« PreviousContinue »
Mr. JONKMAN. For our own defense?
Mr. JONKMAN. And then he could immediately repeat the samo process?
Mr. CASTLE. Right away.
Mr. JONKMAN. So that there is absolutely no end to it, is not that true?
Mr. CASTLE. Correct.
Mr. JONKMAN. Have such powers ever been granted to any President in time of war?
Mr. CASTLE. No; I do not think any such power has been granted officially to any chief of state.
Mr. JONKMAN. In other words, Congress during the World War retained that right of appropriations as a check on the President, and that has been entirely eliminated by this bill?
Mr. CASTLE. Entirely.
Mr. JONKMAN. And, of course, it abrogates the provision in the Constitution that no appropriations for carrying on war shall be made for a period longer than 2 years?
Mr. CASTLE. In a roundabout way; yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Castle, I am not going to tell you what a great man you are; you know it.
Mr. CASTLE. I hope not.
The CHAIRMAN. Following up the questions that Mr. Eberharter asked you, you know, from your experience in the State Department, that when the Democrats are in power the Republicans offer resolutions, and when the Republicans are in power the Democrats offer resolutions. Did you ever, acting as Secretary of State, in answer to certain resolutions that were introduced in Congress, mark the resolution with such a notation as this: “That it would not be compatible with the public interest to present the information requested”?
Mr. CASTLE. Very likely.
The CHAIRMAN. And is it not the generalcustom of the State Department to use their own discretion as a matter of public interest in furnishing the information, except confidentially to Members of Congress?
Mr. CASTLE. Yes; that is necessary, Mr. Chairman, I think.
Mr. Castle. I think occasionally, especially with the press people well, I think sometimes in my own days, as well as at any other time, the State Department said too little, and I will give you just an example of what happened. A group of correspondents, all good
fellows, came in one afternoon to me and said, “We want full information about your negotiations with France for a new treaty." I said, “It cannot be given out now because the negotiations are not over.” Now, that is a time when, as a rule, they withheld the information.
The CHAIRMAN. I meant that that is the general custom.
Mr. CASTLE. And then I said to them, “But if you will take it off the record, I will tell you the whole thing, and then in a week or 2 weeks you will have a scoop on the rest of the papers.” Some of them said, "Camarade," and went out, and the others took it.
The CHAIRMAN. Just to keep the record clear, you said something about changing the rules after the game has started. The legislation of changing our neutrality law was started long before the war started?
Mr. CASTLE. It was.
The CHAIRMAN. So, what we were doing was not changing the rules after the war started; is that not a fact?
Mr. CASTLE. I think the vote
The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the vote; we know about the vote, but the resolution was introduced in Congress; it was under consideration by the committees before the war started. So that was notice to all powers as to what Congress might do; is that not a fact?
Mr. CASTLE. I think that that is true, although I remember at the time it was introduced I was saying I hope to heaven they will be quick about it and do it before the war begins.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is fine; I am glad we got to that. You mentioned something about the British Parliament. Does the British Parliament act and legislate under a constitution?
Mr. CASTLE. There is no written British constitution.
The CHAIRMAN. Very true; that is what I wanted you to say. There is no written constitution, so that there is no constitution that the British Parliament can act under or by.
Mr. CASTLE. While it acts under and by long-established tradition, it has no constitution.
The CHAIRMAN. Long-established laws; is that not right?
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they can change their laws at any time, and there is no appeal from the law except to the parliament itself; is that not a fact?
Mr. CASTLE. True.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, there is only one more question, Mr. Castle, that is, so as to have your statement correct, as the Chair may be wrong: In the year 1776 the Declaration of Independence led to war; is that correct?
Mr. Castle. No; I think that is a little incorrect.
The Chairman. Do you wish to change your statement, or do you want to leave it that way?
Mr. CASTLE. It is harmless.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Mr. Fish would like to ask you some questions.
Mr. Fish. Mr. Castle, if these questions have been asked, I do not expect to have you take up the time of the committee by answering them. Do you know whether Canada and Australia are being paid in gold for the English purchases at the present time?
Mr. CASTLE. No, I am sorry; I have no idea.
Mr. Fish. Therefore, you probably would not know whether Canada, Australia, and South Africa are lending any money to England at the present time?
Mr. Castle. I do not know it; I have heard it as pretty authoritatively said that they were. That is all I know.
Mr. Fish. But they are not actually loaning as we propose to do in this bill; you do not know, as a matter of fact, any of those countries or Dominions are lending any money to England?
Mr. CASTLE. I do not.
Mr. Fish. Thank you very much, Mr. Castle. I recognize that you are a great man, but you are a great witness also.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to make a statement at this time of the list of witnesses who will be here tomorrow. The witnesses for the majority members of the committee will be the Honorable William C. Bullitt; Mrs. J. Borden Harriman; Gen. John F. O'Ryan, Hon. William Green, president, American Federation of Labor; Miss Dorothy Thompson; and Mr. William L. Shirer.
The Chair also wishes to state at this time that an executive session is set for Monday morning, and that we will call General Marshall, Chief of Staff, Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, and General Brett, Assistant Chief of the Air Corps.
Mr. Eaton. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if they are the gentlemen who were supposed to testify this morning here?
The CHAIRMAN. You might ask Mr. Fish that question.
