plague us in our domestic relations, cause untold difficulties, and will injure far beyond what it has been injured at present, the trade of the United States, and in addition to that is bound to get us into difficulty with foreign nations also.

The CHAIRMAN. I am only dealing with section 4.

Senator JOHNSON. I have been dealing with that section most of the time.

The CHAIRMAN. I am thinking about that now. In regard to section 4, I say the condition we are faced with is as to whether it shall be mandatory, discretionary, or not at all.

Senator JOHNSON. You may be correct in that.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is what we are faced with.

Secretary HULL. Senator, you spoke about this bill being a halfway proposition. I think both the legislative and the executive branches of the Government are confronted by very great groups of public opinion insisting at one extreme on the ironclad inflexible embargo; some against everything in the way of trade.

Senator JOHNSON. That is true.

Secretary HULL. Others against all trade in war materials. Others against abnormal shipments of war materials.

Senator JOHNSON. That is correct.

Secretary HULL. We have then on the other side your aggressor friends who are heading another group.

Senator JOHNSON. Yes.

Secretary HULL. This proposal is somewhat between those groups, We felt that the country was insisting on some legislative step that would make more rigid our neutrality status, and this bill is deemed entirely practical and basically sound and the best middle course that I have seen anyone offer. The only alternative is nothing at all, and the country is not going to be satisfied with that, and I do not think Congress will, if I may say so. It is a choice between nothing at all or an extreme course, or this middle course.

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Secretary, your experience is much greater than mine, and I ought to defer doubtless to your judgment, but God deliver me from middle courses in a matter of life and death. I am afraid of them. That is just a generic remark that we can disregard.

You are quite right about what public sentiment is suggesting. But I am not going to legislate according to what the demand may be of one group or another. That is purely a personal viewpoint and a personal position of my own. You have on the one hand your pacifist societies. They are powerful now. They are under the leadership of a distinguished gentleman here in Washington who has had the ability to amalgamate them and bring them all together, who want us, as you expressed it the other day, to get into a storm cellar when there is any trouble at all; to have no commerce upon the sea, and no one would be permitted outside of the boundaries of the Nation in time of war between other nations. I remember the first bill that was presented here to us, that we discussed at this table a couple of weeks ago, out of which came this rather inept resolution that was presented and passed. The first bill, however, you recall, forbade us ever going into a zone that might be proscribed by a belligerent. We naturally rebelled at that. But it shows the extreme to which they will take us.

Secretary HULL. I may summarize: I have at every stage of this discussion made definite and clear the fact that the pending Pittman bill is primarily and paramountly intended to carry out in the most practical way the spirit of the Neutrality act of 1935, and American public opinion. It must be evident to the committee before this time that it is my opinion that the policy of undertaking to keep the Nation out of war by making neutrality more rigid really requires an important measure of executive discretion if results at all satisfactory are to be derived. If, of course, Congress is not favorably disposed toward granting such measure of executive discretion, the alternative is to pursue the same policies, in practical effect, which the Nation has pursued in the past. This viewpoint should be made plain to all, and I predict that experience will absolutely sustain it.

It is needless also to add that the policy of the executive department is to collaborate and cooperate in every reasonable and practical way short of political entanglements or involvements, to promote and preserve peace in the first place. These considerations are based upon the interest this Nation, as well as every nation, has in the preservation of peace in every part of the world; also its interests and responsibilities with respect to peace under all arbitration or other pacts intended to preserve peace.

When war once comes, however, the primary purpose of the executive department is to keep the Nation from being drawn into such war, while preserving the rules and laws of neutrality. The viewpoint is also asserted that this Nation, as all neutral nations under modern war conditions, absolutely complies with all peacetime commercial agreements relating to equality of trade, when they stand for the policy of normal trade with belligerents. Another viewpoint maintained is that a neutral nation under all rules and laws of neutrality applicable to modern war conditions, has a perfect right at any stage of a war to modify its policies of neutrality, provided they are based solely on considerations of domestic safety or the right of the neutral and not upon any external or international considerations, and provided that the neutral in question applies such modified policies with impartiality toward each belligerent alike.

With belligerents changing and modifying all phases of the rules pertaining to contraband, to blockade, to continuous voyage, to visit and search, to seizure and prize court proceedings, and numerous other phases vital to the interests of neutrals, it would be absurd in modern war conditions to say that a neutral's hands must be tied, no matter what revolutionary changes even from day to day belligerents may make with respect to contraband and other practices just set out, which might, and in effect would, tremendously affect the interests and the situation of the neutral.

I may add the following recent general statement of mine as to the past course and attitude of the executive department [reading]:

Every war presents different circumstances and conditions which might have to be dealt with differently both as to time and manner. For these reasons, difficulties inherent in any effort to lay down by legislative enactment inelastic rules or regulations to be applied to every situation that may arise will at once be apparent. The Executive should not be unduly or unreasonably handicapped. There are a number of ways in which discretion could wisely be given the President which are not and could not be seriously controversial. These might well include discretion as to the time of imposing an embargo.

