Page:Congressional Record Volume 81 Part 3.djvu/12

2386 he shall thereafter find that the placing of restrictions on the shipment of certain articles or materials in addition to arms, ammunition, and Implements of war from the United States to said belligerents named In the proclamation issued under said section 3, or to a state wherein civil strife has been proclaimed to exist, la deemed necessary to promote the security and preserve the peace or neutrality of the United States or to protect the lives and commerce of nationals of the United States, he shall so proclaim and It «h*n thereafter be unlawful, except under such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe, for any American vessel to carry such articles or materials to any belligerent state, or any state wherein civil strife exists, named In said proclamation or proclamations 'issued under section 3 of this act, or to any other state for transshipment to, or for the use of, such belligerent states or within such state where civil strife exists. The President shall by proclamation from time to time definitely enumerate the articles and materials which it shall be unlawful for American vessels to transport.

(b) Whenever the President shall have issued a proclamation or proclamations under section 3 of this act and he shall thereafter find that the placing of further restrictions on exportation of commodities from the United States to the belligerents, or to any state wherein civil strife exists, is necessary to promote the security and preserve the peace or neutrality of the United States or to protect the lives or commerce of nationals of the United States, he shall so proclaim and it shall thereafter be unlawful except under such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe to export or transport from the United States to any belligerent state or state wherein civil strife exists named In said proclamation or proclamations issued under section 3 of this act, or to any other state for transshipment to, or for the use of. such belligerent state or such state wherein civil strife exists, any articles or materials whatever until all right, title, and Interest therein shall have been transferred to some foreign government, agency, institution, association, partnership, corporation, or national. The shipper of such articles or materials shall be required to file with the collector of the port from which they are to be exported a declaration under oath that there exists in American citizens no right, title, or interest in such articles or materials, and to comply with such rules and regulations as shall be promulgated by the President. Any such declaration so filed shall be a conclusive estoppel against any claim of any American citizen of right, title, or interest In such articles or materials. Insurance written by American underwriters on any articles or materials, the exportation of which Is prohibited by this act, or on articles carried by an American vessel or airship contrary to subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed an American Interest therein, and no insurance policy issued on such articles or materials and no loss Incurred thereunder shall be made a basis of any claim put forward by the Government of the United States.

(c) The President shall from time to time by proclamation extend such restrictions as sue Imposed under this section to other states as and when they may be declared to become belligerents under proclamations issued under section 3 of this act.

(d) The President may from time to time change, modify, or revoke in whole or In part any proclamations issued by him under this section.

(e) Any proclamation issued by the President under this section shall apply equally to all belligerents.

Mr. SHANLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Shakixt: On page 23, line 12, after the period, Insert "(f) Except with respect to prosecutions committed or forfeitures Incurred prior to May 1. 1939, this section and all proclamations issued thereunder shall not be effective after May 1. 1939."

Mr. SHANLEY. Mr. Chairman, neutrality, like liberty, has been the motive of good deeds and common precept of crime since the sowing of the seed by Grotius in 1625, Those of us who have been arguing for a searching, cautious study of neutrality believe that this type of amendment, the effect of which is to bring before the House biennially the review and possible perfection of existing neutrality legislation, will be provocative of beneficial results. We must bracket ourselves between ignorant change and ignorant opposition to change. This committee has worked faithfully and honestly and sincerely. Like the committee in the other body, it has been presented with problem after problem and has analyzed every one of them, and has come to a conclusion in majority fashion that this type of bill will best effect the ends of its philosophy.

Those of us who bitterly oppose the Pittman bill naturally seek with this amendment not to frustrate the international policy of our President but to bring once more to the American people the fact that this subject is so vast, so complex—may I use the words of the Supreme Court in the Curtis decision, when they said that neutrality is "delicate, complicated, and manifold.” Because of that belief and precedents that go back to Chief Justice Marshall’s utterances, they gave almost irresponsible power to the Chief Executive in external affairs.

I said the other day in presenting to you the problem of reciprocal-trade treaties, that we ought to be very cautious before we adopt the automatic embargo of the Pittman bill. 1 believe that with this amendment we are going to correct more than one evil, but we are going to keep before the American people this great subject. When we bring it before them biennially, we give them an opportunity to correct any mistakes that have been made.

Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHANLEY. I yield.

Mr. EATON. Are we to understand that the effect of the gentleman’s amendment is to make section 4 temporary for 2 years?

Mr. SHANLEY. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHANLEY. I yield.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman change that and make it for 1 year? We are not lazy people. We will be in session next year. Why not change it to 1 year?

Mr. SHANLEY. I thought of that. However, in the great international pattern of our President, with the reciprocal- trade treaties, with the possibility of a disarmament conference, and another tripartite currency conference, I believe that 2 years will serve his purpose and permit a better unfolding of his foreign policy.

Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Then would it not be better, on account of the reciprocal-trade agreements alone, to reenact the present law?

Mr. SHANLEY. Not necessarily. As I said the other day, the positing of this discretionary power in the President’s hands in contradistinction to the mandates of the Pittman bill give him the opportunity to make his reciprocal- trade policy coincide with his neutrality ideas. Certainly he will not allow one to laugh at the other. At the most I used 2 years only relatively.

In the time remaining may I say that in response to many requests as to whether the present bill would permit the solicitation and reception of money for humanitarian purposes, I have the assurances of the chairman of the committee, Mr. McReynolds, that an explanatory clause will be added to section 5. I have promised several people that I would seek this clarifying amendment. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. PISH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shanley]. I am sorry if we get into such a condition of affairs on a neutrality bill where It becomes a contest between this side and the other side, between Democrats and Republicans. The amendment I previously offered, in a nonpartisan way, was turned into a partisan issue, and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs got up and made a political speech and did not discuss the merits of the amendment at all. I am again asking you to consider this amendment on the basis of merit. This bill, like ancient Gaul, is divided into three parts—the good, which should be kept; the bad, which should be eliminated; and the indifferent, that should be perfected.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shanley] tries to perfect the bad and indifferent parts of the bill, or at least to make such provisions temporary.

These experiments are untried and novel and probably dangerous, and might actually involve us in war. He wants to avoid making those permanent and instead to limit them for 2 years. I am willing to go along for either 1 year or 2 years with these experiments. If they turn out all right then we can proceed in the next Congress to make them permanent or if not, to change them.

It seems to me this is a very sound amendment and ought to be considered on its merits; and I appeal to my Republican friends, this having been offered by a Democrat, that.