Greece as vital to our national defense, and the following day Afghanistan as vital to our national defense; and then if arrangements could be made with Russia, he might regard Russia as vital to American defense, so far as the wording of that section is concerned?

Secretary STIMSON. Possibly, yes, Mr. Tinkham. That I think is a perfectly safe provision in the bill as it is now. But I am not dogmatic, and it is in the hands of the Congress to decide whether it wishes to define the countries whose safety today is vital to the United States, in their opinion. But if they should do that, you would have a bill which might require amendment at almost any time, in the rapid changes of a very dangerous situation.

I might as well state right now, because you have opened the question, that my opinion-and it is one of long standing, and it has come from observation of various men who have held the Presidency during the period of my lifetime, whom I have had the privilege and the honor of observing at close range-my opinion is this: I have been impressed always with the tremendously sobering influence that the terrific responsibility of the Presidency will impose upon any man, and particularly in foreign relations.

Mr. TINKHAM. Does that apply

Secretary STIMSON. Please let me finish. That has applied to all of the gentlemen whom, as I have said, I have had the opportunity of observing closely. As a result of that observation, I feel that there is no one else, no other possible person in any official position who can be trusted to make conservatively and cautiously such a tremendous decision as the decisions which would have to be made in a great emergency involving a possible war with which this country is concerned. And I can say that not only with reference to the temperament of those with whom I have had close association but I think, if you will look at history, you will find that there has been no President who rushed this country into war, while there have been many Presidents who held the country back when the people and the Congress were pushing the country into war.

So in the light of that, I say that while the Congress could, if it desired, take the risk of naming the countries, and limiting the bill in that way, they could likewise safely rest that responsibility with the present President of the United States, and I have had him under close observation for 6 months. And, as you know, Mr. Tinkham, I belong to your party.

Mr. TINKHAM. You did.

Secretary STIMSON. I did, yes, and I think perhaps I do still. I do not know that you have read me out of it.

Mr. TINKHAM. Mr. Secretary, in contrast to your short period of observation of the present President, of 6 months, I have had him under observation for nearly 8 years, and I have found

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, if my colleague will allow, I would like to suggest in the interest of the conservation of time, that the gentleman ask the witness questions instead of stating his own opinions.

Mr. TINKHAM. I want to be as direct as possible in order to get responsive answers from the witness. I shall try not to waste any time.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, as you know, it was agreed yesterday in committee

The CHAIRMAN. We were in executive session yesterday and what we agreed to is not to be divulged.

Mrs. ROGERS. I should like to state, Mr. Chairman, that I for one will insist, so far as I can, that we be given complete and full time to interrogate the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled.

Mrs. ROGERS. It is quite important for us to get the facts. We are searching for the truth, and in order to act intelligently and fairly to everyone, I think we must be given complete time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already ruled on that and you may proceed, Mr. Tinkham. There is no objection to your question.

Mr. TINKHAM. So, Mr. Secretary, you would be in favor of giving this complete authority that we have been discussing to the present President, so that he might put all the resources short of manpower behind Russia, if he thought that was an adroit thing to do?

Secretary STIMSON. There again, Mr. Tinkham, you have introduced a word which is quite contrary to what I have just said to you, when you used the word "adroit."

Mr. TINKHAM. Let us remove the word "adroit" and then I ask the question; in other words, if he thought it was good judgment? Secretary STIMSON. The bill states the conditions which must govern his discretion when it states that it must be vital to the defense of the United States, and under that limitation, and with that provision, I think the power could safely be entrusted to the discretion of the President.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, his complete discretion as to what countries he would select to say that their defense was vital to our defense.

Mr. STIMSON. Again you have introduced the word "complete.” I said subject to the conditions which I just stated.

Mr. TINKHAM. Well, I will leave the record in the condition in which it is now.

