I directed that that be examined, and a more careful analysis of the matter be obtained.

I then left for Moscow and Mr. Acheson, the Under Secretary, wrote the letter. In response to that, replies were received from the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War.

It is that original letter to which you undoubtedly refer, which was in March, shortly after my departure from Washington.

My feeling would be it would be against the public interest in our relations with Latin American countries to publish a confidential, secret communication among the departments, which happens to be in writing, and might well have been an oral discussion such as we had at the table.

On the other hand, I have been told, as you have just related, that certain pieces of that have become public and possibly some members of the committee have seen the letter.

Under those circumstances, I would suggest that the procedure might be for me to send an officer to the committee in an executive session and have him read the letter so that you all would be aware of what was said, and would know whether there was anything in it that was of great importance to your considerations, but not have it appear anywhere in the record or referred to in any public hearing.

I do not know whether that is acceptable to the committee or not, but my proposal would be that I send an officer up here to the committee, in executive session, and let him read the letter so that you would all know exactly what was in it, but not have it appear publicly at all, any more than my discussions with the Secretary of War, or the Secretary of the Navy would be publicized immediately following each conversation. It would almost be suppressive to freedom of speech because we would have to be very careful in our back-andforth discussions within the departments while trying to arrive at a common conclusion. That is what this was and it was done at my direction.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I respect your wishes in this matter and will be so guided, but the thing that disturbs me is that there has been a leak somewhere in the State Department, that certain individuals did have this letter brought to their attention, that certain publications did print extracts of this letter and their opinions thereon, while some of us knew nothing about it and consequently would have to act on a measure of this vital importance, which incidentally I favor, without having full access to all the facts connected with this particular

measure.

I think it might be well to find out if Mr. Acheson has changed his mind, and that this committee have his reasons as to why he changed his mind.

Secretary MARSHALL. I thought I covered that. Mr. Acheson was carrying out my directions.

Chairman EATON. May the chairman interpose at this point a suggestion, that if this matter is of sufficient importance, we can have an executive meeting of the committee and have Mr. Acheson here in person and relieve the Secretary of State from further disturbance in the matter.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Secretary, what foreign countries had missions in Latin America before the war?

Secretary MARSHALL. I do not recall a specific German mission. There may have been one, but they had their interests conserved. I know they had in Brazil, a number of their officials were there, in Brazil, and they sold a great deal of equipment to the Brazilian Government, which I saw when I was there, and I think they offered for sale more equipment just after the fall of France. When I was in Rio, there was a French mission there, and incidentally the then commander of the French Army had been the head of that mission for about 6 years prior to my arrival.

I think at that same time there was an Italian mission in the Argentine.

There may have been others. At the moment, I do not recall. We had a United States mission at that time in Rio, just making a beginning, and I think we had one in Colombia. I am not quite certain whether it had started yet or not, at that time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The reason I asked the question was, if my memory serves me correctly, that Italy had an aviation mission in Peru, the Germans a military mission in Bolivia, a French or Belgian mission in Paraguay, and during the Gran Chaco war, those foreign officers, not members of the missions of that time, had a great deal to do with carrying on the activities on both sides.

I would like to ask if it would be possible, if we could have for the record a list of the military missions in all the Latin American countries prior to the war, if that would be acceptable?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir; and I will see that it is submitted to the committee.

(See p. 32.)

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Secretary, what military missions are there in Latin America now in addition to our own?

Secretary MARSHALL. I will have to refer that question to the Secretary of War.

Mr. MANSFIELD. What training missions have been placed in Latin America since the end of the war?

Secretary MARSHALL. I will have to furnish that.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Could we have that information?

Secretary MARSHALL. I will see it is submitted to the committee. (See p. 32.)

Mr. MANSFIELD. Would you care to comment on this legislation in its relation to the forthcoming Rio conference, which is to convert the Act of Chapultepec into a permanent statute?

Secretary MARSHALL. The Act of Chapultepec, in its relation to this coming conference, involves a great many considerations far beyond the question of the armament itself, which are very difficult matters upon which to reach a general agreement.

This is one aspect of the matter, and it would mean, if this law was enacted before the conference you mentioned, that the position of the United States would be clear. There would be a legal basis upon which it could conduct its negotiations in relation to armaments in Latin America.

To what degree then there would be a participation by the countries would be up to the particular country. To what degree the discussions of the conference might limit their action would remain to be seen.

However, there would be no shadow of doubt about the position of the American delegates to that conference, as to what this country could do if it was found desirable on both sides that it should do it.

Without this law on the books at the time of that conference, you would have a situation where the American delegates would have no assurance as to what they might say, as to whether this armament standardization could be implemented.

This law would make perfectly clear what we could do and the general terins under which it could be done. To my mind, this would make a very much stronger position, certainly a much more clearly defined position for our delegates at such a discussion.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is the reason why this measure has been presented to the Congress for consideration before the Rio conference? Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANSFIELD. In effect, the purpose would be, if it passes the Congress, that the American delegation would go down there and be able to enter into an agreement with the Latin-American nations on the basis of this measure.

Secretary MARSHALL. To the extent that this particular factor is involved. It may be those agreements will cover a long period of discussions but the general proposition would be that everybody at the conference would understand to what extent the American delegates had the power to speak in regard to this matter; whereas without this law everybody would know that it was problematical as to whether or not our delegates would have power to enter into specific negotiations in this matter.

Mr. BLOOM. Would the gentleman yield there for a question?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Secretary, does not the Act of Chapultepec itself provide for this conference we intend holding in the near future in Brazil? The Act of Chapultepec provides that this conference should be held some time after the Act of Chapultepec was adopted in Mexico City. Is that not correct?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLOOM. So it is not for this particular legislation that we are holding this conference, but for other things provided for in the Act of Chapultepec?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Secretary, I did not mean to imply that the Rio conference would have to do only with this legislation. I know there are other things that will come up stemming from the meeting at Habana in 1940, when a policy concerning certain colonies in this hemisphere was being considered.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. Are we to understand that military considerations are not to be solely the means of deciding, but that the State Department will make up an over-all program based on legitimate differences as between nations?

Secretary MARSHALL. The best thing I can give in the way of an answer to that is that this conference pertains to military matters, sir, but the question of the exchange of arms would be but a single item for consideration.

Mr. FULTON. I am talking about the legislation here, not the proposed conference. The State Department, I presume, will have its considerations felt, rather than just having a program under the War and Navy Departments. You will have a part in it, too?

Secretary MARSHALL. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. FULTON. And in that you will make some distinctions as between nations?

Secretary MARSHALL. We are bound to do that in connection with several matters: Financial, the immediate situation involved, the delegation of action at certain times in certain localities. They are all to be considered.

Mr. FULTON. You will have an over-all supervision of this policy in the State Department; will you not?

Secretary MARSHALL. We have to the extent that we would be guided in making recommendations to the President.

Mr. FULTON. You have no nation that you can think of now that you have excluded from this program?

Secretary MARSHALL. There are none excluded at the present time. Mr. FULTON. As a matter of fact, we are already embarked on a policy of selling arms that are surplus war assets to Latin-American. countries.

Are you keeping a supervision of to whom and how we are selling those arms?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. FULTON. What kind of supervision are you keeping on that with the War Assets Administration?

Secretary MARSHALL. One of the principal controls is the export license in connection with such sales.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you, that is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Colmer.

Mr. COLMER. Mr. Secretary, there has been some comment made on section 5.

I am not quite sure I get the full import of it, but I take it in the payment for this property that proper steps will be taken to see that our future military needs on strategic materials in the way of stock piling are given consideration.

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. COLMER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Javits.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Secretary, from the timing of this bill, are we to take it that the United States is satisfied that all nations which were parties to the Act of Chapultepec have performed their obligations under the act?

Secretary MARSHALL. Will you give me that again, sir?

Mr. JAVITS. From the timing of this bill coming before us now, are we to take it that the United States is satisfied that all the nations which were parties to the Act of Chapultepec have performed their obligations under that act so that we are now ready to implement it and take the next step?

Secretary MARSHALL. The United States has accepted that as being the fact.

Mr. JAVITS. That includes Argentina?

Secretary MARSHALL. That includes Argentina.

Mr. JAVITS. Is there anything. Mr. Secretary, that you can tell us, with respect to the proposed policy of the Executive in the administration of this act? Are we giving the Executive a blank check to give military material and training to Latin-American nations as he sees fit and under the considerations he considers advisable, or can you tell us of any policy which the Executive has laid down, or is prepared to lay down; for example, that no such aid shall be given to any nation that fails to hold free and periodic elections under constitutional safeguards which we consider democratic?

Secretary MARSHALL. I cannot give you a definite answer to that at the present time. There have been numerous discussions as to methods of meeting the complications and injustices among nations.

Mr. JAVITS. May we ask if it is intended to submit to this committee before action is taken on this legislation a statement of the President's policy which he will follow in the administration of this act?

Secretary MARSHALL. I cannot answer that, sir. I would have to ask the President.

Mr. JAVITS. May I ask one other question, Mr. Secretary, if it is not contrary to the public interest? Can we be told what precautions will be taken to see that this military matériel will not be used for aggression against any other nation in the Western Hemisphere?

Secretary MARSHALL. There have been discussions of that phase of the matter, and what can be done to prevent that. Other than the resolutions at the Act of Chapultepec I can give you nothing else at the present time.

It is a difficult problem, just as everything usually is, when we deal with other nations. When we deal with a number of other nations it is increasingly difficult.

Mr. JAVITS. I was just inquiring whether we would be furnished some more ample statement of policy.

Secretary MARSHALL. The details of policy have not been worked out on this. We were waiting to see whether Congress was going to give us a basis to work on.

Mr. JAVITS. Something has been said here about export licenses for arms. Are we to understand that that authority expires July 1, so it would need to be replaced by something else?

Secretary MARSHALL. I could not give you the accurate information on that, but I know that the export license was in effect as early as 1938, so I presume it is part of the permanent law.

Mr. JAVITS. We are informed that the authority does expire as of July 1.

Secretary MARSHALL. May I say my assistant tells me I am thinking of the old Neutrality Act under which export licenses were required. but could not be refused. Present control is under the wartime export control law, which will expire June 30 unless extended by the Congress. Mr. JAVITS. It would have to be replaced?

Secretary MARSHALL. Yes.

Chairman EATON. Mr. Lodge.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you would explain this to me. I understood you to say that the matter of military and naval missions would be taken care of separately. Yet it would seem to me that in order to implement the general purposes of this bill, particularly section 2 (a), "that the Executive must be in power to send