into the embargoed finished products overnight. That is the theory on which this proposal goes. We simply seek in the meantime to have a logical policy.

Senator JOHNSON. A while ago, in speaking of it, you referred to the fact that the law may be modified or repealed. That is not an answer, it seems to me, as to whether it ought to be enacted. Of course, the Congress may modify, alter, amend, or repeal an act which now shall be passed, but, with permanent legislation of this sort, experience has taught us that there is scarcely anything that human beings may use which cannot be interdicted, and to make it perfectly plain that you do not refer to food or medical supplies a saving exception is put in the bill. That is correct, is it not?

Secretary HULL. I think that is possibly a little broad. Ordinarily the bill would contemplate materials which are recognized as useful, and as used, for war purposes rather than those that might be supplementary or theoretically of such use.

Senator JOHNSON. The purpose of interdicting or embargoing all of these articles is what, in your mind, please, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary HULL. What we have suggested so far in actual practice was an embargo against any group of warring countries on those essentially war materials which were being exported in abnormal quantities. That is what we have done in practice, and it has not been a bad practice. No capital in the world has been able to offer a solid objection to it. Most of them are sympathetic with the idea. They think it will improve conditions of peace everywhere, as I said, if it can be practiced. That is a minor phase from the viewpoint of many. We have groups of sentiment in this country who are opposed to war trade with warring nations.

Senator JOHNSON. Yes; very large groups.

Secretary HULL. The theory of the Neutrality Act of last August in embargoing exports of finished war commodities to belligerents was to keep us out of war. Of course, we all know that. That was

the primary, paramount, controlling purpose of it. The theory of section 4 in the present bill, relating to embargoing of such abnormal shipments of prime war materials as might take place, is just as much or perhaps more to keep us from being drawn into war as the embargoing of these finished implements of war.

Senator CONNALLY. You have spoken of materials which have always been recognized as contraband. Is it not true that under modern conditions the list of those articles has been very greatly increased?

Secretary HULL. Unquestionably.

Senator CONNALLY. Is it not practically true, as Senator Johnson suggested, that almost any commodity in some way enters into making war materials-chemicals, steel, iron, clothing, food, and oil?

Secretary HULL. There is a greatly increased number of them. If there is danger of our being drawn into war on account of exporting finished commodities, the danger is all the greater about being drawn in on account of exporting these materials in abnormal quantities.

Senator BORAH. Before Senator Johnson proceeds, let me say this: As I understand the bill, it merely intends to prohibit trade in excess of normal trade.

Secretary HULL. That is all; trade in war materials, and not in anything else.

Senator BORAH. What amount of oil, and so forth, could be shipped to Italy under this bill?

Secretary HULL. It is understood to be between 8 and 11 percent of her domestic peacetime consumption.

Senator JOHNSON. The theory of certain groups of the country, to which you referred a while ago, is that the preventing of the shipping of the sort of things just mentioned would keep us out of war?

Secretary HULL. The theory is that, if embargoing these arms, ammunition, and implements of war will tend to keep us out of war, the restricting of the materials out of which a belligerent would make these same products overnight would to the same extent tend to keep us out of war.

Senator JOHNSON. Of course, that is hypothetical entirely. You are going to have, if I may use the expression, "trade as usual" with the belligerents. Is that it?

Secretary HULL. At the risk of the nationals in the President's discretion.

Senator BORAH. Mr. Secretary, I desire to ask a question right there. If we are to have normal trade, that is legitimate trade under our law.

Secretary HULL. Yes.

Senator BORAH. Should we withhold the protection of the American flag from a man who is engaged in legitimate trade under the laws of our country?

Secretary HULL. As I said before you came in, Senator Borah, we find that in actual practice belligerents cut down every import they possibly can, except actually finished war munitions or materials out of which they make them. Most all of them, or the bulk of them, are contraband. They do not call for the protection of the flag. They can be confiscated and destroyed whenever they are captured. Washington was the first man, I believe, who announced that policy in a proclamation.

