, we are destroying that which will eventually attack us.

Mr. SMITH. The fact that the bill creates that impression justifies the appearance of the spokesman of our committee in this hearing. I do not agree with that conclusion.

Mr. JONKMAN. You do not agree with that?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. JONKMAN. Do you feel that, as the testimony shows here, the trend in aerial warfare is of peculiar benefit to the United States because it is principally a defense item, and not so well adapted to a military victory in case of attack? In other words, that that is the basis upon which it is claimed that even England, assisted by the United States, in all probability, could not invade or conquer Germany except with an expeditionary force and after a long war?

Mr. SMITH. We believe that the President's position was wrong in his address to Congress when he suggested an Utopian world, through the use of only British, Greek, and Chinese soldiers. We do not believe that what the President desires can be accomplished without American manpower, perhaps not then.

Mr. JONKMAN. I do not believe that exactly answers my question. What I mean to say is that we see that Hitler, with all of his vaunted strength last fall, did not undertake to invade England with a military force. The theory is that it is because it is dufficult to make an invasion based upon aerial strength, and the contention is that inasmuch as that same thing is practically impossible in Germany, it is hardly probable in England. Therefore, our defense lies in that same thing, that a military invasion by aerial power is practically an impossibility, and therein lies the strength of the United States. If they had that confidence that we are not subject to invasion, would they be so much in favor of help to England?

Mr. SMITH. Any hysteria that I have encountered in the war is based upon the belief among certain people that we are likely to be invaded by Germany next week or next month.

Mr. JONKMAN. And if that did not exist would they change their position?

Mr. SMITH. Definitely.

Mr. JONKMAN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gregory.

Mr. GREGORY. No questions, if the Chairman please.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wasielewski.

Mr. WASIELEWSKI. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sikes?

Mr. SIKES. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. We appreciate your coming here.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fish and I have just decided to sit until 6 o'clock, and then we will recess until 8. So, be guided accordingly. STATEMENT OF JOHN BURKE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN DEFENSE SOCIETY, NEW YORK CITY

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. John Burke, representing the American Defense Society.

Mr. BURKE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your position in the society?

Mr. BURKE. I am a member of the advisory committee and chairman of the ways and means committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are right at home in the Ways and Means Committee room. Have you a prepared statement?

Mr. BURKE. Yes; I have, sir, and I gave a few copies to the press, and some more are coming down by plane and will be here later. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. BURKE. The American Defense Society opposes the passage of this bill because it gives to one man, the President of the United States, unlimited public money to spend for unspecified objectives. In its present form the bill is not a bill to aid Britain, Greece, or China, but a blind grant of autocratic power, while the Nation is still at peace.

The American Defense Society, which was organized in 1915, has but a single objective. That objective is the defense of the Constitution and the American form of government. In 1915 Theodore Roosevelt, as President, called this society "The fighting wing of patriotic citizen effort."

The society's firm opposition to the present bill is based on its conviction that the bill violates the spirit of the Constitution and violently alters the American form of government.

Under the bill, as it stands, Congress is asked to abdicate its constitutional power to declare the policies and apportion the public money of the United States.

The society recognizes the dangers which our own Government faces under present world conditions and is wholeheartedly in accord with (a) the importance of providing for our own proper defense, (b)

the granting of every legitimate aid to England, Greece, and China, and (c) the necessity for protecting the Americas to the end that no foreign power shall gain a foothold or otherwise interfere with the several American governments as they now exist.

The society believes that all these ends can be accomplished without damage to the authority of Congress or to the American form of government.

Specifically, we are against the present bill because under the guise of legislation to provide for the defense of the United States it gives the power to one man to plunge the United States into war.

It gives to the President, and to him alone, complete domination over the industries, the public money, and the foreign and domestic policies of our Republic.

It permits the President to commit acts of war, without the knowledge or consent of Congress. Premier Deladier of France obtained a grant of power.

It, in effect, repeals the Johnson Act, the Neutrality Act, and the Draft Act, whenever they interfere with the undisclosed plans of the President.

It gives the President authority to arm, refit, and repair any belligerent foreign warship, which must be regarded as an act of war against the opposing nation.

It makes the President sole judge of the nations which are to be assisted by the United States. It gives him unlimited public money to procure implements of war, to be transferred to any foreign nation on any terms that the President deems satisfactory.

Under the terms of the bill the President, if he saw fit, could turn over the entire American Navy to any nation in the world, without consulting Congress or the American people.

It gives a blank check to the President to use any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for his undisclosed purposes.

The only limit on the amount of money which the President may loan or use for the benefit of foreign nations is the power of our Government to tax or borrow the savings of the American people.

I think I have pointed out enough specific defects in this bill, which strikes at the liberties, the safety, and the future of the people of the United States.

For Congress to pass this bill in its present form would be a breach of faith with the people, and a violation of the spirit of the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This bill raises a vital question of national policy. If passed in its present form, the money and the energies of the Nation will be directed to arming other nations. Should these nations fail, the United States would be left unprepared and ill-equipped.

For all the reasons enumerated, the American Defense Society is against approval of the present bill.

On the other hand, we believe that the American people wish to aid the nations which are fighting against aggression.

The society wishes to be constructive in the present crisis and for that reason it desires to submit to your committee the precise amendments it believes should be made to the present loose and dangerous draft.

As you will see, the bill as we would wish it amended, strikes out the paragraphs of the bill which would lead immediately to war.