it would strike the lean years and not get those where we had more trade, and we would have to go back for many years for the good trade as well as the bad. We felt in drafting this bill that no nation could object to that, that we still permitted them to get their normal trade from this country. That was the idea of the bill. I want to say, further, that quite a prominent gentleman, who is as much interested in this as you are, because he is of Italian descent, quite a prominent judge from New York, was down here the other day, and he had views like yours, but after reading this and explaining it to him he thought it was fine, that no one could object to this kind of legislation. Your argument along this line is just this: We are giving you, and you have just what you have been getting, and you are afraid other nations will cut you off. Mr. SABBATINO. Mr. Chairman, suppose after your committee recommends this resolution in its present form, Congress adopts it, the Senate adopts it, and the President approves it, and within a week after its adoption, the League of Nations places an embargo on oils Mr. KLOEB. Don't you understand that the League of Nations is to meet on Monday for the purpose of acting definitely on that question? Mr. SABBATINO. I know it is going to meet soon. Mr. KLOEB. There is not any possibility of this committee acting on this before Monday, let alone for the passage of the law. Mr. SABBATINO. Well, they can wait a few months. Mr. KLOEB. In my judgment, it will be a month or 2 months before it can be passed. Mr. SABBATINO. They can wait a month or 2 months. But, there seems to be a coincidence of events here. If a month from now the League of Nations has put the oil ban on, and the judge is a lawyer, is there any lawyer who could address any body of men who could say that one action was not practically the direct result of the other. Then instead of limiting conflict, instead of limiting warfare, instead of creating peace, we are creating a war situation. Mr. TINKHAM. I should like to ask another question. Did not Premier Laval about 2 or 3 weeks ago, when he was defending his position in the Italo-Ethiopian controversy, and Mr. Reynaud, who is of the opposition, both state that until America took action in relation to oil the League of Naions would not act? Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; that is true. The CHAIRMAN. They expect an embargo, don't they? Mr. SABBATINO. What is an embargo when a nation can get only 6 percent of its oil out of 100. Mr. CHRISTIANSON. If I understand you, your position is this: That although Italy has received only 6 percent of her petroleum requirements from the United States, she has, at all times, under treaties existing under international law, had the right to buy any amount of her requirements up to 100 percent of all her oil in the United States? Mr. SABBATINO. Yes; absolutely. Mr. CHRISTIANSON. And the enactment of this legislation now interferes with the rights she had prior to this enactment? Mr. SABBATINO. Absolutely. Mr. CHRISTIANSON. And the instant that this legislation is passed, when there is a war on, when this Government must be charged with knowledge of the fact that its action would affect that war, that would involve us in unneutral acts? Is there your position? Mr. SABBATINO. That is our position; yes. That is clearly and beautifully summarized, and with that summary, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the privilege of having permitted me to address you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We are glad to have had you with us. The CHAIRMAN. Judge Frank Leverone. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LEVERONE, BOSTON, MASS., A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE LEAGUE FOR AMERICAN NEUTRALITY The CHAIRMAN. Please give your name and whom you represent. Mr. LEVERONE. Frank Leverone, Boston, Mass., representing the League for American Neutrality. The CHAIRMAN. Are you on the bench, Judge? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. Mr. CALDWELL. Are you on the bench at this time? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. Mr. GRAY. Are you in office at this time, Judge? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes, I am still sitting as Judge, and have been for 28 years. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from you. Mr. LEVERONE. I represent the League for American Neutrality, and I am one of the committee of that association. Mr. BLOOM. Are you an officer of that committee? Mr. LEVERONE. I am simply a member of the executive committee, if you please. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Judge. Mr. LEVERONE. I have here in typed form a small set of ideas which I thought I would put down on paper so that I won't be rambling all over the lot in making my statement. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. LEVERONE. The proposed neutrality policy is based on the theory that another general war is likely to break out, that the United States can do nothing substantial to prevent it, that a all costs the United States must refuse to be drawn into it. There can be no doubt that this determination to stay out of another European war is shared by the overwhelming majority of the people. Mr. LAMBETH. Will you repeat the statement that you have just read? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. The proposed neutrality policy is based on the theory that another general war is likely to break out, that the United States can do nothing substantial to prevent it, that at all costs the United States must refuse to be drawn into it. There can be no doubt that this determination to stay out of another European war is shared by the overwhelming majority of the people. Mr. LAMBETH. Thank you. Mr. LEVERONE. The only question, then, is whether Congress is considering a sound policy. It seems to me that there is enough law combined in international law sufficient to provide for all the needs to protect this country from becoming entangled in any future war. The first neutrality law went into effect in 1794, and later was amended in 1818 and is now title 67 of the United States Compiled Statutes. These neutrality regulations have been sufficient to protect us in the past, and no doubt would be sufficient to take care of us in the future. In addition, to this neutrality statute, the provisions and regulations of international law are also ample to provide for the regulations between neutrals and belligerents. In times of peace it is easy to accord preference and to remain on friendly terms with less favored nations, but during war privileges tending to strengthen the hand of one of the two belligerents help him toward the destruction of his enemy. To grant these is not merely to show less friendship to one than to the other. It is to embarrass one, but reserving for the other a field of action in which his enemy cannot attack him. It is to assume a passive hostility. If, therefore, a people desires not to be the enemy of either belligerent its amity must be colorless in the eyes of both; in its corporate capacity, as a state it must abstain altogether from mixing itself up into the quarrel. The duties of a neutral state are identical with those of a state in time of universal peace. With these observations, let me come to the discussion of Senate bill no. 3474, entitled "Neutrality Act of 1936", which, I understand, is your bill, Judge McReynolds. I think I will just hurriedly pass along and make some comments along the same line that Mr. Sisson did this morning. The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. Mr. LEVERONE. This act is somewhat predicated on the Public Resolution No. 67 of the Seventy-fourth Congress approved August 31, 1935. We believe, in the very first instance, that there should be no enlargement of this last resolution. We believe that this resolution is ample, full, and specific, sufficient to provide for all needs in case of war. Now, as to section 3 (a) that should remain as it is written with the exception that the words "as proclaimed by the President on September 25th", should be added to that. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that? Mr. BLOOM. He is reading from the Senate bill. The CHAIRMAN. The same bill? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes; it is. Mr. CALDWELL. Is it identical? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes; it is. The CHAIRMAN. What would you suggest, Judge? What do you suggest as to that? Mr. LEVERONE. The words "as proclaimed by the President on September 25" should be added. The CHAIRMAN. Where does that come in? Mr. LEVERONE. At the very end of the paragraph. The CHAIRMAN. Of section (a)? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes, sir; section (a). The CHAIRMAN. As what? Mr. LEVERONE. "As proclaimed by the President on September 25." The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. LEVERONE. I would omit section (b). Mr. CALDWELL. Admit or omit? Mr. LEVERONE. Omit. Mr. LAMBETH. You are now in section 3, subsection (b). Mr. LAMBETH. You mean at that point you intend to say the President shall not have the power to name and enumerate the articles that are and constitute implements of war? Mr. LEVERONE. This committee should fix or enumerate the arms, ammunition, and implements of war, not the President. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. LEVERONE. The same applies to (c). Mr. SHANLEY. That is covered by our treaty with Italy. Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. Mr. SHANLEY. Where they set out what is contraband of war. Mr. LEVERONE. That is what I was coming to. That is all covered by the act of August 31, 1935, which expires in February, and coming down to the problem in its simplest form, I will say that the present act now in operation should be extended in toto. The CHAIRMAN. Not have any new act? Mr. LEVERONE. Not have any new act. Mr. SHANLEY. You agree with what Congressman Healey said this morning? Mr. LEVERONE. If he says so, I agree with him. The CHAIRMAN. He says just strike out the limitation and leave the act. Mr. LEVERONE. Leave the act. Section 4 and the much-discussed section 4 (a) should be stricken out. The CHAIRMAN. You would strike it out? Mr. LEVERONE. It should be stricken out. Mr. CHRISTIANSON. Would you have any objection to going further than we went in the act of August 1935, if we provided that the additional requirements and provisions should be inapplicable to any war now existing? Mr. LEVERONE. I would agree with that. Mr. MARTIN. You would have no objection to that? Mr. LEVERONE. No, not at all, sir. In a sense, such legislation would be ex post facto, so that I would perfectly agree with it. The CHAIRMAN. That might bring on a further question, and do not keep in mind just the war between Ethiopia and Italy; isn't there a war going on over in China between China and Japan? Mr. LEVERONE. Well, the means of ascertaining what is going on over there is open to the world, but we do not get very much except once in a while The CHAIRMAN. But, from the argument that is being made here that there is a war Mr. LEVERONE. As a matter of fact, the League of Nations do not know there is. The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking about Italy. Mr. LEVERONE. There is actual war going on because this country has taken cognizance of it, and this country has not taken cognizance of any war between Japan and China. Mr. CHRISTIANSON. Will you answer a question on that? Mr. LEVERONE. I will try to. Mr. CHRISTIANSON. Do you think the League of Nations will ever check a war anywhere in the world in which the powers that dominate the League are not interested? Mr. LEVERONE. For the preservation of those who have as against those who have not. That is the value of it. The CHAIRMAN. Is there a war going on between part of the League of Nations and Italy? Mr. LEVERONE. If you call sanctions acts of war, yes. The CHAIRMAN. Then if we exclude any other wars we might have to exclude all those people and wait until they get through fighting? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. Mr. MARTIN. Your theory is that the United States is trying to keep out of war, that there is not any danger of its being involved under present conditions. Therefore, you might be reconciled to accept it for the future, not the present. Mr. LEVERONE. I do not see how it is possible for this country to possibly be involved in the colonial expedition which is now going on in Ethopia. They have no ships on the water, and they have no submarines to contend with, and it is all localized, we having no interest in Africa in any way, shape, or manner, and I do not see why we should provide for that particular war. The CHAIRMAN. As to section 4, then, if it should not provide for any wars going on now, would it be satisfactory? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. Mr. KLOEB. Suppose a war going on now should spread, and become a so-called World War, involving numerous powers, would you still have this act held in suspension until such time as that war was over? Mr. LEVERONE. Oh, no; if you have other nations engaging in war, then I would say the act should take its course. Mr. KLOEB. Your theory is that just so long as the present two countries are at war The CHAIRMAN. Actual war Mr. KLOEB. So long as the present countries are at war it should be held in suspension! Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. But if any other countries become involved in it, then it should apply to all? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. Mr. MARTIN. They come in then with knowledge of this statute existing? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes; with knowledge of it. They are put no notice. Mr. LAMBETH. I understood you a moment ago to designate the present difficulty in Africa between Italy and Ethiopia as a colonial enterprise. Is that correct? Mr. LEVERONE. Yes. Mr. GRAY. Why did you use the word "colonial"? What is the import you place on that? Mr. LEVERONE. My definition is this: It is just the same as when we went into Mexico to punish Mexico for depredations which were committed against American citizens. Likewise, Italy in going into |