« PreviousContinue »
that are involved in our own defense can safely be given to England at this time. It is a moot question, that is, as to what is to be spared. That is quite evident from the testimony of the Secretaries, as it seemed as if it were going to be a difficult thing to decide. The bill puts the power of decision entirely in the hands of the President—any President—and we have to trust implicitly the judgment of that President.
In your opinion, would we be unfair in our judgment if we were influenced by the announcement in the papers this morning that our airplanes were going to Russia and not England? Would you think that might have a bearing on our judgments?
Mr. MacNIDER. Mrs. Bolton, I do not know how to answer that.
Mrs. BOLTON. Would it seem to you that it was a peculiar moment to give planes to Russia ?
Mr. MACNIDER. Yes, indeed.
Mrs. BOLTON. A few moments ago when there was some questionsometimes we do not always hear, but I understood that you were challenged in regard to the Monroe Doctrine and as to your sense of what it was. I wonder if I might clear the record and ask you if this is your understanding of it?
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Bolton, pardon me, but unless you put the whole annual message of President Monroe, of December 2, 1823, into the record, there will be objection to it. I will have to object. The Monroe Doctrine, as we all know, is a message to the Congress by President Monroe. Now, to understand the Monroe Doctrine, of course we all have our own opinion as to what the Monroe Doctrine really means, but to have the record clear I have no objection to having the entire message of President Monroe appear in the record. But to read parts of it I object.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fish. The lady does not want to discuss the entire Monroe Doctrine, but only an extract of the Monroe Doctrine. The proposal you make is that if we want to discuss one section of the Constitution of the United States we have to put the whole Constitution in the record ?
The CHAIRMAN. Not at all.
Mr. FISH. All she is asking is to read one or two lines and maybe three lines at the most which will prove exactly the contention of the witness whose testimony was directly challenged by a member of this committee. And in all fairness I ask that permission be granted to the lady to read the very wording of the Monroe Doctrine in this respect.
The CHAIRMAN. The Monroe Doctrine is a message. It is not what you think or anyone else thinks, Mr. Fish, and I have no objection to having the entire message placed in the record, but to read one or two parts of it does not clarify what the Monroe Doctrine really means. What the lady intends reading is not in her own words, and I think it is wrong to read an excerpt. We are not here to debate the Monroe Doctrine and if you want to have the entire message of President Monroe put in the record, I have no objection. But if you read a part of it, I have objection, or if you want to read all of it, I have no objection.
Mr. Fish. According to the contention you make, even if we wanted to discuss one phase of the Declaration of Independence, we would have to put the entire Declaration of Independence into the record ?
The CHAIRMAN. Not at all.
Mr. Fish. If we followed your statement out logically and wanted to discuss one angle of the Farewell Address of George Washington, we would have to put in the entire Farewell Address of George Washington into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Not at all.
Mr. Fish. I submit that that is a very unfair position for you to take to cut off the lady from reading an extract from the Monroe Doctrine.
The CHAIRMAN. It is not the intention of the Chair to cut off the lady. Any question she may want to ask is all right. But the Monroe Doctrine is not a special or specific thing. It is an entire message which takes up several pages and to clarify the Monroe Doctrine which I am willing to do, let us have the entire message of President Monroe at that time.
Mr. Fish. Mr. Chairman, if you object, of course I will have to appeal from the decision of the Chair. I hope you will not do this. It is perfectly obvious that the lady is within her right in quoting an extract from the Monroe Doctrine. She does not care to take a half hour to read the entire Monroe Doctrine.
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Fish, may I be permitted to speak to my own question?
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Bolton?
Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman, I was merely trying to clarify the situation in which I think the committee finds itself, to simplify the question whether it was a certain very small passage of the Monroe Doctrine, as it is so called, whether that was the understanding which the witness had of the Monroe Doctrine. Now, if the Chair objects, then I shall want, of course, to ask unanimous consent to have the entire material put into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not object to the entire material being printed into the record if you print it all.
Mrs. BOLTON. But I think it is unfortunate that a small clause should not be permitted to be read to clarify the witness' position.
The CHAIRMAN. We are not debating the Monroe Doctrine. The Chair will hold we are not debating the Monroe Doctrine.
Mrs. BOLTON. I am not debating the Monroe Doctrine.
The CHAIRMAN. We are debating a bill which we have before us under consideration. The Chair does not object to placing the message of President Monroe, under date of December 2, 1823, into the record. The Chair does not object to reading the whole message if you wish to.
Mrs. BOLTON. The Chair is not interested in finding out whether the meaning of the witness was a certain meaning or not?
The CHAIRMAN. Well, if we are going to open a debate on the Monroe Doctrine, why we will stay here for quite a while and as Dr. Eaton said yesterday, if we are going to proceed in this manner, why the war will be over before we get through. Mrs. BOLTON. That is the statement of the gentleman on your right.
