Mr. CASTLE. I think so, to change neutrality legislation during the game.

Mr. SHANLEY. Was it such a violation as would subject us to any damages?

Mr. CASTLE. I have never thought so.

Mr. SHANLEY. Do you understand at the present time just how we dispose of or sell or exchange weapons which we do not think are essential to our national defense? Have you any idea how that is done?

Mr. CASTLE. No; except insofar as the British and others are permitted to buy from our manufacturers which, of course, is wholly within the law. I think we have skinned around the law so to speak, by having the Government turn back to the manufacturers weapons which they had already bought and allowed them to be sold to Great Britain.

Mr. SHANLEY. Let me read the statute. This is section 14 of the act of June 28, 1940. This is the latest one:

SEC. 14 (a). Notwithstanding the provision of any other law, no military or naval weapon, ship, boat, aircraft, munitions, supplies, or equipment to which the United States has title in whole or in part or which has been contracted for, shall hereafter be transfered, exchanged, sold, or otherwise disposed of in any manner whatsoever unless the Chief of Naval Operations in the case of naval material, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, in the case of military material, shall first certify that such material is not essential to the defense of the United States. That, in your estimation, is a satisfactory statute?

Mr. CASTLE. What?

Mr. SHANLEY. Suppose in section 3 it were to include words or phraseology to say that the President shall be allowed to do those things provided the Chief of Naval Operations or the Chief of Staff determine that it is essential to the defense of the United States. Would that make this a palatable section 3?

Mr. CASTLE. That first law that you read was contemplated in time of and not in time of war. peace Now the moment you do the same thing in time of war you run into language, or rather you run into long-established principles of international law.

Mr. SHANLEY. Well, I assume we are at peace now technically? Mr. CASTLE. Yes; but Great Britain and Germany are not at peace. Mr. SHANLEY. No; but these are sales, of course

Mr. CASTLE. But they are sales to belligerents.

Mr. SHANLEY. Of course, I agree they are absolutely wrong.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. SHANLEY. And they are a violation of international law?
Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. SHANLEY. Therefore, there is nothing in section 3, as I interpret your criticism, that is justifiable under international law and that can be made constitutionally and can be acceptable to you? No wording that we can put into section 3 would be acceptable by you in that every one of these acts violates international law?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; I think it violates international law. I think if you could have a bill which said we would lend so much money to them and they can buy what they please, or that we would give them so much money and they could buy what they pleased in this country, or if you said the President will have the right to decide, with the advice of the officers of the Army and Navy, what was necessary for our own self-defense, that the rest of it could be bought with loaned

money, if you please, by the belligerents, I would have nothing to say about it.

Mr. SHANLEY. That is straining it a little, though?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not think so. It has been done forever. Mr. SHANLEY. Do you agree with the statement of Jessup that motive is of prime importance in international law in neutrality? Mr. CASTLE. Yes; but I do not think it is anything you can write into the law.

Mr. SHANLEY. But obviously where the objective facts indicate the motive and, certainly, you would not want to hide behind a motive that is so obvious

Mr. CASTLE. I should not; no.

Mr. SHANLEY. In other words, you have to strain a little in order to get the loans to England under this bill, in order to accept the conditions as they are today.

As I distinctly remember, in your 1939 testimony you were very much against loans to any belligerents. You said we have enough of them.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. SHANLEY. I take it your reason was that we would suffer and that we had been badly off the last time.

Mr. CASTLE. Well, we had been badly off. It also created an awful bad feeling. I am always looking to try to accomplish things which will not leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Mr. SHANLEY. Then, with the exception of this grant of a large sum of money there is nothing that we can do short of war that would be acceptable to you that you would not think was not a violation of international law?

Mr. CASTLE. I certainly should not be willing to make such a blanket statement.

Mr. SHANLEY. I am thinking particularly of the United States Maritime Commission, which has some 45 ships of different categories which have been purchased from various private owners in this country. England wants those ships. England probably must have those ships if she is to survive. The only possible way we can get those ships is if this Congress would give authority to the President or the Maritime Commission to allow those to go. My interpretation of your thought is that it would be a violation of international law.

Mr. CASTLE. I think the normal thing to do would be to allow the sale of those ships and drop it there.

Mr. SHANLEY. The sale to whom?

Mr. CASTLE. Anybody.

Mr. SHANLEY. And you think that would be good international law? Mr. CASTLE. I do not think it has anything to do with international law if they are owned by private individuals.

Mr. SHANLEY. But they are not owned by private individuals. They will not be owned by private individuals. The Government has to take them from private individuals.

Mr. CASTLE. I am sorry. You told me first-I thought you said they had been sold to private individuals.

Mr. SHANLEY. They had been sold but not delivered. We have the right to go in there and take them as a government per se. Now, certainly that would not be good international law.

Mr. CASTLE. No; that would not be good international law.

Mr. SHANLEY. In other words, whenever the Government interjects itself as a government per se then you have all the violations of international law?

Mr. CASTLE. Well, I do not like it.

Mr. SHANLEY. Then it is almost impossible to do anything in aid for England that does not involve the interjection of the Government per se.

Mr. CASTLE. No; I do not think it is.

Mr. SHANLEY. Can you give us any suggestion other than the one you did about the blanket millions of dollars or blanket loan or some amount of money? What other methods could be used to aid England?

Mr. CASTLE. I think the only thing we could do to aid England is to get materials to England as fast as possible. And if the Government wishes to allow the manufacturers in this country to sell materials to England which we do not need for our own defense that is the best help we can give to England. Furthermore, we would help England by building up our means of production and by increasing our capacity. That is the best help we can give to England.

