The CHAIRMAN. That was last session.

Mrs. ROGERS. That is what he said.

Mr. CASSASSA. I did not say the State Department. I said the Administration.

Mr. JOHNSON. I suggest that the gentleman be admonished that we do not want him in his enthusiasm, to make statements that cannot be proved. We want facts.

Mr. CASSASSA. Yes; I am going to try to give you some facts.

Mr. CALDWELL. I would like to see the authority for the statement that the State Department approved sanctions. I think we probably ought to have that now, before we go further with his statement. The CHAIRMAN. Let the gentleman suspend until he can furnish proof of that statement.

Mr. CASSASSA. Congressman Tinkham, have you got that pamphlet ?

The CHAIRMAN. We do not want a pamphlet. We want proof of that statement.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Let him see what he has.

The CHAIRMAN. There is another statement that you made in this record that I seriously object to; where you referred to President Wilson; where he wanted to be a great man and caused this war and got us into it. I seriously object to such a statement as that reflecting upon such a great statesman as Woodrow Wilson.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Cassassa, would you mind just discontinuing for a moment so that you could get that while we call the next witness while you are hunting it up?

Mr. CASSASSA. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cassassa, you may stand aside for the present. (In the meantime another witness was called.)

STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. CASSASSA, REVERE, MASS.-Continued

The CHAIRMAN. Continuing your statement where we stopped some time ago, I have the letter that the gentleman referred to in my possession, the letter that was written by Secretary of State Hull, which I want to read into this record. I will give the gentleman a chance to withdraw that statement as he made it if he desires to do so at this time.

Mr. CASSASSA. In explanation, Mr. Chairman, I am going to read this statement to you. This is from a document which is in the Congressional Library, published by the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace.

Mr. JOHNSON. What is the date of it?

Mr. CASSASSA. December 1935. It is document no. 315, and on page 539 under the heading "Sanctions in the Italio-Ethiopian conflict", this statement appears:

A long and anxious week was to intervene, however, before results began to appear. Very few replies were received during that time, or could have been expected. Then, on the following Sunday, by a strange coincidence, came word from the three great western democracies, Britain, France, and the United States. The first two concurred whole-heartedly. The third announced a considerably parallel action.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I want to read in the record right at this point the letter from Secretary Hull.

Mr. CASSASSA. Now, the Chairman is going to read you a letter from the Secretary of State. And now, I want you to note after he speaks about the items in your legislation the two or three following paragraphs about trading with belligerents and keeping off of ships and things of that nature. Now, I submit to you was there anything like that in the legislation that you passed?

Mr. KLOEB. Do you vouch for the Carnegie Endowment from which you have quoted there?

Mr. CASSASSA. I read you this statement and he is now going to read you the letter that was sent by the Secretary of State.

Mr. KLOEB. I merely desire to observe that I heard some criticism offered of certain peace societies whom it was claimed were financed in a recent meeting in New York by the Carnegie Foundation. Assuming that to be true you are now quoting from a pamphlet issued by the Carnegie Foundation.

Mr. CASSASSA. I quoted the record of what transpired, a published record that was kept of the replies from the different powers. I ask you to note in the letter he is going to read the paragraph following the statement about arms and munitions and passengers keeping off of passenger vessels.

The CHAIRMAN. With the permission of the member of the Committee, I will read the letter which was released October 26, 1935, for the press. [Reading:]

The Secretary of State today instructed the American Minister to Switzerland, Mr. Hugh R. Wilson, to make the following reply to the communication of October 21, 1935, addressed by the President of the Committee of Coordination to the Secretary of State:

"His Excellency DR. AUGUSTO DE VASCONCELLOS, President of the Committee of Coordination,

League of Nations, Geneva.

"EXCELLENCY: I have received your communication of October 21, transmitting certain documents in the Italo-Ethiopian dispute, including the minutes of the Council of October 7, the minutes of the Assembly from October 9 to 11, and the recommendations of the Coordination Committee, for which I desire to express appreciation.

"In regard to your statement that the governments represented on the Coordination Committee would welcome any communication which any nonmember state may deem it proper to make to you, or notifications of any action which it may be taking in the circumstances, it is, of course, well known that the Government and people of the United States are deeply interested in the prevention of war, and hence in the sanctity of treaties and promotion of peace in every part of the world; that as a corollary to their abhorrence of war with the human sufferings, the impoverishment of states and peoples, business dislocation and embittered feeling engendered by warfare, we are by tradition strong proponents of the principle that all differences between members of the family of nations should be netted by pacific means.

