The laboring man should be interested in what the bill can do to him. It permits the President to set aside all the advances that labor has made over a period of years and to whip working men and women into laboring unlimited hours at unlimited wages and to prohibit strikes and otherwise interfere with bargaining "notwithstanding the provisions of any other law."

The bill attempts to make larceny an act of patriotism. As a defense act it authorizes the President to take property belonging to any foreign government and hand it over to another government. outside the degradation and immorality of the provision, it surely makes it easy for the President to do something with German ships or the ships of any other nations in our harbors that would put us in the position of carrying on a dishonorable undeclared war and justify a declaration of war against us. This regardless of the overwhelming determination on the part of the people against getting into war.

The bill is a war bill. It permits the use of our harbors for the repair and outfitting of ships of war of a belligerent; and it permits the use of our harbors as escape grounds for ships of war running away from battle disabled or otherwise. It practically permits our country to be used as a base of operations by a warring country. This is no gesture of peace. This is invitation to war.

People are against this bill because of the dynamite it containsbecause of the poison they will swallow in accepting it. Its hypocrisy is stultifying. It is not a defense bill-a bill for self-preservation. It is a bill for other purposes, as its title says. It is a bill for selfdestruction, for national suicide, and for the murder of thousands of American boys, should it ever become law.

We are told by our pastors and spiritual leaders to pray for peace. Who can go into church today, especially anyone who has been touched by the last war, to pray to Almighty God for peace, who can look upon the form of the crucified Son of God, who came down upon this earth to bring us peace, without seeing in his mind's eye beyond that crucifix thousands upon thousands of small white crosses as they stand in overseas cemeteries. And on every one of these crosses is the form of a crucified American soldier boy, crucified by the Government he thought he was saving.

Each soldier's broken and wounded body was laid on that cross, and the warmongers took one of his bruised and crushed hands, and picked out a cold, black, cruel nail which they called "a war to end all wars" and they hammered it, hammered it, hammered it into that hand. And then they took another cold, black, cruel, dirty nail, which they called "a war to make the world safe for democracy," and they hammered it, hammered it, hammered it into the other outstretched hand, as it seemed to plead for help. And they stretched out his feet and picked out another sharp, long, cruel, dirty nail, which was labeled "a war for the freedom of small nations and for open covenants openly arrived at" and they hammered it, hammered it, hammered it into his lifeless, unprotesting feet. And today one cannot read this bill without seeing, feeling, and hearing the warmongers and the warmakers sardonically at work-sawing up the small pieces of wood and mixing the white paint that will be used for the small white crosses, cutting up the lumber to be used for hammer handles, forging the metal to be used for nails, and looking around for some of the nails that were not used up 23 years ago, and generally

preparing for the repetition of the crucifixion of this generation of American soldier boys.

Stop this crucifixion of our American boys again by defeating this bill for the suicide of American freedom. In the name of God, stop this crucifixion of our American boys again by defeating this bill for the suicide of American freedom.

Last Memorial Day there appeared in "In the Wake of the News" column of the Chicago Tribune a poem that was written by a lady whose name is Hilda Butler Fries. I read it that day in memorial services over the graves of three of our soldiers, and I have read it before every group of American men and women that I have appeared before. I am going to close with your permission reading it here. It is entitled "Prayer for Peace." This is the poem:

Dear God, because I am the mother of a son,
Today in memory of those who died in war

I humbly ask of you to give us peace,

And silence once again the cannon's roar.

Because I am the mother of a son,

Who now is reaching up to man's estate,

I do not want to see him go and fight

And taste the bitterness of blood and hate.

Why should I have to see him maimed and blind

To satisfy a man's desire for greed

And spend his finest years in lonely rooms in hospitals.
Oh God, with Thee I plead,

Not for my boy alone and not for me,

But for every son and every mother in our land.

Our hearts are torn for those across the sea,

The blackenedness and all the pain they stand,

And yet the tulips and poppies bloom,

Regardless of a battle lost or won.

Dear God, I humbly ask again for peace,
Because I am the mother of a son.

Gentlemen, defeating this bill will be helping God answer the prayer of this and thousands of other mothe

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions!