Mr. SHANLEY. The answer to that is that the highest fiscal authorities tell us there is not enough foreign exchange in this country for England to pay for any more than she has ordered, especially for 1941. And the only way we can get that, the only way the problem can be solved, is for the Government to step in there itself. We just cannot get that. As a matter of fact, even if we appropriate money we are doing it as a governmental agency per se, are we not?

Mr. CASTLE. You are.

Mr. SHANLEY. And then we are interjecting ourselves into a situation with reference to neutrality?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. SHANLEY. And that, of course, is, is it not, a technical violation and certainly violates the spirit of international law?

Mr. CASTLE. It does.

Mr. SHANLEY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chiperfield?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Castle, I enjoyed your statement very much. Mr. Richards and Mr. Shanley asked you something about the Kellogg Pact. Does the mere signing of a pact by delegates bind a country or does it require ratification of the country concerned?

Mr. CASTLE. It requires ratification in most cases. In certain countries and certain dictatorships, for example, it would not require ratification.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Does this bill violate the Hague Convention? I have reference to Convention No. 13 which, among other things, section 6 provides with reference to the sending of munitions and warships to belligerents and so forth?

Mr. CASTLE. I think it is. The claim has been made, of course, that the Hague Convention is not in effect.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Hull the other day stated that section 28 which provides that the convention only applies when all of the parties have ratified the convention, and he stated that Great Britain and Italy were not parties to this convention. I looked it up. I found they signed it. Then I am told they did not ratify it. Would you still feel that the Hague Convention is in force?

Mr. CASTLE. I have always supposed it was in force until I read Mr. Hull's testimony. And then I questioned it. It has always been observed. There is no doubt of that.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Is it not declaratory of international law?
Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Have Germany and Italy violated our neu trality in any way that you know of?

Mr. CASTLE. Not so far as I know. I think they have been extraordinarily careful about that.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Do you feel this bill steps up production in any way?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. You favor our Navy convoying British ships? Mr. CASTLE. Not at all.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Do you favor placing a limitation of some kind on the authorization?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I think, if I understood you correctly, you favor a time limit on this bill?

Mr. CASTLE. Most emphatically.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Eaton referred to the lack of dollar exchange on the part of England, and asked you for some suggestions on how this could be remedied. Could not this be done? Could not we repeal section 7 of the Neutrality Act that would allow persons to extend loans and credits to belligerents? What do you think about that?

Mr. CASTLE. Of course, we could. There is no question of that. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I realize you do not favor such a practice, but that would give further dollar exchange, would it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Absolutely.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. And then we could repeal the Johnson Act? Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. And that would give further credit?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Could we not do this? Could we not by a simple act authorize and appropriate a certain sum as a loan to England without giving any vast powers to anyone?

Mr. CASTLE. Will you repeat that?

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Could not the Congress authorize and appropriate a certain sum of money as a loan for England without involving vast powers in one man but just simply an enabling act to do it? Mr. CASTLE. It seems to me that is the only way to do it. Mr. CHIPERFIELD. It seems so to me, too, sir.

If I understood you, you favor aid to Great Britain, but only such aid that would not involve us in war and would not impair our national defense?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Did you say that you wanted purchases of war material in the hands of the British and not in the hands of the Chief Executive?

Mr. CASTLE. I stated if war materials were to be bought in this country they should be bought by the British and not by the President of the United States and turned over to the British.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Is there a distinction between purchases made through and by commercial concerns and purchases made by the Government per se?

Mr. CASTLE. Surely.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Does that have any distinction so far as international law is concerned?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes. International law does not permit during the course of a war for a government to make sales to belligerents. Unlimited private sales are permissible.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. We have been told while this bill gives the President vast powers to transfer our entire Navy to England, yet it would be ridiculous and preposterous to think he would do so. I believe you said in your statement that the President referred to the giving away of our Navy as "cow-jumping-over-the-moon stuff”? Mr. CASTLE. I was quoting his words, of course.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Yes. Would it not be just as ridiculous and preposterous for us to vote vast powers for any one man if those powers permit him to act in a ridiculous and preposterous manner?

Mr. CASTLE. I suppose it would.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Why should not the power we put into this bill be confined to those powers that are expected and intended to be used? Mr. CASTLE. I think they should be clearly so defined. I think they should not be beyond the powers normally held by the President, with the exception of the fact that under certain emergencies you have to give specific powers.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. In other words, we should include powers intended to be used and give only such powers as a reasonable and prudent person would desire?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. I thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arnold.

Mr. ARNOLD. Mr. Castle, I have one short question: I wonder if you would care to say for how long a period of time you would be willing to grant this power under this bill. You said for a short period.

Mr. CASTLE. I do not think that powers of this sort, of course, really should be granted at all unless they are more clearly specified, but I certainly do not think that powers of this kind if they are granted should be for one minute over a period of a year, and I think always it should be clearly stated that in case the war ended the powers ended with the war.

Mr. ARNOLD. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Castle, a statement of yours was quoted on the Neutrality Act of 1939. Is there not a great distinction between neutrality legislation which can only limit the acts of American citizens and this sort of war legislation which enlarges the powers of the President?

Mr. CASTLE. Well, of course, to me there is an enormous difference, and in this case enlarging the powers of the President, to make him, through his control of British purchases, almost the arbitrator of the fate of Britain, considering that, it seems to me the difference is incalculable.

Mr. VORYS. In any neutrality, or so-called neutrality, act, all we can do is do things which somewhat further limit the freedom of action of our own people?

Mr. CASTLE. Of our own people.

Mr. VORYS. Whereas, here we are taking away freedom of action of our own people.