The proposal I make is halfway between the mandatory
provision, favored by those who seek the old Jeffersonian
embargo to lock our ships up in our own ports, which failed
over 100 years ago, and the provision favored by those who
would give discretionary power to the President to discriminate against American shipping.
Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FISH. I yield.
Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. Our merchant marine has been subsidized. Would it not be a better proposition to y subsidize our merchant marine in time of war and keep the ships within our ports?
Mr, FISH. It is not going to involve us in war if we say to our own ships that they can transport our own goods to belligerent nations at their own risk, because we serve notice on them that we are not going to war if they are sunk.
Mr. MURDOCK of Arizona. I am in favor of protection of our merchant marine. However, in time of war if we sent our ships across the sea at their own risk and they were sunk or captured, would not that inevitably involve us in war? Mr. FISH. Certainly not; no more than the other section of the bill where we say that American nationals shall not travel on vessels of a belligerent nation except at their own risk.
[Here the gavel fell.]
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to criticize unduly the gentleman’s argument, but I have been trying in vain today to understand what the gentleman from New York really stands for. The gentleman says in one breath that this section does away with our merchant marine and that he is trying to preserve the doctrine of freedom of the seas for the benefit of our merchant marine. Then just a moment ago he said that belief in the doctrine of freedom of the seas has involved us in every foreign war since we became a nation. Then he said he is for peace. Now make heads or tails out of that.
We could do without the business that our merchant marine does in a year if by so doing we could keep America out of war, because, as a matter of fact, during the year 1936 the entire business of the American merchant marine was about 10,300,000 tons and was only valued at about $750,000,000. During the World War we lost about $41,000,000,000, or in other words the war cost us that amount, directly and indirectly, and yet the gentleman comes in here and preaches at one time the doctrine of preserving freedom of the seas, when we can only preserve that by going to war, because there is no appeal provided by national or international law from condemnation based upon an embargo list. If warning countries embargo our goods and establish a contraband list and they are sold in a prize court, there is no appeal except going to war and massing the young manhood of America, as well as the dollars of America, to preserve freedom of the seas. Mr. Chairman, there is no consistency in such a position.
The gentleman states he is for some kind of discretionary legislation, but his type of discretionary legislation is in no man’s land, because no man can understand the extent to which he would go In the matter of discretionary legislation. The only difference between the position of the gentleman from New York and the position of the committee on this side of the House is that the gentleman thinks that discretionary legislation should stop where the gentleman from New York says, and not where the committee provides it shall stop. The committee has made an exhaustive study of the matter and has decided otherwise.
The gentleman in his minority report made this statement about discretionary legislation, and I leave it to the members of the committee to decide whether or not he is in favor of discretionary legislation of some kind:
Whenever the President shall have issued a proclamation or proclamations, as provided by section 3.
As a matter of fact, that gives discretionary power to the President, because war is never declared these days; it simply comes about and exists, and it is up to the President of the United States to say whether or not a state of war exists in the world.
The gentleman goes on a little further and states in his minority report:
When the President has decided that question—
And—
he deems it necessary in order to promote the security and protect the peace and neutrality of the United States, and he shall so proclaim. It shall thereafter be unlawful for any American citizen or person to in any way—
Do this, that, or the other; in other words, according to the gentleman’s statement, the President of the United States should have authority to decide whether or not this or that would be inimical to the interests of the United States. So you see even the gentleman himself cannot get away from discretionary power.
[Here the gavel fell.]
Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. RICHARDS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I made some remarks the other day about the inconsistency of the very delightful gentleman from New York and his arguments.
Mr. SIROVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question to help him there?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.
Mr. SIROVICH. My good friend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] stated that an American ship should be permitted to leave our harbor to go to a belligerent port at its own risk.
I call his attention to the fact there is not a merchant marine line operating from an American port that is not constructed up to 75 percent of its value by the money of the Government of the United States. They have 20 years to amortize the money that is so invested, and how would we, through the President and the Congress, ever permit a ship to leave our ports where our own money is invested and which would be sunk at our expense.
Mr. RICHARDS. I thank the gentleman.
[Here the gavel fell.]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]. The amendment was rejected.
Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kvale: Page 22, line 18, at the end of the paragraph, insert a new paragraph to read: "Any provisions herein Included shall apply to communications, controls. Including cable, radio, and mall dispatches, and shall give to the President full authority to amplify, restrict, or curtail such services as may to him seem required In the Interest of peace or averting possible or actual hostility."
Mr. KLOEB. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment that it is not germane.
Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, realizing possibly that that point of order may apply, I ask the gentleman to withhold the point of order.
Mr. KLOEB. Mr. Chairman, I withhold the point of order.
Mr. KVALE. Mr. Chairman, I throw this amendment, which is hastily sketched and not so aptly phrased, into this discussion because I think the Committee has made one important omission in the consideration of the problem that the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Kopplemann] has termed vast. It is so vast that there are few minds in this Chamber— and I do not include myself in that category—that are able to grasp the full significance of what we are doing today, but when one takes care of provisions and supplies, arms and munitions of war, and disregards communications, with the place they have taken in public life and international rela-