Moreover, we should not concentrate entirely on means for remaining neutral and lose sight of other constructive methods of avoiding involvement in wars between other countries. Our foreign policy would indeed be a weak one if it began or ended with the announcement of a neutral position on the outbreak of a foreign war. I conceive it to be our duty and in the interest of our country and of humanity, not only to remain aloof from disputes and conflicts with which we have no direct concern, but also to use our influence in any appropriate way to bring about the peaceful settlement of international differences. Our own interest and our duty as a great power forbid that we shall sit idly by and watch the development of hostilities with a feeling of selfsufficiency and complacency when by the use of our influence, short of becoming involved in the disput itself, we might prevent or lessen the scourge of war. In short, our policy as a member of the community of nations should be twofold-first, to avoid being brought into a war and second, to promote as far as possible the interests of international peace and good will. A virile policy tempered with prudent caution is necessary if we are to retain the respect of other nations, and at the same time hold our position of influence for peace and international stability in the family of nations.

While our primary aim should be to avoid involvement in other people's difficulties and hence to lessen our chances of being drawn into a war, we should, on appropriate occasions and within reasonable bounds, use our influence toward the prevention of war and the miseries that attend and follow in its wake. For after all, if peace obtains problems regarding neutrality will not arise.

Every American citizen should by now clearly understand that virtually every policy, plan, and method, designed by the most practical statesmen to promote or to preserve peace, are invariably pounced upon by extreme nationalists with the absurd cry that each will drag the Nation into war. Peoples here and everywhere will get nowhere in promoting and maintaining conditions of peace unless and until they open their eyes to these wholly misleading representations by which so many peace-loving people have been duped in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the sentiment of the members of the committee concerning further hearings?

Senator JOHNSON. Would you give me until Wednesday to see if I can get my people here? Wednesday will be the next regular meeting day of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of Senator Johnson?

Senator ROBINSON. I think the time is coming when we ought to in good faith decide upon some action. I have no disposition to press for action, but I do feel that perhaps there are some other witnesses whom the committee will want to hear, and we ought to go on with the hearings. May I inquire whether Senators Clark and Nye wish a hearing?

The CHAIRMAN. They do.

Senator ROBINSON. I think we ought to hear them now. I propose that we go on and hear them. We have been working here now for several weeks, and we do not have anything in the Senate of great importance to do yet, but soon there will be coming into the Senate measures which will require great attention there, and I think while we have the opportunity we ought to work out something here or at least reach a conclusion. Of course, I have no objection to giving the Senator from California the opportunity to get his witnesses here. In the meantime, however, I think we ought to be hearing other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Shall the Chair notify Senators Nye and Clark that we are ready to hear them?

Senator ROBINSON. Yes; that is my suggestion.

Senator CONNALLY. Hear them on what?

Senator LEWIS. They announced the other day that their committee was in session and they could not be present at this committee's hearings. Would it not be well to tell them that the committee would like to have them present at the Wednesday session of the committee?

Senator ROBINSON. They are only in session occasionally. They are not holding regular meetings.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that Senators Nye and Clark could come before the committee at different times and advocate the legislation they propose.

Senator ROBINSON. I think they would feel, and I feel, that they are entitled to a hearing.

Senator JOHNSON. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. I tried to outline the situation to the two Senators. They did not want to come before the committee while the munitions committee hearings were on, and I told them that this committee could not be governed by their hearings, but that no doubt if the matter were submitted to the committee it would naturally hear them. If it is the will of the committee I will notify them that it would like to have them appear and present their theory with respect to the proposed legislation at whatever time the committee wishes to meet.

Senator JOHNSON. Let me have until next Wednesday in order to bring my witnesses here with regard to what little I wish to present to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you prefer to have your presentation made first?

Senator JOHNSON. No; I do not care one way or the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, with the consent of the committee, I will notify Senator Nye and Senator Clark that we would like to hear them at 10:30 on Monday, and when we are through with them we will adjourn until Wednesday, when Senator Johnson can bring his witnesses before the committee.

(Thereupon, at 12: 45 p. m., Friday, Jan. 24, 1936, an adjournment was taken until 10:30 a. m., Monday, Jan. 27, 1936.)

NEUTRALITY

MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1936

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call at 10:30 a. m., Senator Key Pittman presiding.

Present: Senators Pittman (chairman), Robinson, George, Black, Wagner, Connally, Lewis, Thomas of Utah, Van Nuys, Duffy, Bulkley, Murray, Chavez, Borah, Johnson, La Follette, Vandenberg, White, and Shipstead.

Present also: Hon. Gerald P. Nye, Senator from North Dakota; Hon. R. Walton Moore, Assistant Secretary of State; and Mr. Green H. Hackworth, Legal Adviser, State Department.

STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD P. NYE, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator NYE. Mr. Chairman, if you are waiting for Senator Clark, I have been asked to advise you that he is quite certain to be late. He has a bad throat this morning and he called me from his doctor's office and indicated that he would be considerably late in arriving. While he is very anxious to be heard upon this subject he does not by any means wish to delay the consideration and I expect that that means that he does not expect the committee to delay on his account. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Nye, I think you might proceed and analyze your bill, call attention to any distinction between that bill and the other bill, if you wish to.

Senator NYE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Senate bill 3478, known as the Clark-Nye bill, is the outgrowth of the resolutions which Senator Clark and I offered last spring, and which have been in the drafting for many months. We have had the valuable assistance of the legislative counsel in its drafting, and painstaking effort has been afforded to accomplish what we hope might be accomplished through a neutrality policy or bill.

I think, perhaps, we could save time were I to follow rather closely a memorandum which is before me, reciting the differences which we see to exist between Senate bill 3474 and Senate bill 3478, and with the consent of the chairman I will read that brief statement. The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead.

Senator NYE. Obviously the purpose of this bill is to prevent, as far as possible, the involvement of the United States in such wars as may be carried on abroad for purposes which are never entirely clear until the end of those wars.