the membership of the House, that the passage of this bill would be secured much more speedily if we were given all the facts. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you do not think it would be a good plan also to ask the British Defense Commission to appear before us and have them tell us the condition they are in; what they need; what they are prepared to give us in exchange for our help to them. It does not seem to me that we ought to go upon hearsay. We want to act upon the facts.

Secretary HULL. I imagine that you can decide that matter better after you get what the Secretary of the Treasury will have to give you on that subject.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve further questions until the Secretaries make their appearance, out of courtesy to other Members who wish to question the Secretary.

I thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chiperfield.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Did I understand you to state that in your opinion this bill did not in any way affect the Johnson Act?

Secretary HULL. That is the way I understand it. It relates to a governmental activity which is not covered by the Johnson Act.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. In view of the lateness of the hour I would like to ask just one other question.

Has Germany or Italy in any way violated our neutrality?

Secretary HULL. There have been violations of international law and of nearly every obligation that I can think of as it relates to relations of the German Government. I am not undertaking at the moment to do more than cite to you a long list of public statements by the head of the German Government about the unlimited scope and nature and purpose of his movement. And if there is anything in his word, that is notice that the same thing will happen to our neutrality as has been experienced by Holland and Denmark and those unfortunate countries that have been swallowed up.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Secretary, has there been any overt act in violation of our rights as neutrals by Germany or Italy?

Secretary HULL. Well, as I say, there was no overt act under their system and I hope you will keep that in mind. Under their system one would imagine that they are the very soul of neutrality until they reach a country which they desire to seize and to swallow up, and then they do not even inquire whether it has been neutral or not. They do not care whether it has been neutral or not. And we cannot afford to be taken in, if I may use that expression, in the light of that experience, especially when they give public notice to the world about the unlimited extent and nature of their movements.

Mr. VORYS. I heard your explanation of that before but my question was whether there has been any overt act against us to date?

Secretary HULL. At the moment, I would not-I hope I may be strictly accurate in everything I say here-I would not undertake without a little reflection to go into that kind of thing in detail. But I have been, I think, entirely accurate in pointing out the avowed purpose which would include any kind of violations against us if and when we are reached.

Mr. VORYS. As I understand it, this bill before us would modify or violate the Declaration of Panama with reference to outfitting ships in the Western Hemisphere; is not that correct?

Secretary HULL. There would be apparently a technical difference between it and one or two phases of that declaration. But I hope you will keep in mind that these are more apparent than real. If we observe a policy of preparation for national defense we have to determine when that policy should be put into effect. We can either cling, as I say, to the forms or shadows of a neutrality that have vanished into thin air under the operations of the belligerents and assume that that will protect us; or we can recognize the realities of this situation and recognize the conditions presented as conditions to which other acts and other laws such as neutrality are not applicable unless we are going to give away our opportunity for national defense. In other words, when that law of self-defense practically and wisely presents itself, we do not want to abandon it in order to follow after the shadows and the forms of something that would stand between us and preparation for defense. That is the point I make. You can bring in some of those things which are wholly inapplicable to the present condition of danger and make them stand between and block our preparation for defense. That is what I am trying to get over to

you.

Mr. VORYS. As I understand it, the Declaration of Panama was entered into as a matter of preparing for hemisphere defense; is not that correct?

Secretary HULL. To be sure.

Mr. VORYS. And part of that was that all of the American republics agreed not to outfit belligerent ships; is not that correct? As a part of our defense they agreed?

Secretary HULL. And at the same time they agreed and notified everybody that force would not be used to put the Declaration of Panama into operation.

Mr. VORYS. I wonder whether we have already consulted with the other signatories so that we know whether this unilateral change is agreeable and in keeping with our hemisphere defense policy?

Secretary HULL. We seek to keep on the most friendly and intimate relations with every other American nation pertaining to this and all other matters of mutual concern.

Mr. VORYS. Would it be proper to ask whether you have had an expression from the other countries, the other American republics, as to whether this, our outfitting of ships, for instance, would be acceptable to them?

Secretary HULL. We have not gone into that particular phase of shipping. I think it is accurate to say that our general policy of striving to promote our national defense by aiding the British in a material way has met with a generally favorable reaction among the other American nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman mind an interruption? It is getting after the lunch hour. How many more questions have you? Mr. VORYS. I have a number of questions and so have the other gentlemen down here.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we had better recess until 2:30 and then ask the other questions when the Secretary returns before the committee.

Mr. FISH. Would you rather finish now?

The CHAIRMAN. Whether he would rather finish or not it is a question that it is past the lunch hour. The Secretary has been on the witness stand nearly 3 hours.

Secretary HULL. Whatever suits the convenience of the committee will suit me.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I had a number of questions which seemed to me to be of help possibly to the committee and which I wanted to ask the Secretary, since he is our first witness, and the answers to those questions would clear up in my mind things that might be of benefit to the committee to know. I wonder if I cannot continue.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, this is probably the most important bill that has ever been presented to the Congress. I think every member of the committee wants a full and free discussion. I think every member of the committee is entitled to ask questions of the Secretary of State. And if the Secretary of State cannot come back after lunch then I hope we can have some arrangements made so that the gentleman can continue and finish with his presentation.

Secretary HULL. I will be glad to cancel my other arrangements long enough to come back here, if that is desirable, after lunch.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious we cannot finish this. at the present time, and I move that we recess until 2:30.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will second the motion.

The CHAIRMAN. It is moved and seconded that the committee recess until 2:30.

(Whereupon, at 1:05 p. m., the committee recessed until 2:30 p. m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The recess having expired, the committee reconvened at 2:30 o'clock p. m., Hon. Sol Bloom (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We will resume with the Secretary of State.

