Page images
PDF
EPUB

I would like to call to the attention of this Committee the fact that this bill is not a radical departure from existing legislation. It follows very closely the pattern of law which the Congress just preceding this one has enacted. Under the so-called Pittman Act (Public Resolution No. 83, 76th Congress), enacted on June 15, 1940, and for which, if I am not mistaken, my friend Mr. Fish voted, the President may do for American Republics, the republics in this hemisphere, substantially all the things that are proposed to be authorized in this Act for the democracies whose defense is important

to us.

Under the Pittman Act the President, for example, may authorize the manufacture in government factories and arsenals of coast defense articles, anti-aircraft material and ammunition therefor for the benefit of American republics, and thus do for the benefit of those countries the things which are authorized in this bill to be done for democracies whose defense is important to us.

Again, for the benefit of American republics he may authorize the procurement or sale of such material, and may use Government officials to test, prove, or repair it, and he may also authorize the construction of their vessels of war in our shipyards, the manufacture of armament and equipment for such vessels in Government arsenals, as well as other acts of this nature, including the communication of Government plans and specifications and information relating to such defense articles. These very items are covered by this act for the benefit of the democracies who are fighting for us. Now, I just ask you in all fairness whether today, at this hour, the defense of Great Britain is not of at least as great concern to us in the United States as the defense of Paraguay. And, this bill undertakes to do for Great Britain what we have already said we would do for any one of the twenty-one South American republics.

To summarize: I feel that the proposed bill is a forthright and clear grant of power which will enable the President to place in operation the best and simplest plan to carry out a national policy many times s ated and endorsed. It substantially assists us in the job of caring for our own needs and the needs of those whose defense is a matter of vital importance to us. But it leaves in our hands the power to determine at the time when the munitions are completed the country which shall receive them, and thus to insure that this vital decision is made solely in the interest of the defense of the United States. I therefore urge that it be given prompt and favorable consideration by your committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, at the conclusion, or near the conclusion of your remarks you referred to the Pittman bill.

Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. FISH. I would like to correct the record to say it was the Bloom bill, so that the real sponsor would be given credit for it.

The CHAIRMAN. May I state further for the record that it was the Bloom bill sponsored by Mr. Fish and myself so there will not be any question about that.

Mr. FISH. The reason I voted for that bill, Mr. Secretary

Secretary STIMSON. I do not want to get into any discussion about its authorship, as long as we agree on what the bill was. I am very

happy to accord credit, and to know you voted for it, because I think it is a good bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fish, you may continue.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, that bill, as you probably recall, was to help South American countries.

Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. FISH. To come here and build ships in our shipyards.
Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. FISH. An entirely different situation to which we are now confronted with, with England and other nations of the world; is that not a fact?

Secretary STIMSON. In that one respect it differs, but in respect to the danger which this country is in, under the circumstances, and the national defense of this country, both bills, I should say, were aimed at the same objective.

Mr. FISH. You understand the first one was to help Latin America, countries that are over in the Western Hemisphere.

Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. FISH. And this is to help the nations of the world, and does not the gentleman admit some distinction between the status of the one and the other?

Secretary STIMSON. There is certainly a distinction insofar as the countries are concerned; but with regard to our defense, I should say, there was no distinction.

Mr. FISH. In our defense?

Secretary STIMSON. In our defense. I doubt if you would have voted for this bill to make available the arsenals and to build ships in our shipyards to those countries unless you thought it was a good means of defending the United States.

Mr. FISH. I voted for the bill, Mr. Secretary, since you asked the question, because I believe in the Monroe Doctrine as far as this Hemisphere is concerned.

Secretary STIMSON. Certainly.

Mr. FISH. And I do not believe in extending the Monroe Doctrine all over the world.

Secretary STIMSON. But the Monroe Doctrine is a doctrine for the defense of this country.

Mr. FISH. It was for this hemisphere, to keep foreign nations out of this hemisphere.

Now, Mr. Secretary, this bill is an entirely different bill and I do not want the record to show that there was any similarity at all. This bill permits the President, as I understand it, to give away any part of our Navy. Is that not a correct statement?

Secretary STIMSON. Well, it permits him to transfer on such consideration as he understands will be in the interest of our defense. Mr. FISH. I call your attention to section 3 (a), subsection 2, which provides to transfer or otherwise dispose of.

Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. FISH. And I ask you if it is not your interpretation that under that language the President could give away any part of our Navy? Secretary STIMSON. Well, I call your attention to subsection (b) of section 3, which says that-

The terms and conditions upon which any such foreign government receives any aid authorized under subsection (a) shall be those which the President deems

satisfactory, and the benefit to the United States may be payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory.

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Secretary STIMSON. And I call your attention also to the provision which underlies the whole thing, which limits him, as stated in section 3 (a) (1)—

To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their jurisdiction or otherwise procure, any defense article for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, it is the very thing which you have just read, "which the President deems satisfactory," under terms he deems satisfactory.

Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. FISH. If he deems it satisfactory then he may give away any part of the Navy he deems satisfactory, under this bill, could he not? Secretary STIMSON. I should hardly say that was correct.

Mr. FISH. Well, he would have the power to do so, would he not? Secretary STIMSON. The President would have the power today to order the Navy, or one of the ships of the Navy, to go into the war

zone

Mr. FISH (interposing). He could send it now, but under the law could he give it away?

Secretary STIMSON (continuing). To places where it would be so dangerous to send it that you could be certain that no President under the high authority of his office, would dream of sending it.

