appeared before us I gather that this is the situation, and I am going to speak bluntly, that England, through the League of Nations, contemplate the imposition of certain sanctions against Italy. The foremost of those is to impose an embargo on oil, to prevent Italy from securing oil which is absolutely essential to the prosecution of the war. England, seeing that the sanctions would be valueless against Italy if Italy had a source of supply over here in the United States whereby she could enlarge the 6 percent that this gentleman spoke of, and get the other 94 percent over here, that in that event, the sanctions would be useless, that she is waiting for action of the type that you think we are about to take, and on that she is going to predicate what action she is going to take over there. Also, that those of you who are opposing this legislation are not opposing neutrality legislation as an academic matter, that you just simply do not want us to take any action that you think is going to place Italy in a position where this market is closed to her in the event that she is forced out of the market by the action of the League of Nations? Isn't that behind most of this controversy?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Mr. Congressman, speaking for myself, that is absolutely behind this controversy, and it is perfectly natural. I venture to say that if the effect of this proposed legislation were to reach out to other groups, say, for instance, if Italy were not the nation involved, but if France were the nation involved, or if some other country was the nation involved, you would receive protests from representative American citizens of those groups, because we are voicing and giving expression to the views of the plain American citizens of the street, who have become citizens in the last 10, 20, or 30 years, or the last 5 years, real American citizens, and citizens whose children's children will continue to be American citizens. The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate that statement, and naturally we know that.

Mr. TINKHAM. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tinkham.

Mr. TINKHAM. Judge, I want to ask you a question in relation to section 4. In this section the President is given the option to issue an embargo any time he may wish to do so. It gives him complete authority in relation to articles or materials to be used in the conduct of war. Now, as you are aware, that covers practically every material that might be used in war, and there are many materials almost as essential in war as arms and ammunition. you believe that the President should have discretion about the placing of an embargo upon such materials or do you think that the imposition of an embargo should be mandatory as soon as a state of war is declared to exist?

Do

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. I think much of this discussion has been possibly affected by not keeping in mind the immediate situation with the long-range situation. In principal I am in favor of, and I believe those for whom I speak are in favor of a declaration or an announcement of the materials to be embargoed by the President, which, in my opinion, should be done at once, peremptorily, and mandatorially, so as to give as much certainty as possible to all of the world as to what they may expect in the future.

Mr. TINKHAM. Suppose we do not do that. Suppose we find objections to that, do you think that authority to say what

materials should be embargoed should be left to the President? Are you in favor of the President's having the option at any time during the conduct of a war, after 1 year, or 2 years, or whatever time it may be, of enumerating what materials are to be embargoed? Mr. ALESSANDRONI. I am not, sir.

Mr. TINKHAM. You are for a compulsory embargo against belligerents of all materials that can be used in war, as well as arms and ammunition?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Precisely.

The CHAIRMAN. That question is a little misleading.

Mr. TINKHAM. It was not meant to be so, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I know you did not mean it to be. He says the President has discretion to issue it when and where he pleases, wherever he wants to. Now, would you consider that true when this law lays down when certain things appear, when it appears to the President that the placing of restrictions on the shipment of certain articles or materials and so forth would 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, or that to refrain from placing such restrictions would contribute to a prolongation or expansion of the war, when either one of those things appear, the President shall issue his proclamation. It is not as Mr. Tinkham says, that he can issue it whenever he pleases. Mr. ALESSANDRONI. The difficulty with that seems to be that it depends entirely upon what the Executive thinks is the condition. It leaves with him judgment on a subject upon which many honest men differ. It leaves upon him that discretionary power, and my idea is in this situation, and our group thinks that that discretionary power has been abused, and that is why we are here.

Mr. JOHNSON. However, you do agree with references to arms, implements, and ammunition that even that term would have to be elaborated by the President as to what was described within that category?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. I agree with that.

