situation merely an extension of the present neutrality act rather than the enactment of a new measure such as this bill now pending before the committee? Is that a fair statement of your views?

Mr. HEALEY. No; it is not exactly a fair statement, because I have said that I think your legislation ought to include the loans and credits, but I do not believe section 4 should be included in the legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Healey, for your statement.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m., of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

(The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., pursuant to the taking of a recess.)

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Sabbatino here?

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF PETER L. SABBATINO, 70 PINE STREET, NEW YORK CITY

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name, address, history, and so forth. Mr. SABBATINO. Peter L. Sabbatino, 70 Pine Street, New York City. I am a member of the New York State Bar.

Mr. MARTIN. Do you represent yourself or some organization? Mr. SABBATINO. I represent myself, and, in a measure, several hundred thousands of Americans, and I might venture to say over a million Americans, whose ancestry goes back to Italy.

Now, gentlemen, I am here to speak without any prepared memoranda. Recently, after reading quotations from Washington's Farewell Address, I thought it might be a good thing actually to read Washington's Farewell Address here, which, as you know, he wrote about 140 years ago. I was surprised to learn how applicable many of the sentiments expressed by George Washington were to this very legislation which is now pending before your committee. I do not pretend to quote verbatim, some of the sentences written by George Washington in that address, but the gist of it was that we, as Americans, should steer clear of European entanglements, and that we, as Americans, should develop a policy not connected with or not dictated by any foreign government. Frankly, as I read Joint Resolution No. 422, which is now before your committee, I asked myself if the British Prime Minister were before you today just what would he suggest to have our country do that is not contained in this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, right there, I think I can suggest it to you. I think the first thing he would add would be that at the happening of or the declaration of war, that there should be a mandatory provision on embargoes and that should be passed at this time so that we would put an embargo on all materials or supplies of war, without any question or any reservation at all. That is what I think he would suggest.

Mr. SABBATINO. Viewing this resolution, gentlemen, I think the actual effect of it will be the same.

The CHAIRMAN. No; there is not an embargo except on quantities over and above the normal trade, and then it depends upon certain conditions.

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; but the actual effect will be, Mr. Chairman, to take sides in the present European quarrel.

The CHAIRMAN. How does it take sides?

Mr. SABBATINO. In this sense, as I understand it, from newspaper accounts, Italy gets about 6 percent of its oil supply from this country, and the other 94 percent of its oil supply it must get from other nations in the world. The other nations in the world, or the vast majority of them, are grouped in the League of Nations under the aegis of England. Not so long ago England was for imposing an embargo on oil, and it hesitated because it was afraid that this foreign country would get its oil from America. Now, what would we do? We would step right in.

The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, wait a minute, we have not stepped in that far. We give you your normal trade.

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; but we could not step in to the extent of 94 percent of our supply.

The CHAIRMAN. Ninety-four percent of what?

Mr. SABBATINO. Of our supply of oil, as I pointed out.

The CHAIRMAN. You would still get your 94 percent.

Mr. SABBATINO. Italy gets 6 percent of its oil in this country, but when you step into it to the extent of shutting off the 94 percent that it needs from the outside world, then we are becoming prisoners

The CHAIRMAN. We do not do that.

Mr. JOHNSON. There is no intention on the part of this committee or of Congress to take sides in any war. On the contrary, that is what we are trying to avoid.

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; I understand that.

Mr. JOHNSON. You said this would be discriminatory against Italy. They would be entitled to buy the normal supply or the normal purchases over a given period of years. As to Ethiopia, I do not know what the figures are, but I imagine their purchases are very small as compared with those of Italy. They would only be permitted to buy just the same percentage as Italy had on that basis, and Italy would have the advantage in that regard because she buys a great deal more.

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; I quite agree with you if there were no war now in Europe, but we must view this legislation not from an academic point of view, but its practical effect in the present situation. As Mrs. Rogers, we must view this legislation in its actual effect.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is what we mean to do with reference to the actual effect. Your average purchases and their average purchases would be relative by the same.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, what you want us to do is to furnish the other 94 percent of the supply?

