In the early part of the negotiations we thought Great Britain was going to cooperate very fully. Later on, in what Mr. Stimson, as I remember, considered the most important move that was to be made, that was in appealing to the other signatories of the Nine Power Pact, Great Britain refused to go along. And that just simply put an end to the negotiations.

Mr. FISH. To the whole thing? Secretary of State at the time?

And you were assistant to the

Mr. CASTLE. I was Under Secretary; yes.
Mr. FISH. You were the Under Secretary.

You referred, Mr. Castle, to technical authorities in your remarks, of the Army and Navy and the Air Corps, and that they knew that this country could not be invaded. Do you know any reason why the Army and Navy and Air Corps experts and witnesses should not come before this committee and publicly make those statements?

Mr. JOHNSON. I object. It is immaterial what the witness thinks. The CHAIRMAN. Objection sustained.

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much, Mr. Castle, for coming here and reading that very fine statement. I would like, before I conclude, to ask you a few questions directly bearing on amendments to the bill. Are you in favor of giving this unlimited power to the President to give away or otherwise dispose of any part of our Navy?

Mr. CASTLE. Certainly not. That is what I thought I tried to make clear in my statement.

Mr. FISH. I think you did.

Are you in favor of giving or turning over the purse strings as is proposed in this bill without naming any amount as to what the President might spend?

Mr. CASTLE. No; I think that is, under the Constitution and always should be, the duty of Congress.

Mr. FISH. Do you not believe, Mr. Castle, that if the President exercised the power in this bill and spent five or ten or fifteen or twenty billions of dollars the way this bill is written, that the Congress would be morally obligated to appropriate the money?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not know enough of the working of Congress, Mr. Fish, to be able to answer that.

Mr. FISH. I will not press you for it. I think if you read that clause, there is no limit to what he could say he needed, to proceed to spend it, and we would be morally obligated to appropriate the money. Mr. CASTLE. If this bill is passed as it is it would look as if Congress had given him a blank check. That is true.

Mr. FISH. In other words, this is, in your opinion, a totalitarian— is it not, in your opinion, a totalitarian bill and a march to war? Mr. CASTLE. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Castle, your last services with the Government were as Under Secretary of State under Secretary Stimson?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Did you have the pleasure of hearing his testimony before this committee last week?

Mr. CASTLE. I did not.

Mr. JOHNSON. Have you read his testimony?

Mr. CASTLE. No. I have simply read some of it which I saw in the

papers.

Mr. JOHNSON. You regard Secretary Stimson as a man of outstanding ability, do you not?

Mr. JOHNSON. You differ with him with reference to this bill, I understand. He thinks it is a good bill and that it should be passed, and you think the exact opposite. We are all inclined to differ.

In your statement you mentioned the fact that there was no time limit in the bill. I think it has been generally understood by a great many, at least I understood, or rather I stated some time ago that I was in favor of a time limit on the bill and I think it should not be made indefinite, because it is to cover an emergency only. And I think that suggestion will probably be acted upon, at least, if I have my way about it. With reference to placing a limit as to the amount, you said something about the purse strings. I do not know whether you said that or Mr. Fish used that expression, but the expression 'purse strings" was used.

I call your attention to section 6a of the bill, which I shall read. It is just a few lines:

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated from time to time, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the provisions and accomplish the purposes of this Act.

In connection with that statement I call attention to the fact there is nowhere in the bill any appropriation of any amount. This is what we would call an authorization bill, authorizing appropriations to be made. And you know from your experience with the Government that before appropriations are made, the Appropriations Committee has a hearing. And I assume that in your long service with the Government you have appeared before the Appropriations Committee on behalf of appropriations for your Department. Then after the committee reports out the appropriation bill it has to be considered like any other bill and has to pass both Houses and has to be signed by the President. So this bill insofar as any expenditure of money is concerned would depend on future action by Congress as to the appropriation of amounts. This simply authorizes an appropriation to be made. Of course, if this bill were not passed, or some authorization bill, appropriations cannot be made except those authorized by the Congress.

In other words, the general public does not always understand it takes one bill to authorize Congress to appropriate money and another bill to appropriate the money. So the passage of this bill would not mean that the President would have any money unless the Congress should specifically appropriate that money.

Mr. VORYS. May I make a parliamentary inquiry?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman state the inquiry?

Mr. VORYS. Is that a question?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is a question; yes. It is kind of a leading question, I will say.

I think we agree with that, Mr. Castle?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not know whether you have finished what you were saying?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I have.

Mr. CASTLE. I think that when Congress authorizes an appropriation, I had supposed it always authorized a definite amount to be appropriated, or a top limit.

Mr. JOHNSON. But sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. I would say in some instances it is a fact and in some cases it is not. Now, with reference to international law, I believe Mr. Fish asked you something about that, and he asked you if you thought international law was dead. You said, "No; you thought we should bring international law back to life again." That is pretty good evidence it is about dead, is it not, so far as observance is concerned?

Mr. CASTLE. I think I was answering Mr. Fish's question and I think he was the one who used the expression.

Mr. JOHNSON. He used the word "dead" and you used the word "life."

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished?

Mr. CASTLE. I was merely going to say I cannot believe international law is dead. The world does not want it to be dead. I think Hitler has done enormous damage to it, but I do not think we should follow in his footsteps and hurt it ourselves.

Mr. JOHNSON. The nonobservance of international law by the totalitarian powers has made it, insofar as its effectiveness is concerned, of very small moment so far as securing the rights of other powers; is that not so?