I think I have tried to demonstrate my interest in international trade, sometimes when some of my best friends have not been able to go quite as far as I have gone, and I am just as vitally interested in this phase of it. On the other hand, when we look back over everything that happened in the World War and in any modern war, we have found that a neutral trading nation has found the chief danger and the chief difficulty in trading directly with neutrals. That is where the danger and difficulty will be found again, and, as I see it, our problem is to work out ways to rehabilitate the neutrality rights we have always claimed and to rehabilitate to the fullest extent what we call the freedom of the seas. That is a very difficult term for anyone to define. It has a number of qualifications and exceptions, and it does not mean freedom to our nationals to take war implements into the harbors of belligerents.

Senator BORAH. Certainly not.

Secretary HULL. It does not include freedom to our nationals to trade in contraband of any kind with belligerents.

Senator CONNALLY. As a matter of fact, in time of war the nation that has command of the sea defines contraband, does it not?

Secretary HULL. As I said, at the end of the late war, one belligerent in control of the seas dominated trade, not between neutrals

and belligerents only, but trade between neutrals, with respect to the whole of Europe. I think we can all agree on that.

Senator BORAH. I desire to ask one further question with regard to the matter I brought up before. Is it your belief that in case a citizen is carrying on trade which comes within the normal amount of trade permitted, he should carry it on at his own risk?

Secretary HULL. That was the policy we announced for the purpose of dealing with the present specific war situation, trading with belligerents. I realize, as I have said, that that is based on the theory of the Neutrality Act, and on the theory that it will tend to keep us from being drawn into the war, and that is more important than any amount of nonwar trade a neutral might have with a belligerent.

Senator LEWIS. Will you permit me to interrupt at this point, Senator Borah?

Mr. Secretary, does not that viewpoint bring us to this, that while giving the world to understand that the normal trader is within his rights, we withhold the protection of the flag, and we invite attack on him when we announce that we will not give him any protection? Secretary HULL. We went into the War of 1812 shouting this doctrine, we went into the war in 1917 shouting this doctrine.

Senator BORAH. I do not know that I have concluded myself on it, but it did seem to me that if the trade was legitimate under our laws and our policies, then the citizen was entitled to the protection of the flag. In other words, we ought to prohibit trade entirely if we are not going to protect him, because if a man traveling on the sea engaged in legitimate trade is blown up and killed, it will not be very long in the country before someone will be insisting on another policy than not protecting him.

Secretary HULL. But they will be insisting all the sooner on sending our Navy after every American who goes somewhere to make a few war dollars.

Senator BORAH. It seems to me we ought to give the citizen protection so long as he is engaging in legitimate business according to the laws and policy of our country. I am only suggesting that as a thought which has occurred to me. In other words, if the citizen is to be allowed to trade at all, he ought to be protected, Perhaps we ought to prohibit trade entirely. That would more nearly keep us out of war. But it does not seem to me that a great nation, 130,000,000 people, ought to lay down a rule that this trade is legitimate, and that people have a right to carry it on, but that the flag will not protect them.

Secretary HULL. I do not want to seem to be asking you a question, but suppose our nationals have a legal right to go into the blockaded zones and areas of belligerents for any purpose; that raises a question as to the extent to which we would undertake to follow with our Navy wherever they go.

Senator BORAH. They would not have the right to go into blockaded territory if it were an effective blockade. They would not have the right under international law to do that.

Secretary HULL. You mean as individuals?

Senator BORAH. Yes; as individuals. They have no right, under international law, where there is an effective blockade, to break the blockade and expect the protection of their country.

Secretary HULL. That is, to trade. I am speaking of their going in on a miscellaneous mission.

Senator BORAH. Of course, that might be possible.

The CHAIRMAN. There are two phases of the question. It looks as though we are discussing the fourth section. The question is as to arms, ammunition, and implements of war. You have suggested they are always recognized as contraband of war.

Secretary HULL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. As far as that is concerned, I do not believe this Government is going to attempt to protect any of our nationals in trading with belligerents.

Senator BORAH. No; not if the articles are contraband.

The CHAIRMAN. So we move on down to the other question, so as not to confuse the two. You have stated, Mr. Secretary, that during the last war practically all of the belligerents promulgated that any shipments to the enemy, or to neutral countries through which they could reach the enemy, were illegal from their standpoint.