The CHAIRMAN. If you want to open a debate on the Monroe Doctrine, each member should have the right to express an opinion on it.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the witness be permitted to answer the question. Somebody challenged him as to his
understanding of it, and I think the witness is entitled to clarify his testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. You can answer the question.
Mrs. BOLTON. My question was this: Your understanding of the foreign end of the Monroe Doctrine "that in wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we do not take any part and that it is very definitely against the policy to do so; that we do not interfere in the internal concerns of those powers”—is that your understanding!
Mr. MACNIDER. That is exactly what I had in mind.
Mrs. BOLTON. That was all of the Monroe Doctrine which I wanted to ask about. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eberharter?
Mr. WASIELEWSKI. Colonel MacNider, I believe there are two important matters on which you and the majority of the committee agree, and they are that we do not wish to get into war, and the second that we would like to see the democracies victorious in this battle abroad. Now, do you believe that Hitler has any designs on the Western Hemisphere!
Mr. MacNIDER. I do not know.
Mr. WASIELEWSKI. Now, should Hitler prevail in this battle and attempt to take over any South American countries, either by infiltration or by military conquest, under the Monroe Doctrine do you not believe we would be automatically drawn into combat with him?
Mr. MacNIDER. Yes.
Mr. WASIELEWSKI. Under those circumstances the war would be brought pretty close to our door, would it not?
Mr. MACNIDER. Well, that is not very close.
Mr. WASIELEWSKI. It would be brought into the Western Hemisphere, anyway? Mr. MACNIDER. Yes
Mr. WASIELEWSKI. Now, if events take a turn, which we hope heaven will protect us from, and we should be brought into conflict, do you believe that it would be far better for us to keep it from our shores rather than have it brought to us directly?
Mr. MacNIDER. That is assuming we are already at war? Am I right? Mr. WASIELEWSKI. Yes. Mr. MacNIDER. Certainly. I would take it to them.
Mr. WASIELEWSKI. Then under those circumstances the bill we have under discussion before us is a bill which in its opening statement sets forth it is for the purpose of promoting the defense of the United States through giving assistance to democracies that are engaged in battle today. Do you not believe we can assure our being kept out of war by giving all possible aid to Great Britain and other democracies?
Mr. MacNIDER. Well, I do, if we stay within the laws that are now upon our statute books. Mr. WASIELEWSKI. Thank you. That is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sikes?
Mr. SIKES. Colonel MacNider, there is a point I would like to see clarified. You stated a little while ago that in your opinion a victorious Germany would have to trade with this country. Is that true! Do you believe that?
Mr. MAONIDER. No; I did not say that.
Mr. Sikes. As I understood the question it was whether a victorious Germany would have to trade with us and you agreed. That was my understanding.
Mr. MACNIDER. That is not what I intended to say.
The CHAIRMAN. Colonel MacNider, this committee appreciates very, very much your being here today and your testimony is very welcome.
Ňr. MACNIDER. I thank you, Mr. Bloom, and thank you for your courtesy.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to announce that tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock we will have Colonel Lindbergh as a witness before the committee. The first three rows will be reserved for Members of Congress and their wives, who want to hear the testimony given here tomorrow by Colonel Lindbergh and General Johnson, who, I believe, will be heard in the afternoon. The doors will be open in time to allow the people to take their seats in the other part of the hall, but the first three rows will be reserved for Members of Congress and their wives.
The committee stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., the committee took a recess until 10 a. m., Thursday, January 23, 1941.)
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1941
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Sol Bloom (chairman) presiding.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will kindly come to order. Our witness this morning, before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, is Col. Charles A. Lindbergh.
STATEMENT OF COL. CHARLES A. LINDBERGH, LLOYD NECK,
NEW YORK The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, we shall be very glad to have you proceed at this time.
Colonel LINDBERGH. May I have permission to read an outline of what I believe the committee is interested in, from the invitation that I received to appear here?
The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, you may proceed in any way you see fit and make any statement you wish. The committee appreciates your coming here to give us what information you may have to offer with reference to the legislation that we have under consideration. Please proceed in your own way.
Colonel LINDBERGH. Thank you, sir.
I understand that I have been asked to appear before this committee to discuss the effect of aviation upon America's position in time of war. I believe that this effect can be summed up briefly by saying that our position is greatly strengthened for defense and greatly weakened for attack.
I base this statement upon two facts. First, that an invading army and its supplies must still be transported by sea. Second, that aviation makes it more difficult than ever before for a navy to approach a hostile shore.
In support of these facts, I cite, for the first, the minute carrying capacity of aircraft in relation to the weight of equipment and supplies required for a major expeditionary force; and for the second, the experience of the British Navy off the Norwegian coast and in the North Sea.
I do not believe there is any danger of an invasion of this continent, either by sea or by air, as long as we maintain an Army, Navy, and Air Force of reasonable size and in modern condition, and provided we establish the bases essential for defense.