« PreviousContinue »
Mr. JOHNSON. I think that may be discussed in private.
The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Butler is a constituent of mine; I think I will let him answer.
Mr. JOHNSON. I renew the objection, Mr. Chairman, as it is wholly irrelevant.
The CHAIRMAN. The objection is sustained.
Mr. MUNDT. How many States are represented in your organization, Mr. Burke?
Mr. BURKE. Thirty-six.
Mr. Mundt. Do you feel the statement you made today rather universally expresses their point of view?
Mr. BURKE. Yes, sir. The American people mainly would like England to win, but they do want to keep out of the war.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions on the other side?
Is there any special reason you did not put your answers in your opening statement instead of having the questions asked of you and then you reading the answers?
Mr. BURKE. No; because we prepared this statement for mittee in New York, and these questions were prepared today.
The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to know whether there was any special reason for doing that.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN C. MARSH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
PEOPLES LOBBY, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir.
Mr. MARSH. A very brief one, I will read the action taken by our board, and then I want to give the reasons for that action.
Thé CHAIRMAN. Proceed; you may be seated or stand, as you prefer, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. MARSH. My name is Benjamin C. Marsh, executive secretary of the Peoples Lobby, and I want to read an amendment to the pending bill recommended by our board of directors at a meeting held a few days ago:
Amendments to limit the life of the lend-lease bill to 1 year, and to provide that Congress should in joint session of both Houses elect one United States Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives—one a Republican and the other a Democrat—to advise with the President on every power granted the President under the proposed bill, the President to have power to act only if one of the two Members approved his proposed action, otherwise congressional action to be required--all based on the President's assurance, that he would not send an American army overseas, except for actual defense.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to give some of the reasons which I think led the committee to take this action our board took.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean what committee?
Mr. MARSH. The action our board took; that is, the action suggesting this amendment. We feel, and I think that many members of this committee and the Congress agree, that when a Congress which is elected to do certain things is informed by the Chief Executive that that Congress has not the integrity or the intelligence to be trusted with the powers which the President wants to have delegated to him, that such a Congress should assert, while it still has a chance, the fact that America is operating under a constitutional form of government. I would like to point this out: I was here during the World War, that is, from March 1918 on, and ever since the beginning of the last decade there has been a gradual reduction, it seems to me, and I have been here in Washington for 23 years, a reduction in the powers and in the self-respect of Congress, not due to their own action but due to the dominance of one individual, and it seems to me that that is a very dangerous situation.
May I state that some of my best friends in the world are in the British Labor Party. I have been in Europe 10 times, starting in 1929, and have seen the development of dictatorship over there.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the Members of Congress realize what the business interests of this country are saying about this combination with Britain, so I want to read briefly a few statements which have appeared in conservative papers, statements of businessmen on the present situation on the abdication of Congress. Why, gentlemen, I wonder what excuse you will have for drawing your salaries, whether you will not be getting money under false pretenses, if you are merely to be paid $10,000 a year plus all the other emoluments of office that you have, merely to underwrite what the President does. Let me quote from the United States News, a David Lawrence paper. On January 10 of this year it carries a story on developments: "Mr. Roosevelt's Move for World Leadership.” The same issue, appropriately, has an article, "A National Debt of 100 Billions Coming."
Mr RICHARDS. Could not the witness put those statements in the record instead of reading them?
Mr. Marsh. I could, except I thought the committee might want to ask me some questions about the points raised here.
The CHAIRMAN. If the committee wants to ask you questions they can think of a lot of questions to ask the gentlemen without looking for expert questions from the papers. But if you wish to read them, all right.
Mr. Marsh. I would prefer to do it if that is agreeable to the committee.
Mr. JOHNSON. It depends on the length of them.
Mr. Marsh. The same magazine, the United States News, on January 24, 1941, in an article entitled, "America in Danger, President's Warning,” states:
Mr. Roosevelt directs this Nation's foreign policy. In directing that policy he is subject under the Constitution to few restraints by Congress.
At the same time the majority of Senators and Representatives, despite a vigorous and important minority opposition, gives every sign of agreement with the President on foreign policy.
This means that, regardless of isolationist opinion, the United States apparently is going down the line with a policy aimed at continued world leadership for the British and American empires.
I ask the members of this committee and the Members of Congress by what warrant they turn over to any man, and I am not speaking in personal terms, the power to lead America down the road to world domination in collaboration with the British Empire.
Business Week, a McGraw-Hill publication, and you will notice that all of the papers or magazines I cite are not printed in Moscow, there is an article entitled, “America's New Deal for Britain."
The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, Mr. Marsh; will you just suspend a moment?
Mr. Marsh. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fish. Would you just as soon testify now and carry it on to 7 o'clock, or wait until later?
Mr. Class. Whatever the wish of the committee is is agreeable to me.
Mr. Marsh. I think it would be better if you would make your statement, because we must continue on and get through, or, just hand your statement to the reporter.
Mr. Fish. I want to make one unanimous-consent request. Mr. Amos Pinchot, who was to testify has just had to go back to New York. He has released his statement to the press, and I would like to have that read by someone here before we adjourn.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose we just put it in and accept it as his statement.
Mr. Fish. I do not think it would take very long, and I want to do the fair thing.
The CHAIRMAN. So do I. We will either read it or put it in the record and accept it.
Mr. Fish. I agree with you.
Mr. EBERHARTER. Is it the purpose of the chairman to continue right on through and not take a recess? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. EBERHARTER. Some of the members have already left and will be back at 8 o'clock.
The CHAIRMAN. We will let the members know right away by phone that there will be no meeting this evening. I think it would be preferable to conclude now instead of coming back, and if you gentlemen do not mind we will let them know. There will be no business transacted. We will let them know that when we get through here we will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The committee will accept your statement there for the record, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. MARSH. Then there are several similar statements I would like to read.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I think the witness should assume that the members read the newspapers sometimes, and I think it would be in the interest of economy of time not to read the various statements from so many people. Let the witness state what he has to say without any reading, because it takes too much time.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. MARSH. Then, if it is your wish, to save time, I would like to ask permission to file these other quotations for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection that will be done.
Mr. MARSH. With one exception, I would like to read a statement of Dr. Virgil Jordan, president of the National Industrial Conference Board, to the Investment Bankers' Association last December.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. MARSH. Which states that many of them had not begun to comprehend and face the task that lies ahead for American industry, and whatever the outcome of the war, America has embarked upon a career of imperialism, and “England will become a junior partner in a new Anglo-Saxon imperialism, in which the economic resources, and the military and naval strength of the United States will be the center of gravity,” and “southward in our hemisphere and westward in the Pacific, the path of empire takes its way, and in modern terms of economic power, as well as political prestige, the scepter passes to the United States."
I respectfully submit that before America embarks upon a career that has wrecked Britain and every other imperialist nation the people, and at least the Congress of the United States, should have a chance to decide whether they want to do it or not.
(The remainder of the quotations submitted by Mr. Marsh are as follows:)
DOES THE PRESIDENT WANT ANGLO-AMERICAN DOMINATION? Current events, current comment, and the conservative press, raise the question whether the President seeks an Anglo-American alliance for world domination, using of course the slogans of democracy, through which the three great democracies--the United States, Britain, and France-built up their world empires, which Hitler's war machine and economic policies, and Russia's economy, challenge.
Ďr. Scott Nearing, highly competent student of world affairs, in a Federated Press story, January 16, 1941, Britain and United States Move Toward Totalitarian Controls, says:
“Within a week the British and United States Government have both announced plans for the concentration of economic power in the hands of small government boards selected by the Executive. Both Governments are unifying their economies, not by legislative act, but by executive degree.
"Prime Minister Winston Churchill has created in the British cabinet an import executive and a production executive. The import executive has control of supplies. The production executive will allocate available resources and raw materials, production capacities and labor, and will fix priorities.