"I need only call attention to the Hague Convention of 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International disputes, the pact of Paris, in the negotiation of which the Government of the United States played an important part, the antiwar pact sponsored by the Argentine Government and signed at Rio de Janeiro on October 12, 1933, and the various conventions of conciliation and arbitration to which the United States is a party. These instruments of peace impose upon all nations parties thereto most solemn responsibilities, and no nation can look with complacency upon their nonobservance.

"As regards the situation now unhappily existing between Ethiopia and Italy, I may point out that the Government of the United States put forth every practicable effort to aid in the preservation of peace, through conferences, official acts, diplomatic communications and public statements, and emphasized particularly the principles of the pact of Paris and the high

legal and moral obligations of the signatories thereto. This Government repeatedly expressed its anxiety and the hope that the controversy would be resolved without resort to armed conflict and the convention of the entire Nation that failure to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the dispute and the subsequent outbreak of hostilities would be a world calamity.

"When, however, it was found that hostilities actually existed between Ethiopia and Italy, this Government, acting on its own initiative, promptly announced a number of basic measures primarily to avoid being drawn into the war, and which also would not be without effect in discouraging war. "The President of the United States on October 5, 1935, issued a proclamation bringing into operation under an act of Congress an embargo on the exportation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to both belligerents. "The issuance of this proclamation automatically brought into operation another provision of the act of Congress making it unlawful for any American vessel to carry arms, ammunition, or implements of war to any part of the belligerent countries or to any neutral port for transshipment to or for the use of either of the belligerents.

"On the same day the President issued a further proclamation warning American nationals against travel on belligerent vessels and stating that such travel would be at their own risk.

"In addition to the three measures just mentioned, the President took a fourth and most important step by issuing a public statement definitely warning American citizens against transactions of any character with either of the belligerent nations, except at their own risk.

"This latter statement was later emphasized when I publicly pointed out that the warning given by the President 'certainly was not intended to encourage transactions with the belligerents' and that 'our people might well realize that the universal state of business uncertainty and suspense on account of the war is seriously handicapping business between all countries, and that the sooner the war is terminated the sooner the restoration and stabilization of business in all parts of the world, which is infinitely more important than trade with the belligerents, will be brought about', and that 'this speedy restoration of more full and stable trade conditions and relationships among the nations is by far the most profitable objective for our people to visualize, in contrast with such risky and temporary trade as they might maintain with belligerent nations.' This policy with respect to transactions with the belligerents I now reiterate and reaffirm.

"These steps have been taken for the purpose of dealing with this specific controversy and the special circumstances presented.

"The course thus pursued in advance of action by other governments most of which are parties to one or more of the peace pacts to which I have referred, represents the independent and affirmative policy of the Government of the United States and indicates its purpose not to be drawn into the war and its desire not to contribute to a prolongation of the war.

"Realizing that war adversely affects every country, that it may seriously endanger the economic welfare of each, causes untold human misery, and even threatens the existence of civilization, the United States, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the pact of Paris and other peace obligations, undertakes at all times to not only exercise its moral influence in favor of peace throughout the world, but to contribute in every practicable way within the limitations of our foreign policy, to that end. It views with sympathetic interest the individual or concerted efforts of other nations to preserve peace or to localize and shorten the duration of war.

“Accept,Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

"CORDELL HULL."

Mr. CASSASSA. Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit the last two or three paragraphs that are written there are not in this law that was passed in August, and that is what I had reference to. I do not mean any disrespect, and I do not want to cast any reflections at all.

The CHAIRMAN. That was not your statement here before the Committee. It certainly was not in the law or we would have had an embargo on some of this before now, but at the same time the Secretary of State and the President announced this policy, thinking or

trying to discourage trade, simply because they thought that was a neutral act.

Mr. CASSASSA. Mr. Chairman, that is what, in my opinion, involved us in the World War. They gave Europe the impression that America was going to carry on with all of these things. Then you passed all of these other things. I think it is absolutely proper for the State Department to have sent such a statement, but, not having passed them, they are merely declaring a policy and they do not know what the policy is.

The CHAIRMAN. You went further than that, my dear sir. You probably got excited and went a little further than you should have. Mr. CASSASSA. It says here in this article I read that two concurred whole-heartedly and the third considered parallel action.