Secretary HULL. They cut off all commercial intercourse with their enemies-practically cut it off.

The CHAIRMAN. There are only three alternatives in the matter, as I see it. One is to prohibit the shipment, and say it is considered as contraband; or let the citizen take his own risk; or, third, be prepared to prosecute war when one of the belligerents violates what we consider is our right.

Secretary HULL. That is the whole thing.

Senator BORAH. I think that is a perfectly correct statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I think that if we are to have any thing in the bill indicating that we will insist on a certain right, we should at the same time carry the declaration in the bill that if it is violated, we are going to uphold our right with the armed forces of our country.

Senator ROBINSON. I do not think that is quite sound.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you are proposing to do.

Senator ROBINSON. I do not think a declaration of war is necessary in this measure. What I would do would be to assert the right and imply the intention to maintain the right.

Senator BORAH. That is implied.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I mean. But it is urged here by some that we insist that a normal supply of these materials is legal and therefore that we will be called on to defend it. On the other hand, if we put into force and effect the other section of this bill, they ship the goods at their own risk; that is, they move them at their own risk. On the contrary, we do not pass on the legality, but say that we will not defend any of it in certain events.

Senator BORAH. Suppose we ship food to Italy, and some nation interferes with it. Are we going to get off the sea?

The CHAIRMAN. I say, we have only one other alternative, either to stop shipment, make them at the shippers' risk, or let the world know instantly that we are going to protect such shipments.

Senator BORAH. We have certainly to let it be known, before we declare for a policy based upon what we conceive to be right, that we will defend it. We are not going to take to the cellar. Senator JOHNSON. That is one of the purposes of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a question in my mind as to whether we are going to defend. It seems to me that as far as this measure is concerned, as a Government we are voluntarily controlling certain shipments from this country, not by reason of the necessity under international law, but by reason of the desire of keeping out of a major war.

Secretary HULL. Senator Borah, today, in any war, we do not have stable international law and order with respect to neutral rights.

Senator BORAH. It does not seem to me that we can escape the proposition that we are going to stand by whatever policy we establish with the force of the Nation. Take food, for instance: If we pass this bill and undertake to ship food, and it is interfered with, we certainly will not retire. So we have to reach the point sometime where we will say we are still a nation and will stand by our policy. I am willing to modify to any reasonable extent the proposition of staying off the sea, but we cannot announce to the world that we are not going to defend a policy which we establish.

Senator ROBINSON. To do that would be to invite attack. It would be to make certain the destruction of our commerce. Take the case of two sea powers at war, one of them having declared what we call a paper blockade, and a ship in American commerce flying the American flag moves into the territory of the paper blockade, whether it carries food or whether it carries war materials within the normal limits. It is likely to be attacked by the blockading belligerent, and when it is attacked there will be a very imminent state of war, if not an actual state of war. I make that observation on the proposition that I do not see at this time how it is possible to make certain that any law we enact will prevent us from getting into war. Senator BORAH. I quite agree with you.

Senator ROBINSON. I just cannot see it, and I would like to have someone answer that now. Assuming that fifty-odd other nations undertake to boycott a belligerent, that means that from their standpoint there can be no lawful commerce with that nation. That means that their combined forces will be used to prevent commerce with the aggressive belligerent. It also means that they will have the sea power to enforce that policy. I do not see how any law we could enact could keep them from carrying out their purpose.

As the Secretary has said, they have already disregarded international law when they declared their blockade, when they declared their boycott. They are doing it for a laudable purpose from their standpoint, but, nevertheless, it means no commerce except such as they choose to permit; and I am wondering how we shall deal with that; and I should be glad to have you answer that, because that is the gist of the whole matter. I want to do anything in God's world that is honorable to safeguard against war.

Assistant Secretary MOORE. In the study of this matter we had the idea that Congress had taken a pretty definite position by the enactment of last August, and we conjectured that there was a sentiment in Congress in favor of such reasonable domestic legislation as could be enacted, first, with a view of avoiding this country being entangled in war; and, second, with reference to the matter of war profiteering. Now, of course, there were those who thought there should be