Mr. EATON. I thought the chairman was in possession of most all wisdom.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you want to go into that.
STATEMENT OF GERALD L. K. SMITH, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE OF ONE MILLION, DETROIT, MICH. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gerald L. K. Smith. Is Mr. Gerald L. K. Smith in the room?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. You are National Chairman of the Committee of One Million, from Detroit. You do not mean a committee of 1,000,000 from Detroit?
Mr. Smith. No.
The CHAIRMAN. May I ask of you, Mr. Smith, how long it will take to read your statement and how long you expect to take?
Mr. Smith. It will take me about 4 minutes to read the statement. The CHAIRMAN. Be seated, or stand, as you wish, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I will stand to read the statement, and I will be seated to answer the questions.
We, of the Committee of One Million, present to this committee 2,000,000 names of American citizens signed to a petition supporting a national defense second to none and opposing American intervention in foreign wars.
This statement has been authorized by 1,021 leaders from 38 States and represents a careful analysis of approximately 100,000 personal letters written to our committee.
We oppose the passage of H. R. 1776 for five major reasons:
1. This bill, if passed, will grant to the President powers which thus far have been granted only to the dictators of the world among whom are Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Discretionary powers given the President under this bill would authorize him to loan or lease natural and manufactured resources to any nation on earth not even excluding Russia. The President's passion for power as demonstrated at other times during his administration emphasizes the double importance of not weakening the authority of the legislative branch of our Government as this bill certainly would do if passed.
2. This bill repeals and abandons the Monroe Doctrine by receiving Britain as a partner in Western Hemisphere politics and by the United States in turn joining with Britain in the prosecution of Europe's wars. The Monroe Doctrine, concerning this subject, reads in part as follows: Our policy in regard to Europe
is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers.
In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so.
3. This bill, if passed, will imperil our much-needed and sorely neglected national-defense program. Assuming that the worst thing that could happen in Europe would be Hitler's victory, the best thing that could happen in America would be for us to become so thoroughly prepared in national defense that we would be safe regardless of the outcome of the European and Asiatic wars. Two elements of national defense are (a) materials and manpower, (b) complete national unity. This bill would, if passed, dissipate our supply of materials and divide our Nation on foreign policy. America cannot unit on European defense but we can unite on American defense.
May I remind the committee that I am now interpreting our findings in the reading of approximately 100,000 personal letters involving this issue of intervention.
4. We do not trust English politicians. In fact, we do not trust (and I believe that our 2,000,000 constituents typify the American attitude) any foreign politicians. England's behavior after the last war is remembered by our people and resented. A statement made by the Honorable Winston Churchill in 1936 is typical of a British attitude which our people have not forgotten. Churchill said in part:
Legally we owe this debt to the United States, but logically we don't, and this is because America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If she had done so, the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917, thus saving over a million British, French, American, and other lives and preventing the subsequent rise of Fascism and Nazism.
We, of the Committee of One Million, are alarmed over the fact that those who are the most aggressive in supporting this bill are individuals who are known to be favorable to our full participation in this war.
5. This bill, if passed, will be the first step in sending from one to five million American boys across oceans to die on the battlefields of five continents. Its passage means sending material first and committing us to a British victory. Every military expert concedes that a British victory cannot be won without American troops. The reaction among our people against the possibility of such an event is tremendous.
Statements from groups such as ours are important not because we pose as being students of international affairs but because we symbolize and crystallize rising and recurring tides of public sentiment and reaction to governmental policy. It must be understood that there is no arrogance or egotism in this statement. We grant and admit our limitations, but we are Americans and there are millions of us.
Now, to justify the appearance of the spokesmen of our committee before this Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Congress, I direct this statement to the majority members of this committee:
A national crisis can never be solved by a majority of its citizens. A majority is sufficient to name public officials and to function in peacetime and under normal conditions. But when a nation is dealing with war problems and the threat of war, or a national crisis, its governmental leadership must demonstrate the capacity to inspire, challenge, and convince the minorities; otherwise any policy they undertake is likely to fail.
Minorities are frequently more intense in their opinions and more courageous because they must continue to express these opinions in the face of governmental opposition and without the encouragement of governmental patronage and the flattery of those in high office. If the President, or the Congress, overlooks or fails to take seriously the judgment of these intense minorities, symbolized by our committee, any foreign policy they approve is likely to be seriously handicapped not because the minority is less patriotic than the majority but because no instrument is furnished with which to develop their cooperation.
Therefore, we speak not as career diplomats, or students of the science of international politics—we speak as the voice of a great section of our population. If we are wrong, then our Government has failed to enlighten us properly. If we are right, then what we say should be respected.
I am prepared, Mr. Chairman, to present the necessary notarized affidavits establishing the fact that we have 2,000,000, or thereabouts, names signed to our petition against intervention in war. We filed and certified the first million in July through the instrumentality of Senator Vandenberg of Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Smith, there would be no objection to your statement, but your statement, I suppose, is sufficient.
Mr. Smith. I have the affidavit, and I would like to present it to the committee, if you will receive it.
The CHAIRMAN. It would not be necessary to have the affidavit put in there. If you want to put it in, leave it with the committee, and we will decide whether we want it in there afterward in executive session. Have you finished, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes.