Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

read the final vote in the Senate on this resolution to permit the rearming of the merchant vessels. It was 50 to 38 in favor of arming them with 8 not voting. This is in the Congressional Record, volume VII, page 8680.

I opposed in this letter to Senator Johnson the arming of the merchant men. The Senators who, in the voting, opposed the arming and voted against the resolution were as follows:

Adams, Aiken, Bilbo, Brewster, Brooks, Burton, Butler, Byrd, Capper, Chavez, Clark of Idaho, Clark of Missouri, Danaher, Davis, Gillette, Holman, Johnson of California, Johnson of Colorado, La Follette, Langer, Lodge, McCarran, McNary, Maloney, Nye, Shipstead, Smith, Taft, Thomas of Idaho, Tobey, Tydings, Vandenberg, Van Nuys, Walsh, Wheeler, White, Wiley, and Willis.

I do not claim any power or influence in affecting the votes of these gentlemen. The only point that I make in reading this list is that the view which I advocated in October 1941 was a view which also, for whatever reasons, seems to have been the view of these 38 gentlemen who voted against the arming of the merchant vessels at that time.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The Smith you mentioned there was not Smith of New Jersey. He did not happen to be a Member of the Senate at that time.

Senator SPARKMAN. That was Smith of South Carolina.

Senator GILLETTE. May I also say for the record that the Gillette read there is the present Gillette he is talking about.

Senator SPARKMAN. I think it would be well to put that roll call in the record.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I am wondering if the Brewster mentioned is the same Brewster who is here today?

Senator BREWSTER. It is the same.

Senator SPARKMAN. It might be helpful to both the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Alabama, and perhaps the Senator from Arkansas, to go back and review some of these votes in the House also in the earlier days.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I was not even in the House in those days.

Senator SPARKMAN. I think it may be well to put that roll call in the record in order that it may be complete.

(The additional information required follows in this record.)

[Excerpt from Congressional Record, November 7, 1941]

The final vote in the Senate on the resolution to amend the Neutrality Act in order to permit the arming of merchant vessels was 50 to 38 with 8 not voting (CR v. 87, p. 8680):

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Ambassador JESSUP. May I continue with my evidence on the socalled party line as to whether I switched after June 1941, and ceased to be an advocate of nonintervention and neutrality?

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. That point was strongly emphasized by Senator McCarthy, and I think you certainly have the right to put in your answer.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, since everyone else has confessed, I do want to say I was a member of William Allen White's committee to aid the Allies, but I was not in America First. I did not agree with Mr. Jessup's position at that time.

Senator SPARKMAN. I may suggest you better be careful. I notice Mr. William Allen White's name on one of these lists.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I will take a chance on Mr. White. Senator SPARKMAN. Go ahead.

ISSUE OF THE TABLET, SEPTEMBER 20, 1941

Ambassador JESSUP. The next thing I would like to introduce in this connection is a photostat of a report from the Tablet, a wellknown Catholic weekly. This is the issue of September 20, 1941.

The members of the committee will remember-and it happens to be on September 11, 1941-a speech by President Roosevelt in which he announced that from then on American ships and planes would attack any German or Italian warships entering United States defensive waters and that they were to protect all merchant ships, not only American ships, but ships of any flag engaged in commerce in our defensive waters.

Mr. Chairman, I and a number of other people, felt that that was not a good idea, and I would like to read from this report, which I will then supply for the record.

This, as I have said, is from the Tablet:

Fifty-eight assail speech as unauthorized

That refers to the President's speech of September 11—

Say neither Congress nor people will support edict: Fifty-eight prominent Americans this week assailed the President's speech of September 11 as a "grave threat to the constitutional powers of Congress and to the democratic principles of majority rule." The joint statement was released to the press by Gen. Robert E. Wood, chairman of the board of directors of Sears, Roebuck & Co. It declared that the President's orders to the Navy to shoot on sight, undermines constitutional powers of Congress to declare war and was directly contrary to the will of the people.

I will not read the whole thing. I will put it in the record, sir. The general tenor of it is indicated that this was a feeling that the order to shoot on sight would draw us into the war, and it was opposed by those of us who felt that that was the wrong policy.

I repeat, this is September 20, 1941.