Mr. FISH. You were a veteran in the World War, were you not? Mr. GRACE. Yes, sir; I served overseas with the Thirty-third Division, of the Illinois National Guard Division.

Mr. FISH. And you were past commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the State of Illinois, were you not?

Mr. GRACE. I am.

Mr. FISH. And you have been speaking around at your own expense for the past year or more trying to keep this country out of war?

Mr. GRACE. Since before the sinking of the Panay, I realized what was developing, and I have devoted all of my time to speaking before every kind of a group in the State of Illinois, from the southernmost part of it to the northernmost, and from the Mississippi to the eastern boundary, and sometimes outside.

Mr. FISH. And particularly among the veterans?

Mr. GRACE. Yes; probably more among the veterans than anyone else.

Mr. FISH. And you think that the veterans of Illinois are opposed, strongly opposed to being involved in the war, do you not? Mr. GRACE. I do.

Mr. FISH. And you think the veterans are largely opposed to legislation of this character?

Mr. GRACE. I couldn't offer an opinion. I say I couldn't answer that question, but I believe that they are.

Mr. FISH. But you say that you believe that this is a war bill?
Mr. GRACE. I do.

Mr. FISH. And that you believe that it would be a disaster and calamity to pass a bill, such a bill, unamended?

Mr. GRACE. I am against it any way, and I believe most people who realize what is involved, the dictatorship principle that is involved, would be against it.

Mr. FISH. Would I embarrass you by this question? Just say so and you won't have to answer it at all. Just for on my own part, do you know whether the hierarchy of the Catholic Church have taken any stand about keeping out of war?

Mr. GRACE. I don't know of any stand that they have taken, but I do know of distinguished

Mr. GREGORY. I am reserving the right to object.

Mr. FISH. He is a prominent Catholic.

The CHAIRMAN. He has a right to object.

Mr. GREGORY. I don't think the witness is qualified in the first place to answer as to any stand taken by any religious group, or by the Catholic Church.

Mr. FISH. I will qualify it, then, and say, Do you know whether Cardinal O'Connell has taken a definite stand against going into war? Mr. GRACE. A real American stand; uncompromisingly against it. Mr. FISH. Against going to war.

Mr. GRACE. Yes.

Mr. FISH. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions on this side?

Mr. FISH. Just a minute. The witness is a personal friend of mine, and I want to thank him for coming all the way from Chicago, and I presume at his own expense, and I hope that he will continue his fight to keep this country out of war.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Chair wishes to state that we are very much interested in your reading of that poem, and I know that anyone listening to you read that beautiful poem knows that you read it from your heart, and I thank you very, very much.

Mr. GRACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. CLESS, JR., OF GLENS FALLS, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. George H. Cless, Jr. Have you a prepared statement?

Mr. CLESS. Yes, sir; I have.

The CHAIRMAN. You may either stand or be seated as you wish, Mr. Cless. Do you wish to identify yourself?

Mr. CLESS. Gentlemen, Mrs. Rogers and gentlemen of the committee, my name is George H. Cless, Jr., of Glens Falls, N. Y.

Mr. FISH. May I interrupt just a minute? We had intended, as you probably know, to put you on the stand at a night session, where we had expected a rather large gathering, a large number of the press, but due to certain circumstances beyond our control, we had to proceed, and I want to tender my apologies for the smaller attendance than would have been here later on.

Mr. CLESS. I appreciate that very much, and I understand the situation, and I hope to be as brief and to the point as you have already been patient, because I think that I am as hungry as you are.

I do not represent any group, organization, or association of any kind. I am here today to speak for only one person-myself—whose front-line military and semidiplomatic service to his country in 1917, 1918, and 1919 took him across the Atlantic and moved him around from England to the Balkans and who has since given much of his time to economic research, writing, and speaking.

While I do not appear before you representing anyone but myself, 1 do feel that from my wide experience with the public I express an an opinion that is rapidly becoming general throughout the country, This bill, H. R. 1776, is improperly named. It should not be called the "lend-lease" bill.

Its proper title is "The Nation's Bankrupting Act of 1941."

If passed, not only will it bankrupt these United States but will give American labor away on the international auction block.

