Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.

Mr. CASTLE. He did not say any nation, because there has always been a certain school which felt that because that pact originated in this country we ought to try to enforce it.

Mr. RICHARDS. The United States of America was one of the signatories?

Mr. CASTLE. Surely.

Mr. RICHARDS. And therefore we would be obligated in the same way that the other signers of the pact were?

Mr. CASTLE. To observe the pact; yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. To observe the pact.

Now, if that pact did not make it mandatory on the signatories to take affirmative action in the case of a violation by any one of the signers, it certainly left each signatory free to take such action as it saw fit to offset that violation, did it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Surely. In other words, it did not change international law when the pact itself had gone out of the window.

Mr. RICHARDS. Then was not the principle established at that time so far as international law is concerned, that when a nation or a group of nations violated international law, that that released the other nations of the pact from being obligated in case that violation occurred?

Mr. CASTLE. There was, of course, nothing in the pact to define that. There was nothing whatever. The pact was supposed to be more than anything else a moral signpost to the different nations which signed it.

Mr. RICHARDS. But there was something in the pact releasing them or tending to do what the signatories could do in case one of the nations, that is, one of the signers, became an aggressor nation against another nation?

Mr. CASTLE. No.

Mr. RICHARDS. Or if it invaded another nation?

Mr. CASTLE. No; there was nothing to that effect, as I remember. The only thing that it was supposed to do, that is, the only thing that they were supposed to do was to consult if one nation did attack another nation.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right. If one nation did attack another nation. What was the provision in case a nation did attack another nation?

Mr. CASTLE. I cannot tell you offhand. I wish I had the pact right here. It was two short paragraphs. There were no affirmative actions demanded in any case.

Mr. RICHARDS. But if left the nations, the signatories of the pact, free to take affirmative action if they considered it was to their best interests to do so?

Mr. CASTLE. The moment the pact was voided we returned straight to the general rules of international law; certainly.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, now, do you mean to say you interpret international law to be, when the whole world is flaunting international law into the face of anybody saying, "We do not care anything about it"-that with our high ideals we are to observe it even though it endangers our national security?

Mr. CASTLE. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. RICHARDS. You do not mean that?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not mean that at all. I mean it has nothing to do, as I see it, with the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

Mr. RICHARDS. As a matter of fact, it has been the history of war that belligerents violate international law whenever it is to their best interests to do so, is it not?

Mr. CASTLE. There has been too much of that.

Mr. RICHARDS. As a rule, there has been too much of it?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, did you testify before this committee when the neutrality bill came up? I think it was in 1935.

The CHAIRMAN. 1937.

Mr. CASTLE. Did I testify?

The CHAIRMAN. In the 1937 hearings, I think you did, Mr. Castle. Mr. CASTLE. I wrote a good deal on it. I have forgotten.

The CHAIRMAN. You certainly did. Your statement is in the record. I think you appeared in 1935 and also at the later one. Mr. SHANLEY. That is 1939?

Mr. CASTLE. In 1939, I do not remember about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you not give a statement?

Mr. CASTLE. I think not.

Mr. RICHARDS. Were you in favor of the so-called old Neutrality Act?

Mr. CASTLE. I was in favor of parts of it, part of it. For example, in 1935, I was never in favor of the prohibition on the export of arms. Mr. RICHARDS. That act worked pretty well, did it not? And in that act it was necessary to vest large discretionary powers in the President to secure reasonably successful operation of the act, was it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; large discretionary powers were vested in the President, in that he was to have the say, as I remember, whether a state of war existed. And I have always felt that he made a bad mistake in not saying a state of war existed between Japan and China. Mr. RICHARDS. And that he should declare certain things when he determined in his judgment that a state of war exists?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, can you conceive of any larger discretionary power than to determine when a state of war exists, to leave it to the President to say when a state of war exists. When, as a matter of fact, the President could nullify the whole thing by betraying the confidence which the American people placed in him.

Mr. CASTLE. I said, to begin with, in all my writing and talking on the bill, I thought that discretion given to the President was most unwise.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, the discretion that he exercised under that did not endanger the security of this country so far as you are able to say, did it?

Mr. CASTLE. The only thing it endangered the security of the country, as I see it, was to give him the right to say a war exists or does not exist. After he decided that it did exist he was ordered under the bill to do certain things. He had very little discretion, sir. Mr. RICHARDS. That does not vary the fact that this Congress has found it was necessary in all their discussion on this subject during the last few years to vest discretionary powers in the President, does it? That is, whether it was wise or unwise, they have done that.

Mr. CASTLE. They have in certain cases. Not being a Member of Congress, I am afraid I do not know of all cases.

Mr. RICHARDS. Did you appear before the committee on the repeal of the embargo?

Mr. CASTLE. No; I did not.

Mr. RICHARDS. The President, according to your study of the matter, had large discretionary powers in that, did he not?

Mr. CASTLE. In the repeal of the embargo?

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes; about combat zones, and so forth?
Mr. CASTLE. That was in the legislation.

Mr. RICHARDS. That was what?

Mr. CASTLE. That was in the legislation. It was legislated that he could decide what the combat zones were, certainly.

Mr. RICHARDS. He could do that now under existing law, could he not?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. And that power, if betrayed, could put this country into war, that is, by his decision as to where a combat zone existed, could it not? And his power to allow ships to go in there, that could put this country right into war and could lead this country to such a place?

Mr. CASTLE. I suppose it could.

Mr. RICHARDS. And that has worked out pretty well so far?

Mr. CASTLE. Well, he has not exercised that power except to define the zones.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right. But in defining the zones he has prohibited or kept American ships from going into those zones and being sunk; has he not?

