Page:Congressional Record Volume 81 Part 3.djvu/10

2384 peace-loving people, we shall never surrender our rights as citizens of the world. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. BxrharbL

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. COFFEE of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words.

Mr. Chairman, I am down in the well of the House in defense of my good friend the gentleman from Minnesota. The gentleman from Minnesota is acting only as spokesman for that group numbering in the hundreds of thousands of liberals in the United States who feel that the pending Mc- Reynolds bill and the provision in it aimed at civil war is directed primarily at the civil war in Spain, and is in effect and should be construed, by implication at least, as an act in alliance with the Fascist forces who are attempting to tear down the independent government of Spain. In order that I may explain to the Members of the House that the gentleman from Minnesota is not without support in his contention, I would remind you that the Methodist Federation for Social Service; Federated Council of Churches of Christ in America;-the United Christian Council for Democracy; the Nation; the New Republic; American League Against War and Fascism; the Witness, the latter being the official publication of the Episcopal Church; the New York Post; the Philadelphia Daily Record; ex-Congressman Vito Marcantonio; Prof. Paul H. Douglas; John Dewey; Mrs. Lorado Taft; Albert Einstein, the great German scientist; Robert Morss Lovett; Bishop Francis J. McConnell, of the Methodist Church; Bishop Robert L. Paddcck, of the Episcopal Church; Devere Allen; and the historian, who some regard as America's greatest historian, Henry Elmer Barnes; Alfred Bingham; Heywood Broun, America’s greatest columnist; Sherwood Eddy, international secretary of the Y. M. C. A.; Rabbi Stephen Wise, foremost of the Jewish ,rabbis of America—all of these and countless more are behind the gentleman from Minnesota in his demand of this House that the section in reference to civil war be deleted. If any Member of the House is laboring under the delusion that the gentleman from Minnesota has no support, and is, in fact, unsupported by countless thousands in this country who are asking a fair deal for the civil war strugglers in Spain or the civil war fighters anywhere, he is sadly mistaken.

I could read on and on organization after organization which has requested the gentleman from Minnesota and myself to take a stand in this House in reference to this legislation so that the United States Government, for the first time In history, will not put a provision in a bill preventing humanitarian aid in the way of furnishing food, clothing, and medical aid to a friendly democratic government fighting against the invasion of fascism.

Turn around and look at the picture of Marquis de Lafayette. For what Is he famed in the United States? He helped this country in a civil war when the American constitutional founders were fighting to establish a republic in the United States. It was the help of such men as the Marquis de Lafayette, Kosciusko, Baron von Steuben, the Count de Grasse, Count dEstange, the French admirals, that made possible independence in the United States. Are we going to take a stand that will be construed by liberals throughout the entire world as an act friendly only to the Fascist forces? Are we going to say we will stand aside and permit the forces of dictatorship Italy and dictatorship Germany to enter Spain and tear it asunder? If we are going to allow that to continue, how long will it be before all of the democracies in the civilized world will find themselves confronted by these invaders?

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I unanimous consent that the gentleman may be allowed to continue another minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. ALLEN of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman from Washington feels so strongly about this matter, why did he not vote against the embargo on arms to Spain 2 months ago when the gentleman had a chance to do so? Mr. COFFEE of Washington. There were a great many of us who voted one way on that resolution, laboring under a misapprehension as to the purpose for which the resolution was sought. There were a great many of us who would have voted the other way had we understood fully the provisions. Also, we were assured by the chairman of the committee there would shortly be a neutrality bill which would take care of the situation.

[Here the gavel fell]

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last four words.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose this bill will pass by a heavy vote in the House of Representatives. I make no concealment of the fact I await its passage with a sinking heart. It may be that mine is a voice crying in the wilderness, but such as it is, I ask the indulgence of the Committee for but a moment while I utter a sentiment or two with respect to the implications of this bill.

I agree with an estimate of it which I understand was given in the Senate by Senators Borah and Johnson, and with estimates of it given In part, at least, upon the floor here yesterday by more than one Member.

To me it means the surrender of an ancient and precious tradition, the sacrifice of an ideal. True, it is costly at times to live up to great traditions, costly sometimes, terribly costly, to live up to a great ideal. But that we should determine in advance of the event that we shall not live up to our ideals, that we shall not attempt to preserve our traditions, is to me a sad thing.

The struggle for liberty has been going on in this poor old world for centuries. Liberty is a thing of the spirit. It fills the hearts and souls of men with a strength and eagerness far surpassing the influence of material things. Human beings have been struggling for centuries to achieve it and have been struggling for centuries to hold it when achieved. As we look across the world today it is apparent that in many great areas the struggle will have to commence all over again.

This country has worshiped the ideal of liberty. We have achieved it. If we are viligent we will preserve it for our children. We did not achieve it without assistance. We achieved it with the assistance of those who were imbued with the same ideals of liberty. The gentleman from Washington who preceded me pointed to the portrait of the Marquis d’Lafayette-as an example of this ideal.

What does this bill propose? It proposes in effect that no matter whether some little struggling people, ground down and oppressed by a mightier power, shall raise the cry for help it is decided in advance, to all practical intents and purposes, that America smugly shall say, “We are not interested.”

[Here the gavel fell]

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Minnesota is right in what he said yesterday, that this bill offers an open invitation to the great aggressors the world over. Present-day aggressors and potential aggressors smile cynically when they see this bill go through. They are armed to the teeth. They have material resources which will sustain them in their conquests. It is the little fellow who will be dismayed when he sees what this bill means to him, for under it he is cut off, he is told he may not even purchase a weapon with which to defend his liberty or to achieve it. He is told in advance that America is not interested. It is an amazing prospect.

Under this cash-and-carry program, what will be the situation? It is that America announces to the world thnt. she is willing to do business with the strong, with nations strong