Page images
PDF
EPUB

Secretary HULL. Suppose you refresh my mind by stating what they are.

Mr. TINKHAM. Well, the Alabama Adjudications were that any boat outfitted in a neutral country or country that said it was neutral or asserted its neutrality, if finally sent to sea after notification that it was a belligerent boat and outfitted at sea and then preyed upon the commerce of another country, that damages should be given to the country upon whose commerce it preyed. It is a very wellknown international case.

Assuming that this is the case, as I have stated it, very roughly, to be sure, does not this legislation entirely abrogate the principles of law that must have been involved in the Alabama case?

Secretary HULL. There is not much for me to say further on this question of neutrality. I have said we have been fighting for neutrality during these past years and urging each country now playing a lawless role to observe it. They have departed entirely from it. We are still clinging to the form and shadows of neutrality, but we are not going to allow that consideration to chloroform us into a policy of inactivity in the way of preparing our national defense.

Mr. TINKHAM. But you propose in this bill, if I understand it, to allow not only the outfitting but the repairs of vessels contrary to international law and contrary to the precedent of the Alabama claims and the Alabama International case. And it seems to me that we abrogate the principles of the Alabama case if we do that. My question to you was whether you thought we did or not.

Secretary HULL. If the belligerent governments ignore all neutrality laws and the law on which the Alabama case rested, then we will undertake to respond to the law of self-preservation when that is more immediate and calling for affirmative action.

Mr. TINKHAM. In other words, international law is no longer to apply to our policy and our actions although we have not been attacked and no hostile act has been committed against us? Am I correct?

Secretary HULL. There is no occasion, there are no facts on which to apply neutrality when the law of self-defense comes ahead.

Mr. TINKHAM. We have not been attacked, Mr. Secretary, have we? Secretary HULL. That is what they said in Holland and Poland. Mr. TINKHAM. Well, as I mentioned, they were little countries. They were across an imaginary boundary line and we have 3,000 miles of ocean between us. We have a splendid Navy. We have a growing air force, and what applied to Holland and Belgium and Denmark and Norway in the essence of things cannot be, in my opinion, applied to the United States in any way.

Secretary HULL. I must protest against the complacency that you manifest.

Mr. TINKHAM. There is no complacency, I assure you. There is quite the reverse of complacency. I am intensively and actively opposing what I believe is a movement toward war by this legislation. Secretary HULL. It is the best possible assurance in the state of danger confronting us from different angles against being drawn into war.

Mr. TINKHAM. You and I, of course, differ there profoundly. I am for neutrality and you are for intervention. Not only intervention

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, no; Mr. Tinkham.

Mr. TINKHAM. Perhaps that is going too far. It is all right. I do not care. It will not make any difference to me.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but I think the Secretary has been very considerate in answering any question. Please do not put words in his mouth.

Mr. TINKHAM. I think he has answered very few of them.
The CHAIRMAN. He has answered them anyway.

Mr. ARNOLD. I was very considerate in not taking too much time. I thought everyone on the committee would be given an opportunity to question the Secretary. I wonder if the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts would not reserve some of his questions for future witnesses.

Mr. TINKHAM. I feel that he is the principal witness because he fixes and represents the foreign policy of the United States and he is now before us. If he is willing to come again, of course, I will postpone my questions to any date or any time convenient to him. But I do think that as a member of this committee I should ask every question I think is pertinent in relation to war or peace in the United States. The CHAIRMAN. That is very true but please do not continue asking the same questions over and over again when the Secretary has already answered them.

Secretary HULL. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement?
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary.

Secretary HULL. In view of the value of time to all of us, would it be pertinent to inquire whether instead of keeping all the committee here the gentleman from Massachusetts might suspend in order to allow other members to ask any questions they have and then, at some time convenient to you and to myself and to any others who may desire to attend, we can go further?

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, that will be perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. TINKHAM. That will be perfectly satisfactory to me if the Secretary will return here to the public hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary has made that statement.

