Mr. RICHARDS. I accept that. Now, General, I am certain of this, because I have never been more certain of a man's patriotism than I am of yours-you agree that our form of government is probably the best in the world. We agree to that, do we not?

General JOHNSON. Well, I do.

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes-well, I do. Now, have there not come times, emergencies in peace times, and in times of danger of war, when this Congress time after time has seen fit to vest emergency powers, additional powers, in the hands of the President of the United States?

General JOHNSON. Yes-carefully guarded-piece by piece as the necessity arose, and not to give them all away the way this bill does. Mr. RICHARDS. Well, I do not agree with you that it gives them all away. I will not enter into an argument on that.

General JOHNSON. There may be a little, there.

Mr. RICHARDS. I do not agree that it gives them all away. Now, as a matter of fact, General, it has been found necessary for the welfare of this country, even when we did not feel that there was a dangerous condition abroad, to vest emergency powers in the President in peacetime has it not?

General JOHNSON. Yes; we did it in 1933.

Mr. RICHARDS. We did it in 1933, and you were one of the main "generals" in it, were you not?

General JOHNSON. I did not have any very great power. We did not use any very strong powers. We went out and asked for the spontaneous cooperation of the people of the United States-and got it.

Mr. RICHARDS. You did not think it was a mistake, did you? General JOHNSON. Why, certainly not. I do not think it would be a mistake now to go out and get it that way, either.

Mr. RICHARDS. You did not think it was a mistake to vest emergency powers in the President to conquer a depression, did you?

General JOHNSON. Well, I do not know what powers you are talking about. If you are talking about the N. R. A., there were no drastic powers.

Mr. RICHARDS. The time I was down there before you you surely cracked down on me as if you had drastic powers.

General JOHNSON. I do not remember when you were down, and I do not know whether I romped on you, but I will say this, that in the President's announcement of the plan of the N. R. A. to this country, and from then on, he said, "There is no compulsion, here"Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.

General JOHNSON. "Except the compulsion of good conscience and public interest." And that is all the compulsion that was used.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, the machinery of the N. R. A. could not have been operated except through the authority of one man, could it? General JOHNSON. Why, certainly. It was not. It was operated under the authority of Congress.

Mr. RICHARDS. You mean to say that you could have operated better, there, as one man, than you could have with a dozen?

General JOHNSON. That I could have? I do not get that.

Mr. RICHARDS. Or a number.

General JOHNSON. I do not get your question.

Mr. JONKMAN. Are we not discussing the N. R. A.?

288128-41- -29

The CHAIRMAN. No; I think the question is proper as showing the power of the Congress to vest authority in individuals in times of peace, delegating its power.

General JOHNSON. It is perfectly proper, and perfectly apposite. I am glad to get it.

Mr. RICHARDS. I am trying to get his views on the delegation of emergency powers. Now of course we understand, as you understood, General, the President under the Constitution has certain powers. You would not rob him of any of those powers by an amendment to the Constitution, would you?

General JOHNSON. I certainly would not; no, sir.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, you will grant that those powers that he has, given him by our fathers, are such that if he were to abuse those powers he could carry this country to war tomorrow, regardless of this bill or any other bill, could he not?

General JOHNSON. No; I do not. I do not believe any man can carry this country into a war until he has first softened it up and gotten the public opinion behind him to carry it into a war, because if he attempts to take it into war, there is only the one case we have in our history, probably, and that is the Mexican war, and even then the country came around to the invasion of Mexico. No; I do not believe anybody can put this country into war tomorrow by his own act, because still the powers of Congress are there, and among them is the power of impeachment.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, I did not mean "effective war," but you will admit this, General, that the President could put this country into war by ordering the Army or Navy somewhere, which would cause some incident to happen that would raise a popular outcry all over the land, and we would be in war before we know it?

General JOHNSON. Well, that is a psychological conclusion. I do not know whether he could or not. That is a question.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, that would be a natural result, would it not? General JOHNSON. In some circumstances it would, and in some circumstances it certainly would not. General Grant tried to do that in annexing one of the Caribbean Islands, but it did not work.