Mr. JOHNSON. If that is true, wouldn't it be true with reference to other commodities covering a wider field? Wouldn't there have to be some discretion vested rather than naming those in the act itself?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. I rather believe in the future that everything will be considered material for war, and on that basis I should think if he is given that authority he will have to so state.

Mr. KLOEB. During the World War, The Hague listed some 800 articles of so-called contraband of war. It developed that they were criticized for having missed it by some 200 additional articles. You see the impossibility of this Committee attempting to sit here and enumerate in an act each article which they consider articles of contraband, and making it mandatory upon the Executive to place that in effect. As a matter of fact, practically every article in existence, every kind of goods, in modern warfare, is economically necessary to the conduct of war. Isn't that true? Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Quite so.

Mr. KLOEB. Don't you think that the Executive, in exercising his judgment, for instance, on the first section of this bill, defining

the implements of war, that he would do so strictly and legally as to what are actual implements of war? Now, take the other side of it as to what are not implements of war, but what may be used in the conduct of a war, wouldn't it be virtually necessary for the Executive, whomever he may be, to practically include every item used in human existence today?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. I think so.

Mr. JOHNSON. In other words, the only way to have legislation that would be mandatory would be to prohibit the exportation of all articles of every kind.

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Practically so.

Mr. RICHARDSON. What we are interested in is keeping the United States out of war. What I want to know is if this bill is left as it is, will that have a tendency to get us into war?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. I think so.

Mr. RICHARDSON. With whom, Italy and Ethiopia?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. When I say "I think so", I am reminded of the public statement, and a statement made here this morning to the effect that the Premier of Italy said that the imposition of oil sanctions meant war. He may have meant that with respect to the League of Nations. Since it would mean war with respect to the League of Nations it might or might not mean war with the United States, but very close to it.

Mr. BLOOM. It would be considered by Italy as being an unfriendly act on the part of the United States.

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Yes; especially under the circumstances.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you not think that section 4 is, really, instead of a neutrality section, a bid for trade? Of course, every country will immediately start to provide for as many war materials as possible in order to have a quota advantage when the embargo starts. Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Yes; I think I touched on that when I said this will serve notice to them.

Mrs. ROGERS. And, to, the countries that cannot afford to prepare will be hindered?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Your idea is to eliminate section 4?

Mr. ALESSANDRONI. Yes; to eliminate section 4.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. John Rossi.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN F. ROSSI, UTICA, N. Y., REPRESENTING THE LEAGUE OF UTICA FOR AMERICAN NEUTRALITY

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and address?
Dr. Rossi. John F. Rossi, Utica, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your business?

Dr. Rossi. I am a doctor.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent?

Dr. Rossi. The League of Utica for American Neutrality.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Doctor.

Dr. Rossi. Now, from what I have heard this morning and this afternoon in the discussion you had here, I see that the neutrality business is a very complicated and complex subject. I thought it

was a very simple matter, but I have to say I was mistaken. At the same time, I wish to express what is my own humble opinion on neutrality. As I understand it, I think neutrality ought to be like this: You say, "You, Italy and Abyssinia, are in a state of war. I do not want anything to do with you. You fight as long as you can." Or, on the other hand, if England and France or Germany are in trouble we keep out of their trouble. Neutrality ought to be only that I do not help you and fight on your side.

I am neutral, and the United States is neutral between two belligerents because the United States will not send its soldiers on the side of one or the other, but for the rest of it, about giving and furnishing ammunition and raw materials, there are two ways of looking at that. The United States will agree to send munitions of war, or raw materials, or to cut off everything. If the United States, in case of conflict in Europe between two or more nations, were to say, I will cut off all of the materials, munitions, and raw materials, what benefit will come to the United States from this attitude? If they do not send iron and steel to them, they will try to get iron from other countries, from Russia, for example, and Russia will develop her mines and furnish iron to the countries that are lacking in iron. Who will suffer from that in the end? The United States will suffer.

