Page images

that would apply, but they are very small, comparatively, if there are any. The whole project is a project for the future. These things will be limited to the kind of munitions and the types that we ourselves can use in our own defense, and if Britain should go down it would be the kind that we would want to use in our own defense. The only question is whether in the interval, while we are trying to keep her up, and in the hope that we may keep her up and save this country from going into the war and having the war come to it-whether we should send some of them over to her.

Mr. Vorys. Now, my question was prompted by Members of Congress who have made a particular study of our military affairs, who were seeking information on that before they would be called upon to act on this bill, and who are very anxious about the program which has been authorized by Congress and suggested by the War Department and our Government, and who are anxious to know the extent, if any, to which that program will be deferred or weakened. Now, would it be possible to furnish, not at this time, but sometime shortly, the committee with such a statement?

Secretary Stimson. I think that program will be, far from being destroyed or even impaired, in the end, improved, because the very fact that the British want munitions and want them now, before we reach the same emergency, has caused the expansion of our private munitions industry; it has caused the erection of buildings, which is now being done; the putting up of great plants for the British, which has been going on for some time, and long before this bill came up, and even before the greatest part of the emergency. It will tend tremendously to accelerate the manufacture of the munitions that we will need a little bit later on. In other words, we pick up in the end whatever lag we may have in their getting the first chance at the weapons as contrasted with the situation that we would have been in if they had not been getting munitions here.

Mr. Vorys. Now, it is just the figures to explain the pick-up and the lag which we would be happy to have if they can be made available.

Secretary Stimson. The shortest way, Mr. Vorys, would be for you to take advantage of the invitation that has been given, which I spoke of yesterday, where all of these things are being discussed, not by me as Secretary of War, who necessarily has only supervisory knowledge of it, but by the Under Secretary and by the heads of the various bureaus–Ordnance, Quartermaster, Signal Corps, and the others who have direct charge. I cannot tell you the multiplicity of the programs that are involved. It would be almost an impossible task to put them into one consolidated sheet, without tremendous delay. And they would be changing with different changes in the progress of the war. By coming and talking with these gentlemen at such meetings as I saw the day before yesterday, where members of the military committees of the House and Senate sat for a couple of hours in the morning and interrogated, with a frankness that can be had in executive session, the members of the Department who have direct touch with it and are doing it every day. Necessarily I have to have only the supervisory knowledge that comes with having the responsibility of supervision.

Mr. Vores. Now, one other question and then I will be through. You read us yesterday an interpretation of the Kellogg-Briand pact by an association of lawyers, which is extremely interesting. However, is it not true, Mr. Secretary, that the United States, before approving the Kellogg-Briand Pact, made reservations expressly stipulating that it was devoid and destitute of all obligations for enforcement, so that we have no duty under the Kellogg-Briand pact to attempt to enforce it; is not that correct?

Secretary STIMSON. No, sir; I have read that pact many times. And there is nothing in it that would give me that impression. On the contrary, it was my duty as Secretary of State to take up that pact and to endeavor to show that that was not the construction of it.

Mr. VORYS. Was there not a reservation to that effect made in the United States Senate?

Secretary STIMSON. Not to that effect; not as you have stated it.

Mr. VORYS. What was the reservation with reference to enforcement?

Secretary STIMSON. I think it was a reservation as to self-defense, and that is all, which would not apply here at all.

Mr. Vorys. It was stated many times publicly and was stated before our committee in committee hearings, that the Kellogg Pact was a pact without machinery for enforcement. Is that correct?

Secretary Stimson. If you say without any machinery at all, I say no. If you say without specific machinery, I would say that it had no machinery such as the League of Nations had. It did have a machinery which was, in the time of the law-abiding character of the world, a great machinery, namely, that of marshaling public opinion on the subject; and that proved very effective, for instance, within a few months after the pact was first formulated, in regard to the Chinese Eastern Railway situation. But I would rather not get into that. There is nothing in that case that applies to or affects what I said yesterday, in my opinion.