Now, you contrast our present situation, Mr. Secretary, today, with the situation that existed in 1917 when we entered the last war. We did not enter that war until an overt act had been committed, namely our vessels sunk and we had been challenged as to our right to sail the seas. Let me ask you if any overt act, in your opinion, has been committed by any of the belligerent powers against us so far in this war, and if so, what overt act?

Secretary STIMSON. Well, sir, that is a question that is so broad, and so many incidents could be described, that I would like not to be limited. But I do happen to remember that one of the belligerents sank one of our warships, without any excuse for it whatever.

Mr. TINKHAM. You are referring to the incident in China, on the Yangtse River, the Panay incident?

Secretary STIMSON. I am referring to the Panay incident.

Mr. TINKHAM. Was not that explained as a mistake, and have not reparations been made?

Secretary STIMSON. I do not think that I should consider that reparations have been satisfactorily made or explanations satisfactorily made.

Mr. TINKHAM. They have been accepted by the Government? Secretary STIMSON. That is far different. The Government may have thought it wise to lean over in the direction of conciliatoriness, and yet you think that the Government is going to be truculent. Mr. TINKHAM. May I ask you this question, and if you do not want to answer, you are absolutely under no compulsion to answer it: Do you think we should have declared war when the Panay was sunk?

Mr. JOHNSON. I object, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair hopes the member will confine himself to the bill. That is not relevant to the bill. The Chair will allow the member all the time necessary, but he must insist that the member confine his questions to the bill under consideration.

Mr. TINKHAM. Let me say to the chairman that this bill is an allinclusive bill.

The CHAIRMAN. It is; but the question

Mr. TINKHAM. And we are talking about incidents that have occurred, as well as those that may occur, under this bill, that may involve us in war. It seems to me it is a very pertinent inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no desire to prevent the member from asking as many questions as he would like, and for as long as he would like, but he must insist that the questions be confined to the bill under consideration.

Mr. TINKHAM. I think that comes under the terms of this bill, but if the chairman thinks not, I will not proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled.

Mr. TINKHAM. I do not say that I will always be in agreement with the chairman on anything that he may rule.

Now, I think we are faced with this situation, and I would like to ask this question: There is in military history such a thing as a preventive war. Do you believe in the philosophy or the principle of a preventive war at any time?

Secretary STIMSON. I really do not know what you mean by a preventive war. It is not a phrase I have been accustomed to use.

Mr. TINKHAM. I hesitate to put it in this form, but if I have got to instruct the Secretary of War as to what a preventive war is, I will do so. A preventive war is one that comes about where a country, although not attacked, fears that it is going to be attacked at some time, and believing it is in a better position to make war at the particular moment, before a cause of war has arisen, finds a cause of war and makes the attack on the country that it thinks in the future is going to be its enemy. Throughout history there have been numerous instances of that character, and they have been known as preventive wars and so designated by the writers on the history of war.

Secretary STIMSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Tinkham. Now I understand what you mean. And in the light of your explanation, I should say that I have not heard any suggestion of making any attack on the part of this country upon any belligerent for the purpose of preventing war.

Mr. TINKHAM. Mr. Secretary, I do not want to draw the line too thin, but when you declined yesterday to have a clause put in this bill that would prevent our warships going to England, implicit

in that was the occurrence of war under the present circumstances. May I ask you if that is your fixed opinion, that there should not be put into this bill a clause which would forbid our warships going into belligerent waters?

Secretary STIMSON. Yes; that is my opinion, most certainly. No one can foresee what situations might arise that will make it most essential, in the light of our defense-not offense-for our country to send its warships into what you call belligerent waters.

Mr. TINKHAM. May I ask you under what conditions, as you conceive them, we should send warships into belligerent waters without that being an offensive action?

Secretary STIMSON. Well, I do not think I care to indulge in speculation. That is too broad a field. But I say the thing might happen. I do not believe that this country should in any circumstances tie its hands behind its back.

Mr. TINKHAM. Even to keep out of war?

