Page:Congressional Record Volume 81 Part 3.djvu/30

2404 I pointed out in the House the other day that it was not the violation of or a failure to observe any of the things in this bill which precipitated us into the World War. We did not get into the World War because American ships were carrying contraband of war or because American citizens were traveling on belligerent vessels. We were precipitated into the World War because Germany, in pursuance of a proclaimed policy, had begun sinking everything that floated on the high seas and had destroyed a number of peaceful unarmed American vessels which carried no contraband or war supplies, and they were sunk without warning on the high seas by German submarines and American citizens murdered, and that precipitated the war.

Now. let us get down to brass tacks. I wish a naval officer, like the gentleman from California [Mr. Izac], could show us, explain to us, the modus operand! on the high seas during the time of war. We will say that an American vessel leaves an American port, not carrying any contraband or any materials banned by the President, and bound for a -neutral port, but that fact cannot be known by belligerent warships. In the old days, ships of war overhauled merchant vessels, brought them to boarded them, and searched them. If they had contraband of war they took them in tow as prisoners of war. If not, they turned them loose. The policing of the seas in future wars will be carried on by submarines, indeed it was during the World War. It is impractical for submarines to seize and search these vessels. Every vessel that sails from an American port during time of war will be suspected by belligerent powers as having contraband. They cannot board them and examine them, so they will sink them.. That is precisely what happened prior to our entry into the World War and plunged us into that war. It can happen under this bill. It all indicates that in spite of all this legislation we will fail to reach the objective of keeping this country out of war.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Martin has expired.

Mr. MARTIN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection.

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

We have about concluded the most enlightening as well as the most thorough debate indulged in by the House in a long time. The leaders of the majority are to be congratulated on permitting free and open discussion of this vital measure. Of course we are all against war and for peace. However, so long as there is hatred, jealousy, envy, and ambition in the hearts of men, there will be differences of opinion among those men. The same is true of nations. Individuals may enter into agreements never to quarrel and to always submit their disputes to arbitration. When the crucial test comes, however, passion, anger, temper, and thoughtlessness usually prevail, and the mere fact that we have agreed not to fight does not prevent a fight. This being true, no neutrality law, however rigid, will accomplish all that is hoped for. The measure before us is practical in the sense that it expresses the hopes and the aspirations of almost a unanimous American people. It is impractical in the sense, however, that we all know that when a war comes, the country will be controlled largely by the circumstances as they exist at the time. In short, our good intentions, even though expressed in sound, legal language, are ruthlessly brushed aside and we meet the occasion as we see it at the time.

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

Mr. MICHENER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. DOWELL. This will serve notice on the nations of the world that, so far as our Government is concerned, we Intend to be neutral in their controversies.

Mr. MICHENER. It will serve notice upon the world that the American people intend to be neutral. I doubt, however, if our people comprehend fully just what neutrality means in case of war between two other nations. The complications arising are so many and so involved that it is almost an impossibility to even contemplate them in advance.

Mr. DOWELL. The American people understand that they want this Government to keep out of war.

Mr. MICHENER. Yes; they want to keep out of war, and of that there can be no doubt.

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

Mr. MICHENER. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. BERNARD. This bill, in my humble opinion

Mr. MICHENER. I did not yield for a statement. My time is too limited. I yielded for a question only. I shall not attempt to discuss the details of the McReynolds bill, which been substituted by the committee for the Pittman bill, which passed the Senate. The bill we pass here today is not going to become the law of the land. Neither will the Pittman bill be enacted into law, but these two bills are going to conference, and the conferees will write the legislation that we will eventually approve. But that legislation must come within the four comers of the two bills.

The principal difference between the Senate and House bills is with reference to restriction of shipments of other materials in addition to war supplies. The Senate bill automatically requires transfer of title to all such material before shipment is made, while the House bill gives the President discretion to determine whether or not this limitation should be placed upon the particular type of materials to be restricted.

In short, if our Government prohibits the sale and exportation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war, and also denies credit and loans to other nations engaged in war, we will have at least determined in the most positive manner our aversion to war; and have adopted a measure that will be a deterrent, as I view it.

No war can be carried on without munitions and credit. Since the United States has become a world power the nations of the world have always looked to the United States for both credit, munitions, and other implements with which to carry on their wars. If this country is interested in the profits of war—either domestic or foreign—then that is one thing. On the other hand, if this country is interested in doing away with all war, that is another thing. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. Of course, there is temporary prosperity for this country in a great European war, so long as we are not involved. If we are permitted to stand on the side lines, furnish the materials to the warring nations, and receive the financial benefit, we are by these very acts aiding and abetting the warring nations to pursue the very thing we are praying against. So here is a decision that we must make. It is a decision between profit and world peace, and I am sure that if our people could vote on this matter the vast majority would vote for peace and not for profit.

The Pittman bill writes all the rules before the advent of the war. The world is given notice that this country will not in any way attempt to furnish materials of any kind that can be used for war purposes to the warring nations. There can be no misunderstanding. There can be no partiality, and there Is no discretion lodged in any agency. I therefore prefer the Pittman bill. This is a far-reaching measure, of course, and some of the implications are not pleasing. Both of these measures provide that we can only do business with any belligerent nation on a cash-and-carry basis. Under no circumstances will we sell any materials of any kind to belligerent nations unless title passes completely in this country and responsibility for removal from the country rests squarely upon the shoulders of the purchaser. It has been said that the passage of this legislation will make the United States the ally of Great Britain in the Atlantic and of Japan in the Pacific, for the reason that these nations control these respective waters, and that if Great Britain is at war she will be able to purchase on a cash-and-carry basis because she will be able to do her own carrying, and that the same will be true of Japan. This is one of the phases of the proposal that I do not like. However, no law