Mr. Vores. There was nothing in the pact which made de jure recognition by Britain of the conquests of Albania and Ethiopia a violation of the pact, was there?

Secretary STIMSON. No; I do not think so. The whole question of recognition came up afterward.

Mr. Vores. The pact was in effect when these two conquests were approved, which strikes me as being in violation of the pact.

Secretary STIMSON. It is a fact that nearly all these other violations have not been recognized, and that was due to the initiative of the American Government.

Mr. Vores. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Secretary, let me see if I can put u matter which was brought up a couple of times in a form that would be more acceptable. In the case of a German victory, an Axis victory, regardless of your opinion or the opinion of this committee as to the probable success of any attack on the Western Hemisphere, is it your opinion that a reasonable concern for the defense of this country would make necessary continued military and naval appropriations, possibly for a considerable period that might well run beyond any that is involved in aid to Britain at this time?

Secretary STIMSON. I am sorry that I did not hear all of that question, Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Whether or not we think that an Axis attempt on this hemisphere would be probable and practicable, wonld it be necessary

in the interest of reasonable concern for our national defense to maintain, and to make expenditures for defense, such as would not be necessary were Germany not successful?

Secretary Srimson. If I understand your question, I think certainly that is so.

Mr. STEARNS In other words, it is not purely a question of what you happen today, or what the committee happens today, to think as to the probable success of any such attack.

Secretary STIMSON. That is true.

Mr. STEARNS. One other question. There has been some difficulty raised with regard to the phrase at the bottom of page 2 of the act, beginning on page 3, to exchange, lease, lend or otherwise dispose of, the contention being that “otherwise dispose of” means that we were to give

As I understand it, it is your belief that subsection (b) calling for terms and conditions, implies that some quid pro quo will always be called for.

Secretary STIMSON. Yes; that is my opinion.

Mr. STEARNS. You would have no objection, then, to some amendment of that phrase, "otherwise disposed of,” which would make that perfectly clear?

Secretary STIMSON. I think it is clear now, sir. But I do not mean to be dogmatic. That is for the committee to say. I think it is perfectly clear; clause (b) modifies clause 2 up above.

Mr. STEARNS. Such an amendment, in your opinion, would be merely a clarifying amendment.

Secretary STIMSON. I would interpret it the way I indicated. I think I heard no suggestion that anybody else would take any other view.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Secretary, I know it is getting late, and this may be too large a question, but I should be very interested to know about the functions of the production and procluction management under the bill in their relation to your Department.

Secretary STIMSON. Is there anything in the bill about it?
Mr. STEARNS. No; but there is a question-

Secretary Stimson. I thought you were referring to something I had forgotten. I did not remember that it was referred to in this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you wish to answer that question?
Secretary STIMSON. Have you finished the question on that?

Mr. STEARNS. I should like to have your description of the functions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stearns, as long as there is nothing in the bill which refers to that particularly, I do not see the good of going into that now.

Secretary Stimson. It is a pretty big question, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. STEARNS. I realize it is.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you concluded, Mr. Stearns?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mundt.
Mr. Mundt. Mr. Chairman, it is past 12:30, and I am perfectly
willing to continue. I have, I would say, about 10, or 12, or 15
questions; that will be determined by what answers come.

The CHAIRMAN. How many questions, Mr. Mundt?
Mr. MUNDT. Ten or twelve.

The CHAIRMAN. Ten or twelve questions?
Mr. Mundt. Or 15, depending on the answers.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead and we will see how long it will take, Mr. Mundt. I had hoped we could conclude with the Secretary.

Secretary STIMSON. I should like to get back to my desk.
The CHAIRMAN. Could you bring your desk up here?

The CHAIRMAX. Please be as brief as you can. As Dr. Eaton suggests, be as merciful as you can.

Mr. MUNDr. Mr. Secretary, at the bottom of page 3—and I am quoting the statement you made in the last paragraph

Secretary Stimson. You are referring to my statement. Mr. MUNDT. Yes; at the bottom of page 3. Those who are interested primarily in the defense of this country and this hemisphere will be the ones who will make the plans for distribution-namely, members of the .Imerican Government.