If the United States refuses to furnish cotton to the belligerent nations, after the war is over, who will suffer for that? The United States will suffer. England will develop the Sudan and produce so much cotton that they will not buy 1 pound of cotton from America any more. So that, in all those cases, this strict neutrality applied to the munitions and the raw materials will be really detrimental to the interests of America. In fact, there is one of the reasons why we have this depression today, that many of the nations, due to the World War, do not buy any more from America. They try to produce for themselves many of the things that they used to buy here in America. They do not buy here any more. They buy it in some other country, or else they produce it themselves.

Mr. KLOEB. Isn't one of the main reasons that there is still $12,000,000,000 owing for what they did buy and did not pay for?

Dr. Ross. Yes; I know that, but why? Because America did not have any business to go into the war in 1914. If they had stuck to the rule that America ought to stay out, as the great President Jefferson or somebody else said, "Keep out of European affairs", that America would not go into war, America today would not have lost those billions of dollars, and the prosperity in America would have been the same.

Mr. KLOEB. As I understand it, you are advocating selling them anything, including munitions? We sold them all that before for $12,000,000,000 which we never collected.

Dr. Ross. Well, but pay cash; sell on a cash basis. I am a great admirer of the American spirit. I am also a great admirer of civilization and of keeping peace in the world, but there is no use in being so sentimental and so idealistic with nations that are always fighting one another. They are like sharks, fighting one against the other. Is that true or not?

Mr. RICHARDS. You were talking about the trade we would lose by observing neutrality. Supposing we made them pay cash

wouldn't they go where they could get credit? Supposing we tried to make England pay cash, wouldn't they go wherever they could get credit and buy there?

Dr. Rossi. We could not help that. If they came to America and wanted to buy 10,000,000 tons of steel, or 10,000 bales of cotton and you asked them to pay cash, if they did not pay cash, and they bought from some other country you would not lose anything. As to neutrality in America you will never succeed in having peace in Europe for the same reason that in Europe they can never have peace on account of economic reasons.

The present trouble in Europe is due to the injustice we met with in the Treaty of Versailles, and until they put in a remedy where they can have a better distribution of wealth, where they can have a more equal distribution of the colonies, never will there be peace in this world. The best method can be effected by the President of the United States and by the Congress of the United States. You and the President have the power, because you represent the biggest, and the largest, and the noblest democratic country in the world. Why don't you call on the President of the United States, why don't you call on him to say to Italy and Abyssinia, "I propose that you have an armistice now for a few months." At the same time the President of the United States or the Congress could hold an international conference where we will get to the bottom of the condition over there. If you want to cure a disease you must get to the bottom of the condition and know what has caused this disease, and the disease today is just economic conditions.

So, if you ever find a remedy for these economic conditions, then you can have peace. Then it is time to enforce the Covenant of the League of Nations, but until that remedy is furnished, it will not be done. Never mind that there are League of Nation sanctions, there will not be peace. If the President of the United States will call these belligerents together, call an armistice for 3 or 4 months and call the great powers together and say to the nations that have too much and to the nations that have nothing, to come to an agreement so that the nations that have nothing will have a chance to expand their population, and have a chance to colonize some section where there is lots of room and to improve their condition, and at the same time have raw materials for their factories and industries, America will have done a great thing for peace for the world, and if our President will do that, the President of the United States will go down in the history of the world as a great benefactor, and America will be considered as the greatest Nation in the world in its contributions toward peace and toward progress in this world.

Mr. LAMBETH. If you have completed your statement, I would like to ask you a question.

Dr. ROSSI. Yes, sir.

Mr. LAMBETH. I am greatly impressed by your honesty and sincerity.

Dr. Rossi. Yes, sir.

Mr. LAMBETH. I want to ask you this: Reference was made here by a witness earlier this afternoon to the Secretary of State. In line with your reasoning before the committee, I want to ask you if, in your opinion, the policies of the present Secretary of State looking to the tearing down of barriers or restrictions on world trade, so that