Now, the signers of this letter, of which I was one, or of this statement-I believe such letters or statements are sometimes called petitions, but I do not attach any importance to that-were as follows:

William H. (Alfalfa Bill) Murray, former Governor of Oklahoma; Philip F. La Follette, former Governor of Wisconsin; Ray Lyman Wilbur, president, Leland Standford University; Charles A. Beard, historian; Irvin S. Cobb, author; Alice Roosevelt Longworth; George N. Peek, former chief of the AAA; Gen. Johnson Hagood, United States Army, retired; John T. Flynn, economist and author; William L. Hutcheson, vice president, American Federation of Labor; Kathryn Lewis; Mrs. Burton K. Wheeler, wife of the Senator from Montana; and Herbert K. Hyde, chairman of resolutions committee at the 1940 Republican National Convention.

Also Most Reverend John A. Duffy, Bishop of Buffalo; Most Reverend Francis J. L. Beckman. Archbishop of Dubuque, Iowa; Most Reverend Gerald Shaughnessy, Bishop of Seattle, Wash.; Igor Sikorsky, aviation authority; Robert L. Ripley, writer; Edwin M. Borchard, professor of constitutional law, Yale University; Claude K. Boettcher, Denver, Colo., financier; Philip C. Jessup, professor of international law, Columbia University; Samuel Hopkins Adams, author; Mrs. Ruth Hanna Simms, former Congresswoman from Illinois; former Congressman Samuel B. Pettingill of Indiana; Robert R. Young, Providence, R. I., chairman of the board of Alleghany Corp.; Amos Pinchot, attorney; and Kathleen Norris, author.

Also Rev. Samuel K. Wilson, S. J., president of Loyola University, Chicago; Rev. John A. O'Brien, Notre Dame University; Rev. John L. Bazinet, St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore; Dr. Clarence Manion, dean of the Law School of Notre Dame University; Edward S. Corwin, professor of constitutional law, Princeton University; Gen. Thomas S. Hammond, president of Whiting Corp., Chicago; Most Reverend Wilbur E. Hammaker, Methodist Bishop of the Rocky Mountain district, Denver; Herbert W. Briggs, professor of international law, Cornell University.

I will not continue to read them all, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to give you an idea of the nature of the 58 prominent Americans who took this stand in September of 1941.

I do not include myself as a prominent American, but I include myself as one who took this point of view and was declaring it publicly at this time in September 1941.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, this is not a list of Communists, Communist stooges or fellow travelers.

Senator SPARKMAN. Without objection, it will be printed in the record.

(The clipping referred to is as follows:)

[From the Tablet, September 20, 1941]

FIFTY-EIGHT ASSAIL SPEECH AS UNAUTHORIZED SAY NEITHER CONGRESS NOR PEOPLE WILL SUPPORT EDICT

Fifty-eight prominent Americans this week assailed the President's speech of September 11 as a "grave threat to the constitutional powers of Congress and to the democratic principles of majority rule." The joint statement was released

to the press by Gen. Robert E. Wood, chairman of the board of directors of Sears, Roebuck & Co. It declared that the President's orders to the Navy to shoot on sight, undermines constitutional powers of Congress to declare war and was directly contrary to the will of the people.

The full text of the statement, which called upon Congress to reassert its proper duty, follows:

"The President's speech of September 11 presents a grave threat to the constitutional powers of Congress and to the democratic principles of majority rule. Our Congress cannot ignore this challenge. It must reassert immediately in unmistakable terms its historic guardianship of our lives and liberties, or submit to the imminent prospect of undeclared war.

"The President has decreed that shooting shall begin. His edict is supported neither by congressional sanction nor by the popular will. It is authorized by no statute and undermines the constitutional provision which gives the war power to Congress alone.

"The American people have repeatedly declared themselves overwhelmingly opposed to participation in Europe's war. They are more interested in strengthening our own defenses and in preserving and extending democracy at home. They will expect their elected Representatives to take quick action to restore public confidence and to insure the carrying out of the people's will. In so doing, Congress will receive our unlimited support and that of all the American people." One of the signers, President Ray Lyman Wilbur of Leland Stanford University, added the following comment: "The President should follow the Constitution as did President Wilson when he proved his case before Congress which has the power to declare war. If the President is convinced that war should he begun, Congress should also be convinced by the same evidence."