Mr. CASTLE. That is right.

Mr. RICHARDS. And therefore would you not agree with me that that act which places discretionary power in the President has done. a lot to keep this country out of war so far?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; I think it should. Because I have always believed that American ships shouldn't be allowed to go into definite

war zones.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, I have just one other thing.

There are emergencies, are there not, Mr. Castle, when every democracy, that is, the Congress or the individual has to surrender some of his peacetime rights, do they not?

Mr. CASTLE. Surely.

Mr. RICHARDS. As a matter of fact, is it not a fact that the people of Great Britain fought for over a thousand years for the right to a trial by jury and yet they have suspended that right in the emergency over there?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. The question now before the Congress is whether or not Congress so far as discretionary powers are concerned, considers this emergency serious enough to turn over any of our rights to the President, is it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Of course, my answer to that would be that I would consider no emergency serious enough to turn over in a blank form all the rights of Congress.

Mr. RICHARDS. All right, now, in blank form. Suppose this country were at war. You would not do that on any emergency?

Mr. CASTLE. Not everything. I certainly would never make it a

full dictatorship.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, we had far more than this in the last war. Mr. CASTLE. More than what we are doing now?

Mr. RICHARDS. We did as much as this in the last war?

Mr. CASTLE. Certainly not. Surely not.

Mr. RICHARDS. The British Parliament has done more than that. Mr. CASTLE. The British Parliament has given one right after another to the Prime Minister. But the British Parliament has not resigned its authority at all.

Mr. RICHARDS. Has not the British Parliament taken one right after another-one peacetime right after another-from the British people as a national-defense measure?

Mr. CASTLE. From the British people; yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.

Mr. CASTLE. The British Parliament just now, for example, will probably ratify what the Prime Minister has done with regard to labor. Mr. RICHARDS. The British Parliament itself has taken this right from the people; has it not?

Mr. CASTLE. It has taken its right from the people, but the British Parliament is responsible to the people and the British Parliament has never turned over its right to anybody.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right. But, as a matter of fact, the people in a democarcy are the government; is that not right?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rogers?

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, do you not feel that the people of America are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States sending all aid to Great Britain that can be sent without weakening our own national defense?

Mr. CASTLE. I think, without weakening our own national defense and without getting ourselves into war.

Mrs. ROGERS. And, Mr. Secretary, you favored the principle of the reciprocal trade agreements which were agreed to during this administration so that proved that your position is not a partisan one. You decide a measure upon its merits?

Mr. CASTLE. I certainly try to, Mrs. Rogers. I do agree in principle with the trade agreement, and I do not think-that is, I think it is terrible that anybody takes this as a political measure.

Mrs. ROGERS. I agree with you thoroughly, and I am glad to know you feel that way about it.

Mr. Secretary, when you were the Under Secretary of State you acted as Secretary of State during some of that period, did you not? Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. At that time you were frank about the information you gave. You gave quite complete information to the press and to the public so far as you could as to what was going on internationally. You felt that the people were entitled to know something about our international relations.

Mr. CASTLE. I certainly tried to, because I felt then as I feel now that the more the people know the people are going to support the Government.

Mrs. ROGERS. With knowledge and understanding?

Mr. CASTLE. With knowledge and understanding.

Mrs. ROGERS. To act intelligently for their own protection and the protection of the United States?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. Is it not customary, and you have had a great deal to do in your official capacity at various times, watching administrative and legislative procedure, for a Secretary of State, for instance, or a Secretary of War, or a Secretary of the Navy, to resign if that administrative official is not in favor of the policy of the President?

Mr. CASTLE. The President is charged with the conduct of foreign affairs and certainly if his Secretary of State disagrees with him, it is up to the Secretary of State to resign.

Mrs. ROGERS. It would mean that he either would follow the President on many questions or resign?

Mr. CASTLE. I think he has the right to argue and to argue for his own point of view. If he is overruled, then if he has got a good conscience in him he will resign.

Mrs. ROGERS. So the policy is the policy of the President rather than the views of the Secretary of State?

Mr. CASTLE. Of the President.

Mrs. ROGERS. During that administration?

Mr. CASTLE. Always.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you believe, Mr. Secretary, that the people of the United States understand all of the implications and conditions involved in this bill?

Mr. CASTLE. I certainly do not. I think the people of the United States look on this purely as an aid-to-England bill.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel that the people of the country want to aid Great Britain, but not to the extent of or in such a way or method as to involve the country in war?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not think we want to pass a bill which really, in my opinion, does one thing when it ostensibly is for the purpose of doing another thing.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel if our ships are sent to Great Britain, for example, and money is spent and great quantities of ammunition of war are sent, that then our men are likely to follow?

Mr. CASTLE. I think if we go into the war we go into the war to win the war and that means men just as much as it means munitions. Mrs. ROGERS. If we should go into the war, do you think it would be possible to defeat Germany?

Mr. CASTLE. It would be a very long, hard pull, and I cannot see at the moment how without some internal collapse in Germany that we would have a possibility of winning the war for many, many long years to come.

Mrs. ROGERS. And then do you believe, Mr. Secretary, that the so-called Allies, including the United States, going into the war, would be so weakened that it would place Russia in a very strong position, and then she might then dominate the world with communism?

Mr. CASTLE. I think Russia is the only nation that stands to gain by a prolonged war; undoubtedly.

Mrs. ROGERS. You feel that the people of the country, if they knew of the implications and conditions of this bill, would be against it? Mr. CASTLE. Yes; I would.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you believe this bill is within the Constitution from the broad construction point of view?