Insofar as this bill 1776 implies a desire to see England live, it has my approbation. But there are things about this bill that have nothing to do with England.

There are sinister forces in this bill that have to do with what is going to happen to these United States. I am not charging conspiracy or evil or malicious intent. I am only asking that these suspicions be dispelled.

The effort is made to impress us with the assumption that the security and defense of these United States is dependent upon the survival of Great Britain, Greece, and China.

There are those who tell us of the stupidity and futility of trying to defend our freedom and liberty and security here. We can't do that, they contend. We are not strong enough to do that, they would have us believe.

But, in the same breath, they imply that we are strong enough to threaten anyone we don't like; strong enough to underwrite the security and defense of the British Empire, Greece, China, and the whole Western Hemisphere.

Yes; they would like us to believe we are strong enough to do all that, but no one has yet asked, or if they have asked, there has been no satisfactory answer to the question of just how weak or how strong are we.

After the progress and accumulation of 150 years or so our physical assets used as tools of production in the form of industrial and commercial property amount in value to only $80,000,000,000. Yet in the last 8 years, Government has taken from the people and expended $120,000,000,000, and that is a conservative figure, and under a peacetime economy.

What would it be under this blank-check bill, giving the President unlimited power for unlimited spending?

Last year 9,000,000 farmers produced $9,000,000,000. But the Government took away from these people $18,000,000,000. Last year the labor payments of 400,000 corporations amounted to $28,000,000,000. But 65 percent of that amount, or $18,000,000,000, was taken away from our people by Government.

There are 30,000,000 families in these United States. So anybody can see that this $18,000,000,000 represents an average of $600 taken

from each family by Government each year. And this under a peacetime economy.

Our Federal debt is, or was a few weeks ago, around $50,000,000,000. In the astronomical language of the day, perhaps that doesn't mean much. But it takes on a menacing meaning when we realize that that debt is more than the total value of all our farms, farm machinery, farmlands, buildings, and livestock. It is more than the total physical assets employed in our great manufacturing and mining industries.

But that is a conservative statement. Add to the Federal debt the debt of our States, counties, cities, and so forth, and we arrive at a figure of debt which equals the combined total value of our farm, industrial, and commercial man-made physical assets.

Add to that debt the private, long-term debts already outstanding against these same productive assets, and we find that the full debt burden resting against this national productive plant actually exceeds the total full exchange value of that plant.

Now, how strong are we? Isn't it obvious, even to a high-school boy, that we are not even starting from scratch on this world-wide crusade? Oh, I am deeply and profoundly concerned with the need of defending these United States, of preserving and saving all those things in these United States which we hold dear.

But how much fundamental defending, saving, and preserving are we doing when we hardly are keeping even one jump ahead of the bankruptcy sheriff?

Pass this truly magnificent spending bill, and you will deliver the Nation, lock, stock, and barrel, over to the sheriff. And there are only three ways that any nation has ever gotten from under such a debt load. One of them is revolution; another is inflation; the third is repudiation.

Figure it all out. Simple arithmetic will give you the answer. This country is going into chaos, and the degree and intensity and depth of that chaos will depend on how much further we pursue the course we now are following in attending to the troubles of the world, instead of devoting our attention strictly to the defense, salvation, and preservation of these United States.

Let's take an example: Camp Edwards is being built on Cape Cod. The original cost estimate of $7,000,000 now has been hiked to $29,000,000. Every month they add the original cost to the current estimate. Does anyone realize what that could mean? It certainly does not mean that such apparently reckless and lavish pyramiding of expenditures is either aiding Britain or defending this country.

Do you think Mr. Knudsen would have produced automobiles on any such basis as that? What would have happened to his company? Of course, it would have gone bankrupt.

Are there any plans, blueprints, or specifications in bill 1776? Any limits of any kind? What will happen to our country? You know, gentlemen, even the deepest well has a bottom.

In fact, there are those who think that it is a spending bill; that this bill 1776, which we are discussing as a defense measure, is to authorize and legalize a spending campaign for power.

I am not charging that this bill, 1776, is to put Great Britain on President Roosevelt's international relief roll for the sake of acquiring