In other words, Mr. Fish, you can make just as many and just as violent interpretations of our great Federal Constitution in the grant of power to the President as you are trying to extort from this bill. But we all know that no President would ever do or dream of doing it. Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, I am trying to do just what you say; I am trying to bring this bill within the provisions of the Constitution; that is all I have in mind as a member of this committee.

Secretary STIMSON. Then I do not think you will have a hard task. Mr. FISH. And if we can bring the bill within the provisions of the Constitution I will support the bill.

Now, Mr. Secretary, do you know any law at the present time which permits the President to give away any part of the Navy?

Secretary STIMSON. I would not want to make an error on something that I have not specifically looked up. I prefer to have you ask the Secretary of the Navy that question; and limit questions to me to authority of the President to make exchanges of materials that come under the War Department, for instance. We have not made a study of the Navy statutes and you are going to have the Secretary of the Navy here for that. But, I have told you about the situation of War Department statutes, the Army statutes.

Mr. FISH. The reason I asked these questions, Mr. Secretary, is because there was a great deal of confusion yesterday. I asked Mr. Morgenthau more or less the same question, and he said that the President had not the power, in answer to my question as to a part of the Navy.

And another member of the committee later asked him a question if it were not correct that the President could give this entire 17 billion defense away, and he said that he had that power.

There is some confusion in the minds of members of the Cabinet, apparently, and I would like to find out which statement is correct. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to state, if Mr. Fish will permit, that I do not believe the question was whether he could give the 17 billions of defense away.

Secretary STIMSON. My answer to all of these questions is that I came here to discuss this bill on a rational basis, in a manner in which you gentlemen would ordinarily be interested, and not to indulge in interpretations, which, obviously you could make in regard to every act, that are what you might call fantastic interpretations.

Mr. FISH. Maybe it is fantastic, Mr. Secretary, and assuming that it is a fantastic interpretation, have you any objection if the Congress inserts a provision in the bill prohibiting the President from giving away any part of the Navy?

Secretary STIMSON. For myself I submit that question is one which should be asked of the Secretary of the Navy. But on the knowledge that I have of the situation I should object to it, because I can well conceive that a portion, or some of the Navy, might be transferred under conditions that might be very advantageous to meet a situation that might develop.

Mr. FISH. Of course, I did not use the word "transfer" but "give away." But I realize that question primarily should be asked of the Secretary of the Navy.

Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. FISH. The reason again I am asking you that question is because there was much confusion between the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury and members of the committee.

Secretary STIMSON. I do not want to quibble about it, but you realize that he occupies one domain and I occupy another. And I do not want him to be confronted with a statement which I might make without adequate knowledge on the subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fish, would you mind, with reference to the question you have raised, to have the law read at this time?

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Shanley wants to call attention to the authority to give away a portion of the Navy, if you will permit the interjection right here.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, would it be proper to have the compilation that the Secretary referred to inserted in the record along with this statement?

Secretary STIMSON. I was going to have that made available.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fish, do you object to Mr. Shanley reading into the record the law on the subject?

Mr. FISH. No.

Mr. SHANLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Fish.

As long as the question of the limitation of executive powers is going to come up in the discussion of this whole matter, may I read the limitation in the act of 1883, in which it is said that

No vessel of the Navy shall hereafter be sold in any other manner than herein provided, or for less than such appraised value, unless the President of the United States shall otherwise direct in writing.

That is in the act of March 3, 1883.

And in the statute of last year we have a limitation on the Executive, a limitation not only requiring approval of the Navy but the Chief of

[blocks in formation]

Staff. That is the statute of June 30, under which the President cannot sell, unless he has authority from both the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War.

That, of course, is tied up with the Attorney General's opinion, but I understand those are the only two limitations we have, plus the hodgepodge you referred to.

Secretary STIMSON. Well, that first statute which you read shows very clearly the wisdom of my declining to go in to the subject of Navy legislation.

But that statute, which you read, as you read it, to my way of thinking, by clear implication authorizes the transfer of the naval vessels if the President should so designate.

Mr. SHANLEY. It uses the word "sale."

Secretary STIMSON. Yes.

Mr. SHANLEY. Authorizes the sale.

Secretary STIMSON. The sale of vessels.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, Mr. Shanley?

Mr. SHANLEY. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Secretary, has the War Department given away any of its defense articles?

Secretary STIMSON. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. FISH. Has it given away

Secretary STIMSON (interposing). Unless it was obsolete. I can only say that I know of nothing of any importance having been transferred without compensation.

Mr. FISH. Has the War Department given away any of its antiaircraft guns?

Secretary STIMSON. I think not. I think we have so few that I would know of it.

Mr. FISH. That was the next question. How many have we got now?

Secretary STIMSON. That I should prefer not to answer except in executive session.

Mr. FISH. How many have you sold to any foreign nation? Secretary STIMSON. I think nothing that would not be called obsolescent; I do not know of any.

Mr. FISH. Have you sold or given away any bomb sights?

Secretary STIMSON. I think all of these matters, Mr. ChairmanThe CHAIRMAN (interposing). I was going to say, Mr. Secretary, that any questions that you prefer not to answer should not be answered.

Secretary STIMSON. I may suggest on this line of questions, that I have taken the position over and over again that I am perfectly ready and willing to give to any Member of Congress any information on any matter but I do not care to make myself a voluntary channel for conveying information on all these matters to Mr. Hitler by giving them publicity. I am willing to give Members of Congress information, in the confidence with which I assume they will receive it. Mr. FISH. That is perfectly proper.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, I believe every Member feels that way about it, and I would suggest that questions of that sort should not be asked the Secretary even to get his answer that he prefers to answer the question in executive session.

« PreviousContinue »