The CHAIRMAN. Knowing the Secretary of State as I do, I know he never made any such statement as that. It is just a wrong interpretation, I think.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS PALLOTTI, HARTFORD, CONN.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your name and address to the reporter. Mr. PALLOTTI. Francis A. Pallotti, 1029 Main Street, Hartford, Conn.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I believe that the scope of neutrality is to be on friendly relations with the belligerents. Mr. CALDWELL. Would you mind stating to the committee for what organization or group you speak, or whether you speak as an individual?

Mr. PALLOTTI. I speak for the American League for Neutrality that they have formed in Connecticut, for the meeting which was held last night in New Haven. This is a branch of the League formed in Boston, Mass., and I also speak as an American citizen. I want you to know that my father came here 70 years ago, that I was born in Hartford, Conn., and all my relatives live in Hartford, Conn. The CHAIRMAN. Are you on the bench now?

Mr. PALLOTTI. I was on the bench, and I was former secretary of state in Connecticut.

Mr. CALDWELL. An eminent jurist spoke here a few moments ago and mentioned the same organization you mentioned. Do you both speak for that organization?

Mr. PALLOTTI. He was speaking for the organization in Massachusetts. We formed one in Connecticut. I am speaking for the organization in Connecticut.

Mr. CALDWELL. Your statement will reflect the attitude of the organization in Connecticut?

Mr. PALLOTTI. Yes, sir.

Mr. CALDWELL. That is what I wanted to get.

war.

Mr. PALLOTTI. Nobody wants war. We all want to keep out of I realize, and I think everybody does, that your committee has a hard job, and I am glad I am not in your shoes, that is all I can say.

Mr. JOHNSON. We appreciate that.

Mr. PALLOTTI. I want to say this, that we all agree that there should be neutrality. I believe in what Washington said in 1796,

43786-36-11

the better and the longer we keep away from foreign entanglements, the better off America was, whether that concerns England, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, or anyone else. Now, I believe we ought to have neutrality. Now, how is it best to have neutrality? You are placed in the situation today where, if you pass this bill, this proposed bill, there is no question that you are not acting in a neutral manner. The so-called "punitive expedition of wars," or whatever you may call it, in Abyssinia, is in existence, and now you come along and you say exactly what ought to be done. Well, suppose we will say that you should put an embargo on wheat, cotton, and oil. The people in Italy will suffer too. Now, you know, if it comes to that what will happen. It is perhaps foolish, but you know when a person perhaps is going to die, knowing he is going to die, he perhaps will figure he wants others to die with him. So that, instead of causing neutrality, you may cause a world conflagration.

Now, first of all, I think that we are a nation that wants to help our trade along. Sometimes I believe that, perhaps, if a neutrality bill is passed so that these other nations can deal with us, knowing that later on, if a law is passed, in case there is a war we can trade with them in a normal manner, they will perhaps trade with us to a greater extent than they have been trading in the past, but I do not think we really want that. We want a sound basis of trade.

Mr. CALDWELL. Do you think that would be the logical result or, do you think perhaps, those nations would say, "While it is true we can get all we want from the United States in time of peace, our supplies would be materially reduced in time of war, and, therefore, we ought to build up our own internal resources and establish our contacts with nations who will assure us that they will supply us with the necessities of life not only in times of peace, but in time of war", and as a proximate result of that our commerce would greatly suffer. Which of the two do you think would actually result

Mr. PALLOTTI. That is a hard question to answer with the League of Nations, you can see that. Italy, for example, is a poor nation, who, perhaps, would like to come and buy coal in America, but she would have to pay more for it, in the first place, and she has not the money to pay. So, she goes to Poland and she says to Poland, "I will build a ship for you if you, in return, will pay me in coal." Poland were in the League of Nations, Poland would say, "On account of the League of Nations we are willing to give you coal, but we cannot give you coal." Still, we are not giving Italy the right to come here and buy their coal here. There is the situation.

If

I believe there is a neutrality bill at the present time that is strong enough, and, if not, I think really a neutrality bill if it is passed ought to be a neutrality bill so that it will not be retroactive. In other words, to apply to the future, and state now we are going to keep our hands off of what you are doing today, and then if any nation goes into it with their eyes open in the future, it is their fault.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any objection to this bill if the two belligerents now recognized are exempted from the provisions of

the bill?