Signers of the statement were:

THE SIGNERS

William H. (Alfalfa Bill) Murray, former Governor of Oklahoma; Philip F. La Follette, former Governor of Wisconsin; Ray Lyman Wilbur, president, Leland Stanford University; Charles A. Beard, historian; Irvin S. Cobb, author; Alice Roosevelt Longworth; George N. Peek, former chief of the A. A. A.; Gen. Johnson Hagood, United States Army, retired; John T. Flynn, economist and author; William L. Hutcheson, vice president, American Federation of Labor; Kathryn Lewis; Mrs. Burton K. Wheeler, wife of the Senator from Montana; and Herbert K. Hyde, chairman of resolutions committee at the 1940 Republican National Convention.

Also Most Reverend John A. Duffy, bishop of Buffalo; Most Reverend Francis J. L. Beckman, archbishop of Dubuque, Iowa; Most Reverend Gerald Shaughnessy, bishop of Seattle, Wash.; Igor Sikorsky, aviation authority; Robert L. Ripley, writer; Edwin M. Borchard, professor of constitutional law, Yale University; Claude K. Boettcher, Denver, Colo., financier; Philip C. Jessup, professor of international law, Columbia University; Samuel Hopkins Adams, author;

Mrs. Ruth Hanna Simms, former Congresswoman from Illinois; former Congressman Samuel B. Pettingill of Indiana; Robert R. Young, Providence, R. I., chairman of the board of Alleghany Corp.; Amos Pinchot, attorney; and Kathleen Norris, author.

Also Reverend Samuel K. Wilson, S. J., president of Loyola University, Chicago; Reverend John A. O'Brien, Notre Dame University; Reverend John L. Bazinet, St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore; Dr. Clarence Manion, dean of the Law School of Notre Dame University; Edward S. Corwin, professor of constitutional law, Princeton University; Gen. Thomas S. Hammond, president of Whiting Corp., Chicago; Most Reverend Wilbur E. Hammaker, Methodist bishop of the Rocky Mountain district, Denver; Herbert W. Briggs, professor of international law, Cornell University; Porter Sargent, publisher, Boston; John G. Mott, chairman of the board of the Associated Telephone Co., California; Mrs. John P. Marquand, New York; and Roy Ingersoll, Chicago, industrialist.

Also Joseph Scott, K. S. G., California, attorney; Dr. Charles Clayton Morrison, editor of the Christian Century; Janet Ayer Fairbank, author and former Democratic national committeewoman; Edward Price Bell, author; Dr. Fred L. Adair, chief of staff, Chicago Lying-in Hospital; Otto A. Case, treasurer of State of Washington; Clay Judson, Chicago attorney; Dr. Henry C. Taylor, director of Farm Foundation, Illinois; William G. Dennis, president of Earlham College and former counsel of British-American Claims Commission; Harold L. Stuart, president, Halsey, Stuart & Co.; Ray McKaig, Idaho, farm leader; Mrs. Paul Fitzsimons, Red Cross leader; Dr. Anton J. Carlson, head of department of psychology, University of Chicago; Gregory Mason, professor of journalism, New York University; John L. Wheeler, attorney; J. Sanford Otis, financier; William H. Regnery, industrialist; and Reverend Frank B. Fagerburg, author.

Ambassador JESSUP. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are various other indications which I could produce as to my views at this time. I think they may become pertinent later in my testimony.

I suggest at this moment that I have submitted for the record evidence which shows that I did not follow the party line and switch in June 1941, but remained, up until Pearl Harbor day, opposed to American entry into the war, and remained an active member of the American First Committee, which stood for that general policy, a policy which was completely contrary to that of the Communist line, which did shift in June 1941.

INTERPRETING INTERNATIONAL LAW

Senator SPARKMAN. Are there any questions from any members of the committee on that?

Mr. Jessup, let me ask you this question: You were at that time professor of international law?

Ambassador JESSUP. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Were your various letters and representations made, as you felt, in accordance with your opinion of what international law was?

Ambassador JESSUP. That is correct, Senator.

Senator SPARKMAN. And you argued the case with reference to embargo, shipment of arms, arms neutrality, all those subjects, according to your understanding of international law?

Ambassador JESSUP. That is correct, sir.

Senator SPARK MAN. I would suggest that unless we think we can finish the next one, which I think is a short one, unless we can finish it within 5 minutes, perhaps we ought to recess at this time and come back at 2 o'clock, if that is agreeable.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »