enough to send their merchantmen to our coasts and protect
them while they are here and while they are loading the
goods which we sell them. The necessary implication is that
while the strong are doing that, and we are doing business
with the strong, the strong will see to it we do not do business
with the weak.
In other words, America decides by the passage of legislation of this kind never again to give encouragement to struggling little peoples, and decides that if the strong are strong enough she will do business with them. We are doing a disservice to liberty.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for one question?
Mr. WADSWORTH. I cannot yield.
I am not casting aspersions upon the motives, much less the Intelligence, of my colleagues, but this bill is going to pass because we are in a state of hysteria. That I believe to be the case. But, be that as it may, I view its passage with a sinking heart. [Applause.]
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro-forma amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have a very high regard, as well as great admiration, for the ability of the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth], who has just addressed the committee. I was. hopeful, however, I might ask him a question so that I might know his position in this matter, but I gathered from his remarks that he belongs to that school of thought that believes we should pass no neutrality legislation. I will ask the gentleman if he will answer that question so I may know his position?
Mr. WADSWORTH. What is the gentleman’s question?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Is the gentleman opposed to all of this legislation?
Mr. WADSWORTH. I would not go further than the present law and I would only extend that for 1 year.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I understood the gentleman to attack the present law with respect to shipment of arms.
Mr. WADSWORTH. The principle underlying the present law is made a permanent policy. I would not let it go more than 1 year, and I would confine it to the present law. To write it down in permanent statute is the thing I dread.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. If it is wrong in principle, why extend it for a year?
Mr. WADSWORTH. Perhaps my willingness that the Government of the United States shall experiment for a short time would account for that. I have no faith in it as a permanent law.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. We have had this law prohibiting shipment of arms to belligerent nations for more than 2 years.
Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield.
Mr. KVALE. It may be stated that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] and myself, while we may have a general pair for all practical purposes on 9 out of 10 measures that come before the House because our political views differ, nevertheless, as a former Senator, as the author of the National Defense Act, and as a former chairman of the Military Affairs Committee of the Senate, I have a very high regard for his views, and I think the gentleman has made a contribution to this, discussion. [Applause.]
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the attack is made here that in this bill we are surrendering something; We are in a way limiting and curtailing our rights, but this is being done for the great purpose of keeping our country from becoming involved in war. We want to say to the nations of the earth and give notice to the world that we are against war; that we are not only against it, but that we will not furnish the implements of death by which war is carried on.
Mr. Chairman, if this is right—and the gentleman states he is in favor of it for 1 year—why Is it not right as a matter of permanent policy?
They talk about freedom of the seas, Mr. Chairman; but when war comes, what freedom does any country have except the freedom that it can assert by force? Freedom of the seas is a myth in time of war, and no power can assert or exercise that right unless it is armed and equipped to enforce it. International law in time of. war is not international law except as one nation has the power to enforce It.
There was one statement that the gentleman made, however, I would like to take notice of. The gentleman stated that this measure is designed and intended to help the larger nations of the earth and that they will smile with complacency and pleasure at the fact it Is to be passed. I think I know, Mr. Chairman, that the nations of Europe, large and small, are all against this bill. They do not want us to deny during war the sale of arms and extending of credit. In the past when war has come in foreign countries they have looked to this Nation for credit and for munitions of war. Under this bill we will no longer do either, and the refusal of the United States so to do will be a deterrent against war.
[Here the gavel fell.]
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. And now, Mr. Chairman, we say to them, “When you want to light, when you want to settle your international disputes by war, we will furnish you neither munitions nor credit”, and without munitions and money they cannot successfully carry on any war. The large nations and the small nations of Europe are against this legislation because we have been a harbinger in the past for credit and munitions, but we are now giving notice to the powers of the world that we are going to quit it. [Applause.]
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer, and I object.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. ' Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. KOPPLEMANN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have great respect for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]. He did me the honor of listening as I addressed this House the other day on this bill. He must have heard my statement to the effect that since we have no recourse through the nations of the world today to get world peace, we must proceed selfishly in our desire for peace at least for America. I am glad that the gentleman from New York spoke, because he mentioned two outstanding American leaders who have opposed concurrent action by the nations of the world. He used the names of Senator Johnson of California and Senator Borah. The best argument—and that is why I rise—that has been made for a world court and a get-together of the nations of the world for peace, prompted by the desire of liberty for the small nations of the world, was made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth]. I hope in the future he will be as consistent in his argument when measures come before this House or other bodies that will embody the ideal of world peace. [Applause.]
Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoppman: Page 19. line 22, after the word “whenever", strike out the words "the President shall find that.”
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. HoffmanI.
The amendment was rejected.
The Clerk read as follows:
export op other articles and materials
Sec. 4. (a) Whenever the President shall have Issued a proclamation or proclamations as provided In section 3 of this act and
