Mr. CASTLE. Not everything. I certainly would never make it a

full dictatorship.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, we had far more than this in the last war. Mr. CASTLE. More than what we are doing now?

Mr. RICHARDS. We did as much as this in the last war?

Mr. CASTLE. Certainly not. Surely not.

Mr. RICHARDS. The British Parliament has done more than that. Mr. CASTLE. The British Parliament has given one right after another to the Prime Minister. But the British Parliament has not resigned its authority at all.

Mr. RICHARDS. Has not the British Parliament taken one right after another one peacetime right after another-from the British people as a national-defense measure?

Mr. CASTLE. From the British people; yes.

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.

Mr. CASTLE. The British Parliament just now, for example, will probably ratify what the Prime Minister has done with regard to labor. Mr. RICHARDS. The British Parliament itself has taken this right from the people; has it not?

Mr. CASTLE. It has taken its right from the people, but the British Parliament is responsible to the people and the British Parliament has never turned over its right to anybody.

Mr. RICHARDS. That is right. But, as a matter of fact, the people in a democarcy are the government; is that not right? Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Rogers?

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, do you not feel that the people of America are overwhelmingly in favor of the United States sending all aid to Great Britain that can be sent without weakening our own national defense?

Mr. CASTLE. I think, without weakening our own national defense and without getting ourselves into war.

Mrs. ROGERS. And, Mr. Secretary, you favored the principle of the reciprocal trade agreements which were agreed to during this administration so that proved that your position is not a partisan one. You decide a measure upon its merits?

Mr. CASTLE. I certainly try to, Mrs. Rogers. I do agree in principle with the trade agreement, and I do not think-that is, I think it is terrible that anybody takes this as a political measure. Mrs. ROGERS. I agree with you thoroughly, and I am glad to know you feel that way about it.

Mr. Secretary, when you were the Under Secretary of State you acted as Secretary of State during some of that period, did you not? Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. At that time you were frank about the information you gave. You gave quite complete information to the press and to the public so far as you could as to what was going on internationally. You felt that the people were entitled to know something about our international relations.

Mr. CASTLE. I certainly tried to, because I felt then as I feel now that the more the people know the people are going to support the Government.

Mrs. ROGERS. With knowledge and understanding?

Mr. CASTLE. With knowledge and understanding.

Mrs. ROGERS. To act intelligently for their own protection and the protection of the United States?

FMr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. Is it not customary, and you have had a great deal to do in your official capacity at various times, watching administrative and legislative procedure, for a Secretary of State, for instance, or a Secretary of War, or a Secretary of the Navy, to resign if that administrative official is not in favor of the policy of the President?

Mr. CASTLE. The President is charged with the conduct of foreign affairs and certainly if his Secretary of State disagrees with him, it is up to the Secretary of State to resign.

Mrs. ROGERS. It would mean that he either would follow the President on many questions or resign?

Mr. CASTLE. I think he has the right to argue and to argue for his own point of view. If he is overruled, then if he has got a good conscience in him he will resign.

Mrs. ROGERS. So the policy is the policy of the President rather than the views of the Secretary of State?

Mr. CASTLE. Of the President.

Mrs. ROGERS. During that administration?

Mr. CASTLE. Always.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you believe, Mr. Secretary, that the people of the United States understand all of the implications and conditions involved in this bill?

Mr. CASTLE. I certainly do not. I think the people of the United States look on this purely as an aid-to-England bill.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel that the people of the country want to aid Great Britain, but not to the extent of or in such a way or method as to involve the country in war?

Mr. CASTLE. I do not think we want to pass a bill which really, in my opinion, does one thing when it ostensibly is for the purpose of doing another thing.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel if our ships are sent to Great Britain, for example, and money is spent and great quantities of ammunition of war are sent, that then our men are likely to follow?

Mr. CASTLE. I think if we go into the war we go into the war to win the war and that means men just as much as it means munitions. Mrs. ROGERS. If we should go into the war, do you think it would be possible to defeat Germany?

Mr. CASTLE. It would be a very long, hard pull, and I cannot see at the moment how without some internal collapse in Germany that we would have a possibility of winning the war for many, many long years to come.

