the United States to purchase or sell bonds, securities, or other obligations of the government of any belligerent country or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any person acting for or on behalf of such government, issued after the date of such proclamation, or to make any loans or extend any credit to such government or person." Section 5 (b) to read: "The provisions of this section shall not apply to a renewal or adjustment of indebtedness existing on the date of the President's proclamation." EQUAL APPLICATION OF EMBARGOES, AND SO FORTH Section 6 to read: "Any embargo, prohibition, or restriction that may be imposed by or under the provisions of sections 3, 4, and 5 of this act shall apply equally to all belligerents." AMERICAN NEUTRALITY POLICY FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1936 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m. in the hearing room in the Capitol,. Hon. Sam D. McReynolds (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will continue consideration of H. J. Res. 422. Mr. Celler, have you a statement to make? STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have examined carefully H. J. Res. 422 introduced by the gentleman. from Tennessee, Mr. McReynolds, and S. 348, introduced by Senators Clark and Nye, and I am forced to confess that I am disposed to favor the Nye-Clark bill as against the McReynolds bill. The Senate bill goes much further than the House bill in laying down a definite mandatory instead of discretionary policy during times of foreign wars and possible foreign entanglements. As little power as possible in this matter should be left to Presidential discretion. I have the greatest admiration and respect for President Roosevelt, and my predilection for the Nye-Clark bill' cannot in any wise be deemed a reflection on him. But recent investigations clearly show that even President Wilson was swerved prior to the World War from a position of strict neutrality. Witness his position on the matter of making loans to allies at the time of the World War. Those loans and their implications and ramifications played a conspicuous part in drawing us into the war. Therefore, all possible power should be left to Congress. I desire to point out a few of the differences between the two bills. 1. In the Nye-Clark bill the "war materials" embargo is to be applied automatically at the outbreak of the war. There is no necessity of waiting until the actual declaration of war. The House bill applies such embargoes merely during the progress of the war. Much can happen before the formal declaration of war. 2. The Nye-Clark bill provides for punishment generally by way of a fine of $100,000 and 10 years' imprisonment, instead of $10,000 fine and imprisonment of 5 years, as is provided for in the McReynolds bill. The problem of maintaining neutrality is so serious that the heavier fine provision should be adopted. 3. In the McReynolds bill the formula as to the amount of war materials that may be set up as a quota is a matter left primarily to the discretion of the President. While it is true the bill provides a limitation as to what the President deems to be the "normal amount" of goods, that limitation is nevertheless more imaginary than real. I prefer the definite quota as set forth in the Nye-Clark bill, which provides for an amount not exceeding the "average annual exports during the 5-year period preceding the outbreak of the war." These figures can always be definitely ascertained and permit of little or no discretion. In this connection, I believe both bills also provide that the President can importune Congress to provide further restrictions on war materials if our neutrality is endangered. In other words, there is laid down a definite policy for a complete embargo that would be invoked when necessary. In this case only Congress can create such cessation of business. Here it might be well to consider the ruin that would be caused in such emergency. A complete embargo would well nigh destroy the cotton and food industry. Perhaps some means of compensation should be devised to reimburse the processors, the farmers and the food growers thus injured. It is well, however, not to tie up such legislation to the present session of Congress. Some later Congress should consider it. A fair presumption, upon a study of both bills, is that no mention is made of the possible violation of the Monroe Doctrine by a foreign power. I do not believe we could remain neutral in such an event. In the event of a possible attack by Germany against Brazil or Cuba the neutrality contained in both bills would have to be considerably changed. That would have to be left for some extraordinary session of Congress invoked by the President. Very properly, the Nye-Clark bill provides that goods when shipped to a foreign government shall be solely at the risk of the foreign government or national involved, instead of merely leaving such shipments to the President's discretion (McReynolds bill), at the risk of our own citizens. This is embodied in the B. M. Baruch "cashand-carry” idea, leaving all shipments at the risk of whoever buys the goods. I am firmly convinced that we should stay out of war. We should not accept the responsibility to ship goods to belligerents or even to neutrals. If anyone wants our goods, let him come and get them at our own ports. Undoubtedly the desire to increase our commerce by shipping goods abroad, the sinking of vessels containing those goods, the attempts to force a British blockade, and the attempts to avoid German submarines, brought us into the war. Business will suffer by such a policy. But that is unfortunate. Better that business suffer than that millions of men be drawn to the colors with the consequent loss of thousands and thousands of lives. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have your statement, Mr. Celler. Mr. Maverick; if you are ready, we will hear you. STATEMENT OF HON. MAURY MAVERICK, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. MAVERICK. