The CHAIRMAN. That covers it. Now, here is the provision, if he finds it will serve to promote the security and preserve the neutrality of the United States, or to protect the lives and commerce of nationals of the United States, if he finds that either one of those exist, or to refrain from placing such restrictions would contribute to a prolongation or expansion of the war, then he issues that embargo, but that is not in the discretion of the President, is it? That is mandatory whenever either one of those things exist. Don't you think it would be dangerous to provide that when the President declares or proclaims war to exist that in the same proclamation he should cut off all goods and shipments of all character that may be mentioned by Congress or by him?

Mr. LEVERONE. Well, if you are going to have neutrality, it must work evenly.

The CHAIRMAN. It does work that way.

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes, but it is the uncertainty of it.

Mrs. ROGERS. Would you except Latin America if some great foreign nation should attack them?

Mr. LEVERONE. That is, such as Costa Rica or Ecuador or some other small state down there should get into trouble?

Mrs. ROGERS. If some of the great foreign nations should attack one of the countries in Latin America, it might well be to our advantage to ship to them.

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes; it might well be.

The CHAIRMAN. Again, just suppose we declared this embargo when war started just as I understood you to state should be done, if that had been the law when Bolivia and Paraguay were at war we would have been cut off from furnishing any supplies to them. whatever, wouldn't we? They would have gone on and gotten their supplies from Europe just like they did get a great many of them. Don't you think you are going a little bit too far on that? There are three provisions in this bill covering that.

Mr. LEVERONE. If we would have been going too far in the case of the Bolivian controversy, aren't we going too far in the ItalianEthiopian controversy?

The CHAIRMAN. I understand your position is that the fourth section should not be in the bill.

Mr. MARTIN. I think he said the fourth section should be out, but if it did go in it should not apply to the present controversy. The CHAIRMAN. He said that the fourth section should go out. Mr. LEVERONE. Yes; it should be out.

The CHAIRMAN. But if it should stay in, then he would make it apply after the present war.

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. I see your reasons for it.

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Isn't this fourth section then sufficient for the President to determine it, instead of going back and interrupting all of our trade whenever some war occurs, when we are not likely to be drawn into it? Is it discretionary with the President when he has three provisions, either one of which he finds to be true he has to issue a declaration?

Mr. LEVERONE. It may be so, but we do not know what pressure may be brought to bear upon any individual at any time.

The CHAIRMAN. So, you think whenever war is announced between Abyssinia and some little foreign country over in Egypt, and we know those two countries are fighting, and we are shipping some things over there, we declare war exists, and then we should stop all exports of all character.

So.

Mr. LEVERONE. Logically that is so.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you be in favor of that?
Mr. LEVERONE. Logically we might do so.

The CHAIRMAN. But, you do not favor such a thing?

Mr. LEVERONE. No; I do not favor it, but logically that should be

Mr. GILLETTE. I would like to ask another question, enlarging on the matter you discussed with Congressman Tinkham, and I want to say in that connection, Judge, that I hope you do not think these questions we ask you are asked in any antagonistic spirit.

Mr. LEVERONE. No, not at all. I welcome them.

Mr. GILLETTE. I also hope you realize that all of us are earnestly trying to reach the same goal here.

Mr. LEVERONE. We have a problem, I agree with you.

Mr. GILLETTE. In reply to a question of Congressman Tinkham, I believe you said that you felt that if this provision were left in the bill, that at the outbreak of a war it should automatically apply, without leaving discretionary power in the hands of the President to determine as between belligerents.

Mr. LEVERONE. That is right.

Mr. GILLETTE. His question was also prefaced by this statement, that at the present time a condition of war exists between Italy and Ethiopia because the President has proclaimed it because, in fact, he had exercised the discretionary power that we gave him. How are we going to determine when there is an outbreak of war?

Mr. LEVERONE. On the declaration of the President and the approval of the Senate.

Mr. GILLETTE. The declaration of the President?

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes.

Mr. GILLETTE. Then, he is to exercise discretionary power? Mr. LEVERONE. With the approval and consent of the Senate. Mr. GILLETTE. Don't you make a great distinction there as to the discretion of the President? There must be some discretion somewhere as to whether war exists or not, whether he shall allow or not allow the exportation of material which is just as essential as arms and ammunition.

Mr. LEVERONE. That is correct. There should be distinctions made as between one and the other.

Mr. CHRISTIANSON. One is discretion as to the ascertainment of the main fact and the other is discretion as to what the attitude of mind of this nation should be under those facts as found.

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes.

Mr. TINKHAM. You believe, of course, that as the last war showed, as modern society is at present organized, the importation by countries at war of materials is almost as essentia las arms and ammunition for the maintenance of their offensive or defensive position?

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes.

Mr. TINKHAM. Therefore, you believe, as I understand you to say—and if I am not correct I wish you would correct me that, automatically upon a declaration by the President that war exists, an embargo should be put on material that can be used for war

purposes.

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one more question. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. Really, in effect, isn't this fourth section, instead of a neutrality section, a bid for trade?

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. And, of course, every country is going to begin to buy up just as fast as they can what material they are going to use in war.

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes, absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. So you would advocate the elimination of section 4?

Mr. LEVERONE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you for your state

ment.

Mr. LEVERONE. Thank you for the opportunity of appearing here.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. CASSASSA, REVERE, MASS.

The CHAIRMAN. State your name and whom you represent.

Mr. CASSASSA. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am ex-mayor of the city of Revere, Mass., and present president of the Mayors Guild of Massachusetts, but I am not speaking in that capacity.

First of all, I want to read to the committee the definition of neutrality as pointed out by Mr. John B. Davis, formerly Judge Advocate General of the United States Army. [Reading:]

The foreign policy of the United States was, from the first, one of strict nonparticipation in questions of strictly European concern. Every consideration, therefore, of material interest and territorial position induced the new republic to occupy an attitude of neutrality in all wars of European origin.