Mr. TINKHAM. And I can ask him those questions. That will be perfectly satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, I think you know how extremely glad I am that you are here.

Secretary HULL. Thank you.

Mrs. ROGERS. I have been with this committee in the past, as you know, and I endeavor to be kept fully informed as to our international affairs. I have asked repeatedly before that you, the Secretary of State, and others appear before the committee.

Secretary HULL. I am so glad that you do me the honor to come to my office frequently to discuss foreign affairs.

Mrs. ROGERS. I have come to your office and I have enjoyed those conversations very much.

I feel the entire committee should be given the valuable information you have at your command.

Secretary HULL. I think you know that it is not possible for me to give a blueprint ahead in times like these. But I can, in a much more quiet way than before everybody, say things that I could not otherwise say.

Mrs. ROGERS. That may be true, but there are also many things which should be told to us as a committee. And the reason I think England is going ahead at present with her defense is because she has been given very complete information as to the national and the international situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rogers, please ask a question.

Mrs. ROGERS. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that you or the Secretary would object to having me comment publicly on the behavior of the career men of the Foreign Service. It seems to me that their behavior has been beyond reproach. They have stayed at their posts. They have not run away, and many of them have been under fire. I wish I could say the same of the noncareer men. Secretary HULL. That is very gratifying to those of us who are immediately associated with them.

Mrs. ROGERS. I wish I could say the same for some of the noncareer men. I feel they have been unwise in many of their statements. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentlewoman yield? I wish to say to the Secretary of State that immediately after the questions are asked by other members of the committee, we will recess until after lunch, so if the Secretary or anyone else in the room wishes to go out now or stay here, they may do so.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, do you not feel that you have the view that it would be a more honest thing to repeal the so-called Johnson Act and to repeal the so-called Neutrality Act? I think the Secretary may know that I voted against the Neutrality Act in the beginning because I felt you could not legislate neutrality and therefore you might as well not have it inasmuch as it might lead us into war rather than keep us out of war.

Secretary HULL. If you will pardon me, I referred to the fact, in my written statement here, that the Johnson Act is not interfered with by the proposed bill, and only three or four provisions of the so-called Neutrality Act are interfered with. I think the other question is hardly raised so far as this bill is concerned. Now, as to the broad general policy of those steps, I would like to have another occasion to discuss them alone and on their merits.

Mrs. ROGERS. Does not the gentleman feel it would be very much better to write into the law certain provisions under which we will give or sell or loan to Great Britain? You know, Mr. Secretary, that you have been a very distinguished Member of the Congress. You know that we Members of Congress are going to be asked the same questions that we are asking you. We are searching for the truth today. Do you not feel, Mr. Secretary, that lenders are always hated by the borrowers? Would it not be very much better if we could have a quid pro quo? Great Britain is a very prosperous country. Could she not give us something in return? Could she not sell us something?

Secretary HULL. I think I have a record on that general subject running back over a good many years. It is really up to the Treasury to take the lead in discussing that question. I hesitate to break in on the remarks that the Secretary sitting here is ready to offer on those questions.

Mrs. ROGERS. But does it not affect our relations with foreign governments materially?

Secretary HULL. I am assuming that the whole purpose will be to make such profitable arrangements as may be mutual, so far as that phase is concerned.

Mrs. ROGERS. But would it not be better to have it written into the law, than to have such a general sweeping provision as is now in the law?

Secretary HULL. Let us get back to the purpose of the bill which is to aid in the defense of the United States by rendering certain military aid to Great Britain. As I say, no one has offered any comprehensive substitute for the method that is here proposed for that purpose. I am so extremely concerned about the speed and effectiveness of this aid that, as I said awhile ago, when the house is on fire I do not undertake to argue at length, at least about the different methods of extinguishing it. But certainly I have assumed, as to this particular phase, that our Government would be diligent and take care of the interests of the Government in the fullest practical manner.