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to say is that I was deeply grieved yesterday to find that the Republicans were using a professor. That is a monopoly that the Democrats enjoy, and I hate to see Republicans using a "brain-truster." I am shocked and grieved. Mr. MARTIN. Once in a while one sees the light. Mr. MAVERICK. I haven't any prejudice at all against professors or multimillionaires, but I notice that Mr. Morgan indicated that some of his actions were taken to protect the "rights" of the American people. Yes; he comes right out and admits his patriotism in wanting to go to war from the start. That seems to go in the Morgan family. In a Civil War they had some relations with the American Government-the selling of guns. I have not been able to find, however, any record of any heroic deeds on the field of battle. In fact, I can find no record of enlistments. Undoubtedly, they have decorated themselves with gold medals on the field of finance. The other gentleman, the professor, spoke about protecting weak countries, and gave a really learned dissertation on international law. Without any demagoguery, and not meaning to be personal, it is generally someone who does not have to fight in a war that talks about freedom of the seas, international law, "rights", national honor, the flag, and such things as "insults." POLITICAL ISOLATION AND ECONOMIC ENTANGLEMENT LEADS TO WAR In discussing the question of neutrality, I hope that we can do it dispassionately. For instance, I hope that you will not understand by my references to Mr. Morgan that I think that he "caused" the war or got us into it. There is no sense in blaming Mr. Morgan for everything and laying it on to him, because if we do we excuse ourselves. He is only human. Our purpose should be to get all the facts-and getting the facts, for instance, in the Nye inquiryto make an effort not to repeat the errors that led us into the World War. We know the firm of J. P. Morgan represented the Allies as purchasing agents; we know that they began financing the Allies from the beginning; but we also know that the American people were not neutral from the beginning. At first we had political and military isolation, but by virtue of economic and financial entanglement, we finally became "entangled" in a military and economic way. Hence, it would seem to me that observing these facts, that if we expect to keep political and military isolation in a conflict, that we must undergo some of the sacrifices of economic isolation. Now another witness, a professor, spoke in rather pious terms. of the "pressure of public opinion", somewhat as though the public is all wrong and a sort of an ignorant mob who don't know what they want. I believe, of course, that Congressmen should in the final analysis follow the dictates of their own conscience, and vote according to facts, but I find that public opinion is extraordinarily well-informed on the subject of war. I have been over some twentyodd States, and it looks like to me that the American people better understand that subject than any other. RESULTS OF POLL SHOW PEOPLE AGAINST WAR The Council for Social Action of the Congregational and Christian Churches of America held a poll in some 2,500 churches, with more than 200,000 individuals voting. Various questions were asked and the following is an analysis: Membership in the League of Nations-yes, 70,411; no, 89,661. Consultation with other nations in support of the Kellogg pact and other peace agreements—yes, 134,221; no, 18,851. National isolation through strict neutrality legislation-yes, 83,682; no, 54,786. More equal distribution of world resources and markets-yes, 121,581; no, 22,956. A larger army, navy and air force-yes, 64,432; no, 85,585. This furnishes illuminating information on public opinion. Some of the questions are answered in a slightly contradictory manner, but it will be seen that the majority oppose entrance at this time into the League of Nations, and they strongly favor "National isolation through strict neutrality legislation. Concerning ordinary comment, I ask permission to include for printing a story from the New York Herald-Tribune of January 12, 1936, by Leland Stowe. It says in part: AMERICA LOOKS FOR PEACE: NEUTRALITY OR ISOLATION?-AGREED ON A MAIN GOAL, LEGISLATORS AND WHITE HOUSE MUST DECIDE IN PERMANENT ACT WHETHER UNITED STATES WILL REMAIN ALOOF IN A CONFLICT OR BEND NEUTRALITY TO FIT CERTAIN CASES [By Leland Stowe] After 140 years the traditional American conception of neutral rights and freedom to trade with whom we please, when we please, and where we please has been discarded. It has been voluntarily renounced because a great majority of our population and our legislative bodies has become convinced that the old neutrality did not provide what Webster says neutrality should provide: namely, that "condition of a state or government which refrains from taking part, directly or indirectly, in a war between other powers." As a result, the American Government and American people have set out to blaze a new and challenging trail toward peace. GOAL IS AGREED ON There can be no doubt whatever about unanimity of approval of the goal which has been set. As to the most practical, most effective, and safest means toward that goal there exists ample room for honest differences of opinion. Even the most expert minds disagree upon various points in the program. But in its main lines the program is now complete and it is embodied in two neutrality bills-one sponsored by the administration and the second offered by Senators Nye and Clarke and Congressman Maverick-which will eventually be merged to constitute an imposing new stone in the arch of American foreign policy. PERMANENT SET-UP PROVIDED In essence, what do these projects propose to do? The administration project makes the following steps, intended as additional "peace insurance", mandatory: 1. A rigid embargo on the export of arms, ammunition, or implements of war to all belligerents. 2. Prohibition of loans or credits to belligerents, save for possible continuation of ordinary commercial credits. 3. All embargoes or restrictions to apply equally to all belligerents-unless Congress, with the President's approval, shall declare otherwise. 4. American vessels are prohibited from carrying munitions. 5. American citizens travel on belligerent vessels at their own risk. |