Mr. RICHARDS. I noticed in one of your articles a few days ago that you stressed limitation of the congressional power to go to war, too. I would like to hear you on that.

General JOHNSON. I thought I came here under the understanding I was not a columnist. I did distinguish the war powers of Congress, which I think are almost unlimited. Of course, they are not stated as unlimited, but the debate in the Federalist, the things that dropped from the framers of the Constitution indicate that the Constitution was adopted with the idea that there must be in every nation the power of ultimate self-defense, and that it went to the limit of the necessity of defense, and that power by the Constitution was lodged in Congress, but it was specifically withheld from the President.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, now, I will get a little closer back to the original point. I want to ask this, to clarify your position, General. Then you do not think there is any need for additional powers to be vested anywhere, in the Executive, or in a board, or anywhere else, except where the Constitution vests it, about giving the aid to Great Britain, short of war?

General JOHNSON. No, sir; I didn't say that. I said that I favored giving the President a limited appropriation, permitting him to use it, and to require him to come back for more as time required, under different authorizations, but that Congress should maintain control of the use of that power; because it is eventually the war power of the United States.

Mr. RICHARDS. And you feel that the control by Congress of the appropriation is not a sufficient control?

General JOHNSON. I know it is not, as far as this bill is concerned. Mr. RICHARDS. I wanted to ask you one more question, here. I did not understand exactly what you said in reply to a question of Mr. Fish's awhile ago. I understood you to say that there was no use putting any prohibition against the President's convoying ships, because he has the power to send convoys already.

General JOHNSON. I said he has the power to convoy ships in waters where, under the law of Congress and his own proclamation, they are authorized to go. That does not include war zones, and he could not convoy ships into war zones, as I read the Constitution and the laws, without either violating the Neutrality Act or coming back to Congress for an amendment of it.

Mr. RICHARDS. But you must remember, General, that the President has got the right under existing law to define from time to time where the war zones are.

General JOHNSON. Well, is it your idea that he would do it in violation of the established fact?

Mr. RICHARDS. No; it is not my idea that he would do that in violation of good conscience or duty, nor is it my idea that he would do anything to endanger the security of the United States, if he were given the powers in this bill. I do not think that any man with that great responsibility would do a thing like that. I do not care who he is, Democrat or Republican, I believe that he would realize the responsibility that he has, and that he is answerable to our people under the Constitution and under his oath not to lead our people willfully to war.

General JOHNSON. That is just as good an argument for scrapping the whole Constitution and giving him all the war powers of the United States as it is for this bill, and I do not believe the argument is good for either.

Mr. RICHARDS. No; I do not think it is any argument to scrap the Constitution at all. Well, what do you think about it?

General JOHNSON. About what?

Mr. RICHARDS. You asked me what the President would do. Do you think the President would abuse these powers if they were given him, here?

General JOHNSON. I do not think he would abuse the powers, but I do think that some place, in somebody's mind, I think the great composite mind of 130,000,000 reflected in Congress is the ultimate decision of how far we want to go, to expend all our blood and treasure by mixing up in a world war, not in any one man's mind. I do not think God made a man who is heavy enough to carry that responsibility. I think that is what our Constitution meant, and while I am not attacking the integrity or the patriotism of the President of the United States, and I do not want one word to be construed in that regard. I do insist that we follow the forms laid down for the conduct

of this great country, and not entrust to any man the power to involve us in war without some reference to the popular will.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well now, General, give me your suggestion, please, as to how you would write this bill, or what you would do, then.

General JOHNSON. I have tried to state it as well as I could, without going off in the other room and drawing a bill. I have done that, and could do it now, but I am not prepared to dictate a bill to this committee. I will be glad to send you a draft of what my opinion is, if you will give me 5 or 6 hours, so that I can get my column out in the meantime. [Laughter.]

Mr. RICHARDS. So far as I am concerned, I am going to let you get out your column, after this one question. I just want to make this observation. Of those two problems we talked about, whether we would aid Great Britain, and if we decided to aid Great Britain whether we would do it through the methods provided in this bill, I am more worried about the proposition of whether we are thinking about aid to Great Britain short of war, than I am the second proposition. You seem to be more worried about the second proposition than you are about the first, is that right?

