Page:Congressional Record Volume 81 Part 3.djvu/13

1937 we should consider the amendment on its merits regardless of partisanship.

My colleague the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] made an able speech here a little while ago. I do not agree with him. He spoke in behalf of the doctrine of freedom of the seas. Everybody knows that our contention for the freedom of the seas has dragged us into every single European war in the last 150 years. He makes an appeal for liberty in small nations. What have we got to do with the form of government in any nation other than our own? What have we got to do with the form of government in Russia, in Germany, in Italy. In Great Britain, or in any of the small nations? That is not our business. The American people have decided to modify the doctrine of the freedom of the seas and propose to do it in this bill. I admit the section discriminating against American ships goes way beyond my views regarding proper concessions to our rights as a neutral on the high seas.

Mr. SEROVTCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question right there?

Mr. FISH. I yield.

Mr. SIROVICH. Will the gentleman be so kind as to explain the significance of his last remarks, especially remembering the statement of Woodrow Wilson that we went into the World War to make the world safe for democracy' Mr. FISH. Woodrow Wilson made that statement, and that statement has turned out to be a farce and a mockery. We were involved in the World War because we insisted on our rights as a neutral to send our ships anywhere we wanted to send them. That is the doctrine of the freedom of the seas and that is what Involved us in war; but we do not propose to be involved in any other wars fighting for the freedom of the seas, we propose to modify it in this bill and keep this country out of war. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr, Chairman, I may state that I also approve the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut, and I think the members of the committee do as well. We have given this subject quite a good deal of study. These bills have been written rather by piecemeal. The first one merely covered arms and ammunition and extended, I believe, to February 28 or March 1 of 1936. The next bill we passed on the subject included arms and ammunition and extended the policy to credits. The operation of that bill expires on May 1 of this year.

The question of commodities Is a very serious one. It is rather a question what might occur in the future, and that is why we have tried to place in the bill with regard to the handling of commodities provisions giving the President proper discretion.

We hear a good deal of talk about mandatory provisions. It is my view the discretionary provisions are Just as necessary to keep us out of war as any of the so-called mandatory provisions. The great need Is flexibility. Inasmuch as this is an experiment, inasmuch as it is entirely different from any bill that has been introduced heretofore on this question. we feel it should apply for a period of only 2 years. By that time perhaps we can profit by the legislation and by further study.

I rise also to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am glad and delighted that the senior Republican member of my committee and myself certainly do agree on one proposition. I trust we can have a vote before he gets away from me. [Laughter.]

Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 minutes in addition to the 5 allowed me under the rule on my pro-forma amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana asks unanimous consent to proceed for 8 minutes. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut, which I think immeasurably improves the bill; and I am delighted to hear the able chairman of the committee state that he accepts the amendment.

All of us recognize the great ability, the unfailing patriotism, and the good intent of the author of the pending bill, Judge McReynolds, and all of us appreciate the enormous difficulty of the task he has sought faithfully to accomplish— the establishment of America’s neutral position in the world—but we should give the most careful thought to the far-reaching implications of the measure he has brought before us.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] raised a question as to whether the enactment of this bill would establish a permanent Anglo-American alliance. I do not raise the question—I assert it. Furthermore, I am fortified by up-to-the-minute statistics to prove it. Only yesterday the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce completed the compilation of export statistics for the calendar year 1935. This report shows that in 1935 we exported to Germany goods valued at $91,981,000; to France, $117,013,000; to Italy, $72,415,000; to Japan, $203,263,000, while to the British Empire we exported goods valued at $973,400,000. In other words, our exports to Great Britain were more than double our exports to all of the other leading countries combined. If this bill only limited exports to normal quotas, it would not be quite so bad, but we can readily see with Britain’s mastery of the seas how this bill in the future will make America the great British storehouse and source of supply of all war materials not strictly munitions of war. Surely this bill must give great cheer and encouragement to Downing Street. Furthermore, if we want to take a long step toward the creation of a dictatorship in America and the establishment of a fascist form of government molded in the best Hitler and Mussolini style, we will pass this so-called neutrality bill, but if we want to hold true to the American traditions of democracy and preserve the principle of popular rule as the chart and compass of our national destiny, we will defeat the bill with its dangerous proposal to confer vastly increased war- making powers on the President.

Dictatorships are the prevailing fashion all around the world. Nations are going centripetal at an amazing rate and our country is no exception. In heaven’s name, cannot we see in all of the present trends of governments that we are heading rapidly enough in the direction of a dictatorship in America without passing the so-called "discretionary” provisions in this bill which would be tantamount to transferring the war-making power from the Congress to the Executive? President Roosevelt is a peace-loving President, thank the Lord. His effort to establish a concord of nations in the Western Hemisphere entitles him to the highest meed of praise. I would trust him implicitly to do everything possible to keep us out of war.

But we must remember that we are writing a permanent neutrality law today, and we must make allowance for many different kinds of Presidents in the years to come. If every future President of the United States, as provided under section 4 of the McReynolds bill, Is to be allowed to slosh around in international affairs as his judgment and inclination may dictate, levying embargoes against some nations and allowing free and unrestricted trade with other nations according to his fancy, we will never have any peace and security in this country. If section 4 stays in the resolution, the title should be changed, and it should be called "a resolution to get America into war.”

I have never played poker In my life, but I think I know something about the peculiarities of the intriguing game. Imagine what would happen in a group of poker players, with arsenals strapped to their hips, when the prospective winner is about to reach over to rake in the pot if the “neutral” manager of the house were to announce that the rules of the game had been changed, thus making the prospective winner the prospective loser. There would certainly be some shooting and there will be plenty of shooting in which the United