“Under this broad authorization the production executive, headed by Ernest Bevin, a Laborite, will be able to conscript materials, machinery, and labor. The new production executive has much broader powers than its predecessor, the Production Council.
“President Roosevelt has created an Office of Production Management as part of the emergency management of the Executive Office of the President.
“Office of Production Management is authorized to 'formulate and execute in the public interest all measures necessary and appropriate in order to increase, accelerate, and regulate the production and supply of materials, articles, and equipment and the provision of emergency plant facilities and services required for the national defense', and to coordinate the agencies engaged in defense work."
Dr. Nearing concludes:
"British and United States economies are being pushed rapidly into the mold of General Goering's 5-year plan. By executive decrees both countries have unified economic control and direction under a Government board.
"In both countries the board consists chiefly of former business executives. No 'democracy' label on these proposals will detract one iota from their totalitarian and dictatorial character."
The President's reference to establishing a “moral order" throughout the world is highly significant.
Such pronouncements and America's economic system go far to justify some of the charges made by Hitler, Mussolini, and Japan about the real objectives of America and of Britain.
David Lawrence, in his confidential Report for the Business Executives, states: “The United States holds the balance of world
and is in lineif cards are played right- to become the world's dominant power.'
This is not the position of the British Labor Party.
At its annual meeting in May 1940, it held: Areas which are natural and efficient units should not be broken up into small minorities or to entrench pre-war controls of any nation.
International control must be extended to include
(a) Natural resources and other raw materials, so they may be available at fair prices to all nonagressor nations.
(6) Ocean-borne commerce.
All present mandated areas and colonies must be put under international control, pending the uncoerced selection by the people thereof, of the nation with which they wish to be affiliated, or establishment of conditions which justify equal status with other limited sovereignty nations.
Creation of an association or commonwealth of states, the collective authority of which must transcend, in the economic sphere, the rights of separate nations. This authority must be vested with such power as is necessary to enable it to achieve the essential international controls.
Until such a program for post-war organization is accepted by Britain and the United States, as major powers, and by smaller nations with which we shall be asked to cooperate, is the United States in a position to claim it seeks to establish a new moral order in the world?
Mr. MARSH. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have a concluding topic, which is just what is this war about
The CHAIRMAN. What war?
Mr. MARSH. This war that is being fought over there. I am glad that the chairman is in doubt as to which war I refer to, but it is one into which, apparently, Congress is trying to get the United States. I am not willing to say that it is partly to cover up on the collapse of our own economic system, but it is well to realize that if it does come we would have chaos throughout the world. If the war continues for 3 or 4 years, we will have collapse and chaos, as Mr. Castle pointed out.
Now, may I make this suggestion to this committee before you report this bill out: As I have stated, I have conferred year after year with the British Labor Party. In May of last year, in the midst of war, the British Labor Party adopted a program for post-war action, peace terms, if you please, which I would like to incorporate in the hearings of this committee. It is not a quotation, but it is summarized. If you would like the original, I have the report of that conference, and I will submit it.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
PRINCIPLES OF A PRACTICAL PEACE Fury in fighting, efficiency in preparation for conflict, and emphasis upon the superiority of democratic procedures over those of totalitarian regimes do not ensure a post-war organization of the world upon the basis of a durable peace.
America must now determine what its post-war policies shall be and what essential principles it will press for in a post-war pact.
We believe the following principles are essential to the success of any peace:
1. Areas which are natural and efficient units should not be broken up into small political units to save the faces of small minorities or to entrench pre-war controls of any nation.
2. International control must be extended to include
(a) Natural resources and other raw materials, so they may be available at fair prices to all nonaggressor nations.
(6) Ocean-borne commerce. (c) All war equipment which can be used outside the areas of any nation. (d) Markets, by gradual stages.
3. All present mandated areas and colonies must be put under international control, pending the uncoerced selection by the people thereof, of the nation with