Secretary Stinson. Yes.

Mr. Muxor. Now, in the interpretation of that question how many, if any of the elected officials, elected members of the American Government, will help make those decisions?

Secretary STIMSON. I was referring to the President, with his constitutional advisers.

Mr. Mundr. In other words, just the President is the only elected official.

Secretary Srimson. The bill refers to the Serritary of War and the Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. Mundt. Of the elected officials, the President is the only one. The reason I asked that question is because it is the background for my other questions, since it seems to me that under the obligation we assume as Congressmen we must attempt to understand as clearly as we can the ramifications of this bill; and here is a limitation, that once we pass this bill we relinquish the future control; is that not right?

Secretary STIMSON. You have not relinquished control over it. And you have still the job of making the appropriation for carrying it out; and you also can repeal it.

Mr. Munur. That is very true, with respect to the appropriation; but of course should this committee and the Congress adopt this as a policy of the Government, with no maximum limitation as to appropriation it could then be pretty well determined as a permanent policy that we should continuu, with no further control of it. We cannot expect the Appropriation Committee to circumvent acts of Congress.

Was Russia a signatory to the Paris Pact?
Secretary Stimson. I think so. I am almost sure she was.

Mr. MUNDT. I think so. I was trying to confirn, my opinion. And consequently-as a matter of fact the invasion of Finland by Russia was a violation of that pact?

Secretary Stimson. If you interpret it that way I will not make

Mr. Munur. Thank you. The point I am making is that in this matter of international law, if we follow the conclusion expressed by Secretary Hull and by you, that where one nation has violated one

any dissent.


of the provisions of international law—and there is a possibility that the provisions of the Paris Pact were international law-it permits all other nations to violate all international law, do not we as a peaceful republio run the hazard of selecting as between a group of aggressors and saying to them: “We are going to help to the fullest extent of our ability the power of resistance of the one against whom you have committed the act of aggression," and take no such action bet ween another set of victims and aggressors; and then are we not in accordance with law and common sense violating our position of neutrality?

Secretary STIMSON. You are not violating your position of neutrality. You are electing as to what kind of national defense you may want and electing to act when needful to your defense.

Nr. MUNDT. But it seems to me that we, being in the family of nations, from the standpoint of maintaining peaceful relationship among them, ought not to say that under one set of circumstances we are going to become a participant to the extent of providing arms, munitions, and materials, because we feel that we can do that even though we have violated international law; and in another set of circumstances, that are identical and siinilar insofar as poor little Finland is concerned being a victim of aggression, we are going to say, “do not believe, that under international law, we participate.

Secretary STIMSON. That is a very, very questionable statement of the situation. We were trying once to organize a rule of law in this great world of ours. The Kellogg Pact was one of the steps taken by the nations, and that Kellogg Pact, if taken fully, had very far reaching consequences. Now there has come a time when the whole situation has changed, as Mr. Hull has described to you gentle

A group of outlaw nations has upset the entire organization of the world down to its very bottom, the very foundation upon which we tried to build the pillar of law we were interested in before. What are we faced with? We are faced with, first of all, what Mr. Hull told you, the defense of this country. So you will agree with me our first duty is there.

Mr. MUNDT. Correct.

Secretary STIMSON. And we are going to guide our course by that. We are not going to take on every ruffian that may be left in the backwoods, but we are taking on the gangsters that are threatening our home, and we are confining ourselves to thint.

What I said to you yesterday was that as against the gangsters that are threatening us, they had waived the old rules of international law when they violated the Kellogg Pact, and they cannot, and we cannot have thrown against us the artificial defense that in defending ourselves against them, or in helping somebody else defend us against them, we are violating these old rules of international law. But what happened in some other part of the world where there was no danger of attack being made on us has no bearing on the question that I discussed yesterday.

Mr. Mundr. I am not contending, Mr. Secretary, that we should have offered the type of aid the bill provides to Finland. I was rather raising the point that if in the future should there be an aggression, perhaps by Russia, or a state or country against another country,

« PreviousContinue »