Mr. SABBATINO. No; I do not.

Mr. CALDWELL. Do you want us to furnish any portion of the other 84 percent of the oil supply?

Mr. SABBATINO. I am not interested in whether a foreign government gets one drop of oil or not, but I do say the policy of

our Government, and the policy of this Committee should be a policy that is really neutral and not merely in name only.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think that would be neutrality? You have been shown that you get your regular 6 percent here, but if the other countries are going to cut you off, therefore, you think you ought to be able to get the balance of it here. Is that what I am to understand from your statement?

Mr. SABBATINO. Well, Mr. Chairman, may I put it in this way: There was no agitation about any embargo on oil 2 or 3 years ago. This question came up principally when the British Empire sought to crush another nation, and I, for one, as an American, do not believe the United States Government should write an insurance policy for the British Empire, and that is what this resolution amounts to. You may call it a neutrality resolution, but it is an insurance policy for the British Empire.

The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not agree with you.

Mr. SABBATINO. There is no reason why this Government should be taking steps to guarantee the perpetuation of the territories of any nation. There should be no embargoe list. Read again, gentlemen, Washington's Farewell Address where he said we should encourage commerce with all nations.

The CHAIRMAN. You are opposing any embargoes on commodities? Mr. SABBATINO. Distinctly.

Mr. JOHNSON. What about arms and munitions?

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; I am in favor of that.

Mr. LAMBETH. But that is as far as you would go?

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; that is as far as I would go. I am in favor of that, because when it comes to actually using implements of warfare, let the countries that want to fight manufacture their own. If there were no dispute such a measure as this might be all right.

Mr. JOHNSON. The trouble with that is this: There is always some dispute somewhere in the world. If we had to await absolute peace and tranquility throughout the world we could never pass legislation of this kind.

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; but we picked out a time at which to do something not when it inures to the benefit of America, but when it inures to the benefit of a group of foreign powers.

Mr. CHRISTIANSON. Would you have objected to this provision if it had been embodied in and made a part of the neutrality law, when the neutrality law was passed?

Mr. SABBATINO. I would not, because at that time it would have been the creation of an American policy, but when you do it now, Mr. Chairman, it is not.

The CHAIRMAN. War was going on at that time, Mr. Sabbatino. Mr. SABBATINO. No; not until October.

Mr. TINKHAM. There was no war going on then.

Mr. SABBATINO. There was none. Certainly I am not the only one that shares this opinion. There are millions of people throughout this country that share this same opinion. I read a dispatch from the Associated Press the other day stating that the White House was receiving from 500 to 1,000 letters of protest each day from people throughout this country, but I daresay that the White House, in fact, is receiving not from 500 to 1,000, but maybe up to 10,000 letters of protest a day.

Mr. GILLETTE. I am probably at fault, because I came in a little late, but when I came in did I understand you to say that Italy obtained 6 percent of her oil supply from this country?

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; so I understand from newspaper accounts. If we now adopt this resolution empowering the President to list certain other commodities as being means useful in the manufacture of war materials, and so forth, we all know, if we are going to use our common sense, from an understanding of the Presidential psychology, that he will list oil on the embargo list.

Mr. GILLETTE. Just let me ask you this question, in addition to understanding your position:

By what process of reasoning do you think that if we withdrew or lowered our 6 percent of oil that is allowed under this legislation, if passed, that it will automatically deprive Italy of the other 94 percent?

Mr. SABBATINO. In this sense, because Great Britain has, up to the present time, not induced the League of Nations to put oil on the embargo list, because Great Britain felt that this foreign government would get its oil supply from America, and, therefore, Great Britain has held off until your committee, and until our Congress passed this resolution, and then, like clockwork, you will find Geneva putting oil on the embargo list, and our President putting oil on the embargo list, and if that is not partiality then I do not know what partiality is.