Mr. CASTLE. That is true.

Mr. JOHNSON. Secretary Hull, I believe, in answer to Mr. Fish's question, or in answer to the question of some other member of the committee, took the position that with reference to international law the rights of self-defense were paramount to any law. In other words, just like the individual has a right to defend himself-down in my State, even to the necessity of taking life, though murder is prohibited that if he in his self-defense requires it, then you have to act as the situation demands. This would be true of nations or individuals, would it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Hull was, of course, correct in that assumption. But my feeling would be that we have not been attacked. It is not a question of self-defense. That is a question to be discussed.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is a conclusion. I was stating the abstract question only at the time.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand, you have no objection, I do not believe you stated any-I will ask you whether or not you have any objection to our country giving aid to England insofar as may be necessary for our own defense.

Mr. CASTLE. Not at all. As long as we do not give the kind of aid which leads us ourselves into the war, which I think is disastrous for our own defense.

Mr. JOHNSON. I was coming to that. I was getting first the answer to the first question as to whether or not you are opposed to the policy of our Government giving aid to England insofar as compatible with our own defense.

Mr. CASTLE. Not at all.

Mr. JOHNSON. And you think what has been done so far in this country in the way of selling planes and munitions to England has been all right? You have no criticism of that, as I understand?

Mr. CASTLE. I have no criticism whatever of the sale of planes or arms or munitions of any kind by private interests.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. CASTLE. I think for the Government to do it is totally contrary to international law.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, with reference to the question of our own defense, do you think that it would be best for our country if there were a victory of the totalitarian powers or a victory of the Allied Powers?

Mr. CASTLE. I should much rather see the Allied Powers win, certainly, because I am interested in the maintenance of democracies in this world.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is, law and order?

Mr. FISH. Let him finish his sentence.

Mr. JOHNSON. I beg your pardon. Will you finish the sentence? Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished, Mr. Castle? Complete your statement and take your time.

Mr. CASTLE. I think I had really finished what I wanted to say. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I did not want to interrupt.

Mr. CASTLE. No; you did not, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. I did not mean to.

With reference to your preference, you think that is best. Do you not think it is best for our own country's welfare that they win?

Mr. CASTLE. I think it is very difficult to answer a question of that kind. It is largely supposition. I think you will find people who come back from Europe will all say to you, "If this war keeps on and on and on it is going to lead, whoever wins, to the most terrible chaos that this world has ever seen."

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree with you that a long war would leave very disastrous situations and a very tragic situation in the world. I was speaking of the victory of which power would be probably best, whether it was a long war or a short war.

Mr. CASTLE. That, I answered.

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand, it was the Allied Powers?
Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, what is your opinion with reference to the British Fleet? Do you think the fall or destruction or capture of the British Fleet would be dangerous for the safety of the United States?

Mr. CASTLE. No; not dangerous for the safety of the United States. I think it would make our task a little more difficult at the present time. The British Fleet has not always been our bulwark by any means.

Mr. JOHNSON. Its defeat and destruction would require us to have a greater fleet to guard our country, would it not?

Mr. CASTLE. I think it would, but probably no greater fleet than has already been authorized.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is authorized, but not built, I grant.

Mr. CASTLE. It is not built, but it is building.

Mr. JOHNSON. But it will take several years according to the best authorities before the money authorized to be appropriated, or

appropriated, can be expended for the fleet. I forget whether it is 3 years or more before we would have a two-ocean Navy.

Now, with reference to the grant of power, as I understand, that is your chief objection to the bill. Have you worked out a plan where any discretionary power granted to the President, which is your main objection to the bill, would be eliminated? I understand that is the fundamental objection to the bill. Is that the ground of objection?

Mr. CASTLE. Of course, to me that is the whole bill. If you eliminated that you have nothing left of the bill, is seems to me.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; you do not think the bill could be amended so as to limit those powers?

Mr. CASTLE. So as to what?

Mr. JOHNSON. Limit the powers granted to the President.

Mr. CASTLE. I suppose it could be.

Mr. JOHNSON. You realize, of course, as an international lawyer, the conduct of foreign affairs under our Government under the Constitution and under the usages since the creation of our Government has been vested in the President of the United States?

Mr. CASTLE. I have argued in favor of that point many times. Mr. JOHNSON. And you believe that is a wise and sound policy, do you not?

Mr. CASTLE. I think it is inevitable.

Mr. JOHNSON. You also, of course, recognize that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and always has been, and you have no objection or criticism of that policy, as I understand?

Mr. CASTLE. I am not objecting to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, with reference to the granting of emergency powers, you realize that during many different crises that have arisen, and I am not speaking now of during a war crisis, but any economic crisis alone, we have always on occasion granted unusual powers to the President in view of emergencies of that kind during this administration and previous administrations. This becomes necessary at times, you will agree?

Mr. CASTLE. They do. And they are always strictly limited. Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Now, with reference to this bill, you stated it was to give aid to Britain. Of course, that is part of the object of the bill. But as the bill is framed, I call your attention to this [reading]:

To make possible the sale, transfer, exchange, lease, or lending or otherwise disposing of such articles as are defined as defense articles to any country

it does not mention England or any other country

to any country

I am calling attention to this particular phrase now

to any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.

So the bill is based and predicated upon aid to any country whose defense the President deems vital to the United States. It does not name England alone. Of course, you understand with conditions that exist at this time England would be the chief beneficiary under the terms of the bill.