It is clear to anyone. It falls short of doing the job right.
Let us not be so plcayunish and so small that we are not
willing to say anyone who wants to turn this money over to
help suffering humanity cannot do so unless he does it this
way or that.
Bear in mind the amendment I have offered to the gentleman’s amendment retains this part of the gentleman’s language:
Nothing In this subsection (a) shall be construed to prohibit the solicitation or collection of funds to be used for medical aid and assistance or for food and clothing to relieve human suffering.
That much of the gentleman’s amendment I have retained, and I have just added “among noncombatants.” The food and clothing would be sent, not to those who are combatants but only to noncombatants.
[Here the gavel fell]
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the difference in the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Boiliau] in lieu of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is simply this: The amendment offered by the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee would authorize contributions to individuals or humanitarian organizations but not to the belligerent governments—to organizations who were independent of and not under the control of the governments at war—whereas the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Boileau] specifically authorizes those contributions to be made to the governments that may be at war. Here is the vice of his amendment. We have provision in here that our people cannot make loans to belligerent governments and they cannot ship goods to the belligerent governments under such conditions. Under the gentleman’s amendment [Mr. Boileau]. we could make contributions to the governments at war. This would permit an evasion and would nullify the prohibition against loans and gifts would be made instead of loans.
Mr. BOILEAU. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. BOILEAU. Just for this particular purpose.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. I know that, but It goes to the governments. The point I make is that we are endeavoring to pass a neutrality law. We are saying we will not lend money to the belligerents. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin would cause collections to be taken up and given to the various governments, and this would afford opportunity for evasion of the law.
Mr. BOILEAU. The money only.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Yes. While we are willing to help suffering humanity, we say the money should be contributed to organizations like the Red Cross that are not a part of the governments themselves, because the government, as another gentleman stated, might use the money for war purposes rather than for humanitarian purposes. The difference between the two amendments is that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McReynolds] is one to help humanity, whereas the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin would help the belligerent governments. That is the difference.
Mr. BOILEAU. The gentleman will admit my amendment does not provide that the money can be turned over for all purposes. It provides that the money may be collected to provide only medical aid and food.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Yes; but it is paid to the government, and there is the vice of the amendment; the warring governments will use it as they please, and once they secure possession of the money we will be powerless to prevent them spending it as they please.
Mr. BOILEAU. But to noncombatants only.
Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman’s amendment is vicious in that it provides that contributions may be taken up in this country and sent to warring governments.
The governments, as the other gentleman said awhile ago, may spend it for munitions or whatever purpose they like. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee provides that during a war they shall not take up collections in this country or receive contributions for warring nations. The evidence shows in New York alone one organization had raised $125,000 on behalf of one side of the war factions in Spain. We want to stop that. We want our people to be neutral, and having meetings and raising money for factions at war is not neutrality. The question was asked, Are you going to prevent the giving of humanitarian help over there? The section as written did not prevent that, but In order to eliminate any question that such could be done the gentleman from Tennessee offers the amendment which permits contributions to these organizations for humanitarian purposes only.
However, this does not satisfy the gentleman from Minnesota and those who are taking sides. They want their money contributed to the warring factions or governments at war, and we are against this. It is not neutrality. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Boileau] should be defeated.
[Here the gavel fell.]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin to the committee amendment. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Boileau) there were—ayes 16, noes 87. So the amendment to the committee amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the committee amendment.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a committee amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr. McReynolds: Page 23, line 21, after the comma after the word "Government", insert "or on behalf of any faction of any state wherein civil strife exists.”
The committee amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a further committee amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment offered by Mr. McReynolds: Page 24. line 1. after the word "subdivision”, Insert the words "at faction."
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk read as follows:
A MEXICAN VESSELS PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING ARMS
Sec. 6. Whenever the President shall issue a proclamation provided for in section 3 of this act. thereafter, until the proclamation shall have been revoked; It shall be unlawful for any American vessel to carry any arms, ammunition, or Implements of war to any belligerent state named In such proclamation as being at war or to a state wherein civil strife Is proclaimed to exist, or to any other state, transshipment to, or for the use of, a belligerent state or a state wherein civil strife is proclaimed to exist.
Whoever, in violation of the provisions of this section, shall take, attempt to take, or shall authorize, hire, or solicit another to take any such vessel carrying such cargo out of port or from the Jurisdiction of the United States shall be fined not more than $10,000 or Imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; and In addition such vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment, and the arms, ammunition, and Implements of war on board shall be forfeited to the United States.
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer a clarifying amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McRetnolds: Page 25, line 8, strike out the comma after the word “state” and insert the word "for." The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. REES of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, which I send to the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rees of Kansas: Page 25, line 6, after the word “war”, Insert "or other commodities.”
Mr. McREYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment. Commodities are not included in this section.