General JOHNSON. I do not think I quite followed you, but I can see one thing from your statement-that between you and me there is very little difference. There is not much difference, except thisthe extent of delegation of powers to involve us in war, to a single man, or the retention of that power in Congress.

Mr. RICHARDS. I think so, General. I thank you.

General JOHNSON. That is the only difference that we have that I can see, as a result of this colloquy.

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tinkham.

Mr. TINKHAM. General, I have only one question. Is it your opinion that the passage of this bill as it lies before us would create great disunity in the country?

General JOHNSON. The question is, would the passage of this bill as it lies before us create great disunity in this country. I do not believe that the sentiment of this country, the informed sentiment, is at all for this bill. I think it is for aid to Britain, and keeping out of war. I will say, however, that if we ever get into this situation and this bill is passed and we are embarked on this course-I think that disunity would weaken us in front of the world. In that event all I could do would be to go out and hammer the huskings for this bill in order to create unity. The time for you to decide this question is right now, and not to pass this bill and then rest on the possibility of disunity to have it repealed afterwards. Now is the time to decide this question. Yes; I think this bill is either not well understood by the people of this country, or if it is understood, it is disapproved by a very great number of them.

Mr. TINKHAM. So your answer would be yes?

General JOHNSON. My answer is what I made it. [Laughter.}
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shanley.

Mr. SHANLEY. General Johnson, you say that you are for everything that is in this bill. Now, you understand as we all understand that what we are attempting to do in this bill is a complete departure or variation from our historic policy, the same policy that John Bassett Moore has championed for years, and which you endorsed in the

extract that Mr. Fish had, in the manufacture in arsenals and shipyards under our jurisdiction. Any defense article is permitted to put us into the war without manpower, isn't it? As I understand, you have no objection to that?

General JOHNSON. In the first place, you stated that I said that I was for everything that was in this bill.

Mr. SHANLEY. When I say that, I am endeavoring to get your understanding of it.

General JOHNSON. I am for almost nothing in this bill as it stands. Mr. SHANLEY. No; I said you are for the purposes of this bill, except for the mechanics of it, and I wanted to go into detail.

General JOHNSON. I am not. I am against the principle of this bill, which is much broader than any question of mechanics.

Mr. SHANLEY. But you are for all aid short of war to England? General JOHNSON. I have stated, over and over again, that I am for such aid as will insure the defense of the United States, and not for one inch more.

Mr. SHANLEY. Have you been able to make up your mind just where that aid stops and where it continues? For example, take the torpedo boats that we have been helping England with; is that "short of war?" The exchange of these destroyers-was that "short of war?"

General JOHNSON. I am not going to get into a discussion of what is short of war and of international law as it stood before this war, because it is out the window. We are on new ground. We have got to chart a new course.

Mr. SHANLEY. I grant that, but you have got to know what is short of war, if we are going to write this bill?

General JOHNSON. I am not going to be confused by words. What has got to be done here is to maintain the United States in a position of impregnable defense, and not to foreclose our future defense by putting us into a position where we have underwritten the conduct of a war by a belligerent whom we cannot control; and that is what this bill does.

Mr. SHANLEY. We cannot put a glittering generality like that in the bill and expect to aid England, or not get a boy

General JOHNSON. I do not ask for any "glittering generality". I ask for a specific delegation of authority.

Mr. SHANLEY. We are asking you. Now, you say you know this bill-you know it by heart. Take this section

To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, any defense article for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.

Are you for that?

General JOHNSON. Yes; of course.

He has got it now. The words you read did not include any other notion. You said he had authority to manufacture in the arsenals any defense article.

Mr. SHANLEY. Yes. Do you know what a "defense article" is, the definition of it?

General JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHANLEY. Does not that include belligerent defense articles, too?

General JOHNSON. Not in a definition of "defense articles," at all. It later makes a definition of "defense articles" in that category, and