STATEMENT OF HON. CORDELL HULL Resumed

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Secretary, you said in your statement before us this morning:

The present bill sets up machinery which will enable us to make the most effective use of our resources for our own needs

and then in answer to a question you said this was primarily a matter of speeding up production for ourselves. Will you point out any way in which this bill provides for speeding up production for ourselves, for our own needs?

Secretary HULL. This is the butt of the entire movement of speeding up now and during recent weeks. It unifies the whole system of production by avoiding conflicting situations with regard to British orders and British deliveries, and unifies the matter in many ways so as to make it possible to facilitate the furnishing of military supplies both to our own defense forces and to the British forces.

Mr. VORYS. Where in this bill is there any provision that affects our own production at all?

Secretary HULL. I was telling you the situation as a whole. It is in relation to the simplification and unification of the productive agencies

as they would undertake to supply both this country primarily, and the British with whatever excess might be possible.

Mr. VORYS. But, is there any provision in the bill that affects our own production at all?

Secretary HULL. I am trying to get over to you the idea that steps are being taken during this period in many ways-this is one of themto simplify and speed up by unifying, by avoiding duplication and conflicting efforts.

Mr. VORYS. So that this bill has to do primarily with production for Britain; is not that correct?

Secretary HULL. The major purpose is to facilitate, as the bill says, aid to Great Britain as a part of our defense.

Mr. VORYS. Then it was not primarily a matter of speeding production for ourselves?

Secretary HULL. It is for the purpose of speeding production all along the line, as a matter of fact, but primarily for ourselves; in other words, our whole foreign policy in relation to the national defense is based on our safety and security, primarily,

Mr. VORYS. In your statement you drew a distinction between our needs and the needs of those whom, in our own self-defense, we are determined to aid. And this morning you said this was primarily a matter of speeding up production for ourselves. Now, do you wish to correct that?

Secretary HULL. No; I do not wish to correct it. I just wish you could get on a little broader line, if you would allow me to suggest it. Mr. VORYS. I am merely asking you to point out where in this legislation there is anything that has to do with our own production. Secretary HULL. I do not care to repeat what I have said on that subject, that this is a part of many efforts that are being made now to consolidate and unify and speed up the whole production and distribution situation. It would primarily relate to our needs and, in the same connection, the British needs. To be frank, I do not see the occasion for any attempted distinction there.

Mr. VORYS. You made the distinction yourself; that is why I am asking the question.

Secretary HULL. I think the world is moving faster, too fast for us to stop and try to reconcile purely minor verbiage that is not material in any general sense.

Mr. VORYS. What is the meaning of the word "defense" as used throughout this bill? That is, has it any technical meaning or special meaning, according to its diplomatic or technical usage?

Secretary HULL. I had not heard that suggested before.

Mr. VORYS. Of course, this is entitled, "Further to promote the defense," and so forth. Then in the definitions the words "defense article" are used. That is defined as being an article for defense, and the President is given the discretion that he is given in the interest of national defense. The word is used many times but, of course, is not defined in this bill. Is there any definition of "defense" that we could refer to to find out how broad or how narrow the meaning is in this instance?

Secretary HULL. I do not know of anything more than what you are familiar with. The matter we have been discussing all day here is a matter of promoting our defense, frankly by furnishing military

supplies to a country that is resisting the same attack that is moving our way, or at least that is creating imminent danger to this hemisphere and hence to us.

Mr. VORYS. There is no special or technical meaning, then, or limited meaning in the use of "defense" in this bill?

Secretary HULL. I have said to you exactly what I consider the scope and nature of the proposal.

Mr. VORYS. The word "defense" involves all of the explanation you have given us today; is not that true? Whenever you have used that term, you have used it in the sense that it is being referred to in this bill; is not that true?

Secretary HULL. I have used it in the sense of our efforts to promote defense. I think you will recall that I undertook to set forth all of the important phases of our international relations leading up to what many of us consider a state of imminent danger to this hemisphere.

I thought I would find more interest, frankly, in that, than I have in some other phases. But that is what I have been undertaking to do and that includes the whole field of our national defense, whether we exert it individually or more or less in cooperation with countries in South and Central America, or in the way of lending certain military supplies to a number of countries, such as Great Britain, who are engaged in resistance.

Mr. VORYS. To come back to the meaning of defense, there is hardly any commodity or article that you can imagine that might not under certain circumstances be a commodity or article for defense; is that not true?

Secretary HULL. Of course, we can speculate here for several days on the whole category of commodities, and then we can argue for 12 months on which ones are capable of being used for national defense, and which ones might possibly be used, and which would not be. As to which category you would rather take up first, I leave that to you. Mr. VORYS. I know that this bill has been drafted so as to leave those categories very broad.

Secretary HULL. Naturally, the bill speaks for itself on that point. Mr. VORYS. It does not speak for itself, because it uses a word that is not defined, and I am trying to find out whether there is any special definition or whether that is to be left in the discretion of our officials.

Secretary HULL. The bill, as you say, is broad enough to relate to many commodities. Of course, you get down after all to the question whether you are going to pursue a policy of aiding Britain or whether you are going to bury the whole matter in technical discussions.

Mr. VORYS. Are there any precedents for this bill in our history? Secretary HULL. There are many precedents where nations have been attacked by invading countries that have fought for their lives jointly and severally. There have been occasions, as you know, where law-abiding nations have been attacked, and some have fought and some have trusted to the magnanimity of the invader and have been swallowed up without fighting.

Mr. VORYS. I meant, in our whole history, in our legislative history, whether in your research, it had been shown that there was any similar legislation to that proposed here.

Secretary HULL. I doubt if there has ever been, but I think you will agree that there has not been any similar danger confronting us to that which is now confronting us.