Mrs. ROGERS. And then do you believe, Mr. Secretary, that the so-called Allies, including the United States, going into the war, would be so weakened that it would place Russia in a very strong position, and then she might then dominate the world with communism?

Mr. CASTLE. I think Russia is the only nation that stands to gain by a prolonged war; undoubtedly.

Mrs. ROGERS. You feel that the people of the country, if they knew of the implications and conditions of this bill, would be against it? Mr. CASTLE. Yes; I would.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you believe this bill is within the Constitution from the broad construction point of view?

Mr. CASTLE. I was talking here this morning with someone about that, and I said that I really would not be willing to answer that question from the technical point of view. I do not feel that I know enough to answer. I do feel it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Mrs. ROGERS. Does not this bill violate, then, the principles of government under our Constitution and the principles of the republican system?

Mr. CASTLE. I think it does, because it makes a dictator without any limit of time.

Mrs. ROGERS. If this bill is passed, in what position would it place the President of the United States insofar as world affairs are con cerned?

Mr. CASTLE. Well, of course, if it passes as it stands I think it would put him in a very, very difficult position, because as it stands Great Britain, for example, would not come over here and buy ammunition. It would theoretically be bought by the President and turned over to Great Britain as he saw fit.

Mrs. ROGERS. Which would make him a commercial agent, would it not?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; if you want to put it that way. But he would be hardly commercial agent, because he would have the right himself to say what they must have.

Mrs. ROGERS. Well, he would be the owner then, so to speak, would he not, of all the commodities?

Mr. CASTLE. Which they might or might not want.

Mrs. ROGERS. If this bill passes, would it result beneficially or act as a detriment to the United States insofar as any extended aid to England is concerned?

Mr. CASTLE. I cannot see that it would affect that one way or the other.

Mrs. ROGERS. Well, if we should weaken ourselves very much, would not that later on be a detriment to our assisting England? Mr. CASTLE. Surely.

Mrs. ROGERS. Must we not remain strong ourselves to help England?

Mr. CASTLE. We must remain strong ourselves to help England. There is no doubt of that.

Mrs. ROGERS. If this bill passes, would not it cause the United States to follow a policy which would permit Hitler at any time he chooses to declare a state of war exists with the United States? In other words, do you believe this bill is a long step toward involving the United States in this horrible war?

Mr. CASTLE. I do think it is. I think Hitler would consider it just one more reason why he could, if he so wished to, declare that a state of war exists.

Mrs. ROGERS." And you do feel that?

Mr. CASTLE. I have no fear myself that we will declare war for a very, very long time to come, if ever. But I think the time may come when Hitler will say, due to this, that, and the other thing which has been done, a state of war exists.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you believe that if the provisions of this bill are carried out, vesting control in the President, it would go far toward giving the authorities to send ships and munitions of war

which might get the United States in actual fighting? Do you not believe the cost of it all might bankrupt this Government?

Mr. CASTLE. Very easily. But when you say "carrying out the provisions of the bill," I find it a little hard to follow, because I do not think the bill orders any special thing to be done. It simply gives the President the power to do anything.

Mrs. ROGERS. It gives him a blank check, in other words?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. And also at a later date could not and would not Germany collect damages against the United States for the ships and nunitions of war, and so forth, that we gave, loaned or leased to Great Britain? You remember after the Civil War, England collected arge damages or rahter, we collected large damages against England because the British Navy did not observe strict neutrality in regard to he rights of the United States.

Mr. CASTLE. Yes. I think if Germany wins the war, Germany will undoubtedly try to collect damages from us.

Mrs. ROGERS. And they will be very large damages?

Mr. CASTLE. They are likely to be.

Mrs. ROGERS. So that would add greatly to the expenses of this bill?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. Would not this bill tie our destinies with those European war leaders whose actions we are not able to control for a very, very long period of time?

Mr. CASTLE. Well, of course, I am afraid it would, becauseespecially if the President gets into it as deeply as the bill would put him into it-if we once get into European affairs it is going to be very difficult to get out again.

Mrs. ROGERS. I understand you favor a quid pro quo. Am I correct in that?

Mr. CASTLE. In what?

Mrs. ROGERS. Well, for instance, do you not feel if we give England supplies that England should give us back something in return, such as possessions or tin, if we need it, or rubber?

Mr. CASTLE. I think so far as possible; yes; without any doubt. But I must say that after the last war I hesitate to urge loans, because it makes such bad feeling afterward.

Mrs. ROGERS. Do you feel that since there is no provision in the bill that it would be wise to provide in the bill that some officer, say the Comptroller General, have charge or be charged with the duty of keeping an official record of all defense articles? There is a provision in it, but it does not state in that provision what officer will have charge of it. Do you feel that the duty-let us call him the Comptroller General, should be charged with the duty of keeping an official record of all those defense articles?

Mr. CASTLE. I think someone certainly should.

Mrs. ROGERS. That is, to keep an official record of all those defense articles which would be transferred by the United States to any government, together with any payment of any kind received by the United States from any government for such property?

Mr. CASTLE. Yes; but I should not feel myself capable of saying who ought to do it. I think someone should.

Mrs. ROGERS. The Comptroller General is supposed to guard very carefully the financial assets of the Government. I suggested that he should be that officer.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, at this point that the amendment suggested by Congressman Dewey be placed in the record The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. DEWEY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS NINTH DISTRICT, ILLINOIS, ON H. R. 1776

Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee on Foreign Affairs: I appreciate thi opportunity to present for the record this brief statement on H. R. 1776. You committee has had before it many distinguished people qualified to speak on th various questions of foreign policy, defense policy and economic policy involve in this proposed legislation. They have doubtless made it clear that the bill, s it now stands, is defective in a number of respects. I shall, however, confine thi statement solely to two defects in the bill which are immediately apparent an concerning which I wrote your distinguished chairman under date of January la I would be pleased if your committee would permit me to insert this letter s the end of this statement. It embodies two specific amendments I respectful suggest to your committee. In making this statement I merely seek to emphasi what I have already said in my letter of the 13th.

In the first place, the bill makes no provision for an accountability to th Congress of the transfers or sales made under the powers delegated. In the secon place, it makes no provision against the possibility that important British asse in this hemisphere may pass into the hands of unfriendly foreign powers in the event of the defeat of Great Britain by the Axis Powers.

The first amendment I have suggested is purely a technical one, suggesti that the Comptroller General of the United States look after the accountability of the material transferred to Great Britain or other countries as permitted by the proposed legislation. It may be that your committee can devise a bette means for insuring an accountability, but some effective means there must be After all, this is a representative government, a republic in form, and a democrac in spirit.

When we, as representatives of the people, are called upon to vest discretionary powers in the Executive, at the very least we should establish some way by which the Congress may know how the delegated powers are exercised. There must be some accounting of what is sold, exchanged, loaned, leased, transferred, or give away. The money and material belong to the people. We are responsible for it, and it behooves us to assume that responsibility.

I respectfully submit that the bill should be amended so that there be some accounting, so that the Congress may at any time learn through a single agency responsible to the Congress, what is sold, what is exchanged, what is loaned leased, and what is actually given away as an outright gift.

The second amendment suggested in my letter to the chairman is one of broader importance. It is to this amendment that I am anxious to direct your specia attention. It relates to international finance or, more specifically, to British assets in this hemisphere. Having served as Assistant Secretary of Treasury and as financial adviser to the Polish Government, I am perhaps better qualified to address myself to this phase of the proposed legislation than any other.

There has been a great deal of talk about the possibility of the British fleet falling into the hands of the Axis Powers should any disaster overtake the Britis Empire. The Secretary of Navy discussed this possibility in his testimony befor your committee, at which time I understand he presented figures on the combined naval strength of the Axis Powers and that of the United States. All of us recognize this danger to our security. We are preparing to meet it by building up the greatest and strongest fleet this country has ever had.

But, as important as this question of the possible transfer of the British Fleet to the Axis Powers in the event of Britain's defeat is to our security, I think we are overlooking a more practical danger. We are overlooking the fact that Great Britain has extensive holdings in this hemisphere, which, in the event of the defest of Great Britain, will undoubtedly pass into the hands of the Axis Powers. The Axis Powers would have thus obtained the strong foothold in this hemisphere so long sought.