The justice and advantage of this policy were fully appreciated by those who directed its foreign affairs, and so thoroughly were the principles of neutral obligation understood by them that the early proclamations of neutrality issued by the United States not only served to establish the permanent neutral policy of that power, but were soon generally accepted as furnishing an enduring standard of neutral right and duty.

That, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, is my conception of neutrality, and that when we are approaching a neutrality bill such as is under consideration here, we are adopting a revolutionary policy that America has never adopted before, and that we should not adopt at this time. Any interpretation of neutrality under any writer who has written international law, or books on international law, will convey that same definition to you, that there is only one thing that neutrality involves, and that is nonaction on the part of the governments involved, and the minute we start to want this type of neutrality or that type of neutrality, we cease to be neutrals and we become partisans.

That, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, is what I want to impress upon this committee as far as the attitude of myself and

members of the organization that I represent is concerned, not because we are partisans, or because of our forebears, but because we are American citizens, and we are interested in America as Americans, and we are interested in the world policy that has kept America out of Europe until we had a President, who, imbued with the idea that he was going to be a leader of the world, and when he started to interfere in the European politics it resulted in the World War, and that was the last world war that we ever had. Now, then, it seems to me that this same principle is being invoked today. What business is it of America what they do in Europe? Surely, it never has been our business up until 1914, and we ought not to adopt a policy today that is going to bring us into this war or any other war. America has prospered during all of these years upon this foreign policy, and now we are asked to change it. I think the situation is too serious to the lives, to the homes, and to the happiness of the people of America to change it. Our hope is not in this legislation, and you, even though you may be doing it innocently, are bringing America absolutely into European affairs.

As a former assistant Secretary of State said, in the Manchukuo situation, "America stuck her neck out too far." Those were his very words, and he said that in conferences with the present State Department, he felt America was again in the Italian-Ethiopian situation stretching its neck out too far, and we found we did stretch it out too far, we blazed the way for sanctions of the League of Nations. The people of America have refused to go into the League of Nations, and we refused to go into the World Court, and evidently when they talk about public sentiment, I do not know where there is any public sentiment calling for this type of neutrality in America. When you talk to your constituents or the people we meet on the streets, and you say you want to be neutral, accepting neutrality in the ordinary sense of the word, every one agrees that if I go out in the corridor of the Capitol here and find two men fighting and step in and try to stop them that I am going to be the innocent vic tim of that fight, but if I go by and let them fight, they will fight it out themselves. That is neutrality, in the common acceptance of the word. So, naturally, every one says we are in favor of neutrality. If there is public sentiment in America, and evidently there is from the pressure being brought to bear upon this committee, it is the public sentiment created by those organizations built up by millions of dollars to place America into the World Court, and to place America into the League of Nations. Having failed in that, now they see a back-door entrance into the League of Nations and they are asking us to enter by the back door when we did not have the courage or if we had the courage our people and their representatives refused to go into the front door.

Now, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, that is just what we are doing. When you talk about neutrality, I say you have gone far enough in adopting the legislation which was adopted last August, and the administration wanted you to go further than you did last August. What happened since you adopted that legislation was that the Secretary of State had written to the officials of the League of Nations that we are in favor of sanctions. Your Congress did not say that.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one minute. Where did you get that inormation?

Mr. LAMBETH. Yes, what is your authority for that statement? The CHAIRMAN. Where do you get that information, Mr. Cassassa? Mr. LAMBETH. We want some authority here for such statements, ot just wild assertions.

Mr. CASSASSA. Mr. Chairman, we will produce it all. It is right n those volumes issued by the Carnegie Institute.

The CHAIRMAN. We question that.

Mr. LAMBETH. We want to clear this point up. You are charging hat the Secretary of State has exceeded his authority, and, further, I think, that the State Department is incompetent. That is a very erious matter. Now, you should correct that statement or produce roof of it, unless you want your entire statement to be utterly liscredited by this committee.

Mr. CASSASSA. Let me qualify that statement, and let me tell you vhat I mean by it; that the Coordination Committee of the League of Nations decided on sanctions, and they asked every member of the League of Nations what their attitude would be. They corresponded with the known members of the League of Nations with reference to his policy. They asked the United States Government about it, and, ather singularly, on the very same day that England and France eturned their answer to the question of the Coordination Committee, our answer was there, with the answer of England and France. Mr. JOHNSON. What was our answer?

Mr. CASSASSA. And they corresponded; intimated that they were friendly to this type of restriction.

Mr. JOHNSON. What was our answer?

Mr. CASSASSA. I will get it for you.

Mr. JOHNSON. What was our answer?

Mr. CASSASSA. That we would go along with them.

Mr. JOHNSON. That the Secretary of State favored sanctions, or the Secretary of State said that he favored sanctions?

Mr. CASSASSA. Mr. Johnson, I will get you that later.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want it now. As one member of the committee, I am going to object to anybody appearing here that makes such a wild statement.

Mr. LAMBETH. We want to keep neutrality between ourselves if possible. We want facts and not just wild statements, made without any proof of their accuracy.

Mr. CASSASSA. I appreciate that. I will get that statement from that pamphlet.

Mr. KLOEB. You made the statement that the Department of State insisted and desired that this committee go far in advance of what it actually did in August of last year. Now, that is news to members of this committee, and I should like to have your proof of that assertion.

Mr. CASSASSA. That the Department of State went further than it did?

Mr. KLOEB. No; that it insisted that we go further than we did last August. I should like proof of that statement.

Mr. CHRISTIANSON. Well, it is a fact that the Administration wanted legislation that was entirely discretionary. I was present with a delegation that called on the President.