Secretary STIMSON. I think it would be perhaps one of the surest ways of getting into war or, at any rate, of getting into a position where we could be safely attacked, and attacked under disadvantages.

Mr. TINKHAM. May I say, Mr. Secretary, that I can conceive of nothing that could get us into war more quickly and more surely than sending our warships into belligerent waters.

Secretary STIMSON. Why, Mr. Tinkham, you have not stated any of the circumstances that might have arisen beforehand; any of the attacks that might have been made upon us beforehand; any of the events which might have arisen to show that we were on the point of being attacked, in other ways. There are countless circumstances, and I do not care to speculate on them.

Mr. TINKHAM. You are in favor of the United States remaining at peace, if possible, are you not?

Secretary STIMSON. I am, certainly. But I am in favor also of its remaining in a state of complete readiness in case, contrary to its desire, it should be forced to defend itself by military action.

Mr. TINKHAM. Of course, you know I am not a pacifist at all, but, on the other hand, I think you know that we ought to avoid any involvement in this war, either in Asia or in Europe.

Now, still in relation to warships, do you think that our warships should convoy American ships to England?

Secretary ŠTIMSON. Let me say first that nothing in this bill touches upon that question at all, and I would like to ask whether the chairman wishes to have that discussed in the light of his previous ruling.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I object to the gentleman going into things that are not covered by the bill, because it would lead us far afield.

The CHAIRMAN. The objection is sustained.

Mr. FISH. Wait a moment, Mr. Chairman; when the Chair says the objection is sustained

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled that the objection is sustained.

Mr. FISH. The objection to what?

The CHAIRMAN. That the question is out of order. And if you wish to appeal from the decision of the Chair, you may do so. The Chair has ruled that the question is entirely out of order.

Mr. FISH. That there is no reference to convoys in the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Where is it?

Mr. FISH. The President has the power under the bill. That is what I would like to argue.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled, and if you wish to appeal from the decision of the Chair, you may do so.

Mr. FISH. Do you mean to say we are to be prevented from mentioning the question of convoys in the committee, in the discussion of this bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tinkham asked the witness whether or not he was in favor of convoying American ships to England, and the witness replied that the bill contained no such authority. Mr. Tinkham proceeded to ask him what his opinion was, and I think that is getting too far afield, covering a matter that is not, as the witness says, involved in the bill.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, Mr. Secretary, I am to understand that you do not want to make any further statement on that point?

Secretary STIMSON. Not here today.

Mr. TINKHAM. Not here today. Now, have you thought through to the end, and a logical end, what will occur if this legislation as it is now before us is passed and the President is given the authority that he asks, and war occurs-have you thought through to the fact that if the nations we are to assist under the terms of this bill and under his discretion as contained in the bill, are being defeated, or have wavered, it means that our manpower must go to Asia and to Europe under those conditions?

Secretary STIMSON. Mr. Tinkham, I have thought through this bill so far as I could with my limited mental powers, but I have not seen any of the other elements that you put into your question. Yesterday I tried to state in my opening statement what this bill meant, what the powers were that were intended and what they would make possible, and the benefits to our own preparation as well as to our own defense which would follow from it. That is as far as I have considered this bill.

Mr. TINKHAM. May I say, Mr. Secretary, that I have had experience in public office in the two last great wars. I am referring to the Spanish-American War and

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to remind my colleague that he is going into the field of his own opinion and his own experience, and that leads us into an interminable discussion. The gentleman has already consumed about 40 minutes.

Mr. TINKHAM. Whenever the management of this committee has suggested that I was improperly proceeding, I have been willing to

cease.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is going into his own views and his own experience.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state, Mr. Tinkham, that you have occupied the witness for nearly 30 minutes. The Chair is very willing to allow you to proceed to ask pertinent questions pertaining to the bill. Your experience in many wars will take up quite a time, and if you are going into that realm, we will have to rule that out of order. Please proceed in order.