Mr. GILLETTE. Then your objection, Mr. Sabbatino, is not to any action that we take but the indirect result that may come from that action?

Mr. SABBATINO. The actual effect of it.

Mr. GILLETTE. By some action of England after we act here?
Mr. SABBATINO. Exactly.

Mr. GILLETTE. But you have no objection to our taking the action contemplated by this bill?

Mr. SABBATINO. Well, I have got to view the situation as a person of some intelligence. I have got to know that when you put hydrogen and oxygen together in certain quantities that water will result. Mr. GILLETTE. It is the indirect result of it that you object to? Mr. SABBATINO. You might say the direct result of this legislation. Mr. GRAY. Mr. Witness, wouldn't you think no matter what embargo we might agree upon in an act here, its operation would affect different belligerents in different ways? No matter what kind of an embargo we place on commodities it will affect, in different wars, different belligerents in different ways?

Mr. SABBATINO. Certainly, and America, with 120,000,000 people, at least, must live on after this resolution is adopted.

Mr. GRAY. But, do you want us to make an inquiry before we enforce an embargo as to how it is going to affect this nation or that nation? Wouldn't that be a dangerous policy?

Mr. SABBATINO. It would.

Mr. GRAY. We are not responsible for that. That is dependent upon their lack of facilities or otherwise.

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; but now we see the effect of this very resolution. We are all Americans and we are all interested in America first and all the time, and any other country receives secondary consideration.

Mr. GRAY. Yes; but are we responsible for such an embargo affecting Italy more adversely than the other side? Are we responsible for that?

Mr. SABBATINO. We are responsible if we adopt such a policy.

Mr. GRAY. Yes; but this applies to all belligerents. We are not singling out these people, trying to anticipate its effect upon this belligerent or that belligerent. We are making a general policy, and we are not responsible whether it affects one belligerent more adversely than the other, are we?

Mr. SABBATINO. If there could be some provision put into the law, as suggested by another speaker, not to make this legislation applicable to the present war, then we would be neutral.

Mr. GRAY. We are not responsible for the present war or any of the conditions of the present war. Do you want us to single out and make inquiry and investigation to ascertain how this is going to affect this or that belligerent? Isn't the proper way for us to do to make a general embargo and let its effect be what it will be?

Mr. RICHARDSON. But we do know now it would affect one nation more than another.

Mr. SABBATINO. Yes, sir; we do. We are not dealing with a hypothetical problem but with an actual problem.

Mr. GRAY. Wouldn't that be true of every embargo, with regard to all belligerents?

Mr. SABBATINO. But, Mr. Gray, if we pass future legislation which has no direct effect upon a pending controversy, then we cannot be charged with partiality, and there is not anyone who reads the daily newspapers or the daily reports who cannot see it. Here is the Times before me, "Britain to support oil ban to Italy."

Why is it that England did nothing for the past few weeks? Because it knows that right in this room you are considering this legislation. I know that England must have at its disposal millions of dollars that would get us into war in the case and possibly spending millions of dollars by fogging the issue with this so-called propaganda.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of anything which would be more foreign to any policy of this committee or the chairman of this committee than trying to write up a neutrality bill, making it apply under this bill with partiality to one nation as against another. I resent the idea when you say that the bill was really for the purpose, as I understand you to say, of really doing a great injustice to Italy.

Mr. SABBATINO. No; that is not the object of it. I know that we are all interested in getting something on the statutes which is of benefit to our country.

The CHAIRMAN. There are other bills in here that would absolutely declare an embargo on everything, and oil would be one of them, an embargo to stop it all. Your committee is trying to be fair in writing this bill, giving certain conditions under which the President should issue these things, feeling that that is the only safe way in which to do it. We have put in here ordinary and natural trade. There is no year specified in this bill. At first it was 3 years, but I am frank to say to you that the chairman of this committee insisted when the draft was made that that be taken out, because I thought