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes; but I think the Congress should take that move. You see, we have the responsibility of the welfare of the country, Mr. Secretary, and you speak about speed. It is amazing to me for the Government departments to come before us at the present time and speak about speed when for months and months and months and months we could have been given the most valuable information and we have not received it. For instance, here in paragraph 4 it says: To communicate to any such government any defense information pertaining to any defense article furnished to such government under paragraph 2 of this subsection.

and so far as I can find out, Mr. Secretary, the members of the Naval Affairs Committee cannot get that secret information. It seems to me that that information

Secretary HULL. What is that?

Mrs. ROGERS. May I finish my question?

Secretary HULL. Yes; I did not understand you, that is the reason I interrupted you. Do you mind repeating that question? I do not know just what it is.

Mrs. ROGERS. I beg your pardon, Mr. Secretary. It says to communicate to any such government any defense information pertaining to any defense article furnished to such government under paragraph

2 of this subsection.

Secretary HULL. What is that from?

Mrs. ROGERS. That is on page 3 of this H. R. 1776.

Secretary HULL. Oh, I thought you were complaining because something had not been furnished you some time ago, some months ago. Mrs. ROGERS. No, this is written into the bill. I realize you did not write it and perhaps you may have forgotten this particular provision.

Secretary HULL. I must refer you to the Army and Navy to deal with those things. I have nothing to do with it.

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes; but it does not seem that the information should be given to foreign governments when it is not given to the Members of Congress, Mr. Secretary. We have an oath of office which we take and we are more to be trusted that any foreign nation. Does not the Secretary think so?

Secretary HULL. I hope that you will give the same credit to the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War. They are not going to abuse any authority they may have.

Mrs. ROGERS. But you see we have felt we have not been fully informed and it is our duty, Mr. Secretary, to protect our people. We must be informed in order to act for their protection.

Secretary HULL. If you have not been, I am not advised to that effect.

Mrs. ROGERS. We are interested very much in the protection of our country and we should be kept fully informed as to the European situation and the Asiatic situation.

Secretary HULL. Of course, I cannot offer myself as a witness, but I have almost talked my head off for about 3 or 4 years about the conditions abroad and what was developing. But most of our people have been engrossed in domestic affairs, unfortunately.

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes; I see you have considered, in your prepared statement, only certain phases of it. I understood you to say you have not considered sending armed forces as a result of this bill?

Secretary HULL. No; I have not discussed that with anyone.

Mrs. ROGERS. We must consider that, Mr. Secretary. You can see why we should want to ask such questions. I wish you felt that you could answer that.

Secretary HULL. Of course, that is a matter for the President and I take his word on it. He made a statement, either in his message or in a recent public address, on that subject. That is the latest information I have.

Mrs. ROGERS. It seems to me that the President's address delivered before the Congress, plus this bill, would embark us-if this were enacted and we followed his advice-on a policy of policing the entire world.

Secretary HULL. I do not think there is anything in anybody's mind now except to aid those who are resisting this world movement which threatens this hemisphere.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you not think we should mention in the bill the countries we should aid?

Secretary HULL. I beg your pardon?

Mrs. ROGERS. It is a very large order that we are undertaking. I frankly do not see how we are going to pay the bill.

Secretary HULL. Unless you desire, as I have said here, and you will pardon me if I repeat it, unless you desire to omit any relief to any country that may be attacked later in this same movement by these same three governments.

Mrs. ROGERS. But we are all going to be here in continuous session as we were in the last year and it seems to me we can as conditions arise instead of giving such a blanket authority pass upon the immediate question at the time it comes up.

Secretary HULL. That is a matter you can talk out with each other and with my associates who will be here. But I do hope that it will not handicap the speed of the efforts that are contemplated by this measure in the way of giving help to Great Britain and certain other countries.

Mrs. ROGERS. May I say to you, Mr. Secretary, knowing the people of the country and how vitally interested they are today together with

« PreviousContinue »