• 1930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE 179_ the. United States or the public interest of England or Japan? It is an advantage of 42,000 tons. But- beyond this, in order to insm·e exact said that the correspondence does not amount to anything. If it does equality of opportunity, the United States makes the suggestion that not amount to anything, let the light of day shine on it. The papers each country will have the option. of duplicating exactly the cruiser say that some of the administration spokesmen say that the correspond fleet of the other. Thus Great Britain would have the option by reduc ence is ludicrous. What do they mean by that? Has some other nation ing Its number of small crui.sers to increase its large cruisers from 15 served notice on this Government that it construes the treaty to mean to 18 so as to give it a total tonnage of 327,000 tons, the exact amount something that in the opinion of the President is ludicrous? Time of tonnage which the United States now asks. On the other hand, the might show that the thing was not so funny. It is said that to reveal United States would have the option, by reducing its large cruisers from the entire record might offend some friendly nation. If the Federal 18 to 15, to increase the number of its small cruisers so as to give it a Government is sending or receiving communications which if made pub total cruiser tonnage of 339,000 tons, the exact amount of tonnage lic would offend a friendly nation, isn't it proper that the Senate should which the British now ask. know who is responsible for such communications? In battleships we suggest by reduction in numbers on both sides to I have heard nothing but commendation of your course in demanding equalize our two fleets in 1931 instead of 1942. At present the British that the Senate have full knowledge of everything connected with this battleship fleet contains two more vessels than ours. In destroyers and treaty. I have heard people differ as to whether or not the treaty aircraft carriers we suggest equality in tonnage, and in submarines should be ratified. Some think it should be and some think it shouldn't. the lowest tonnage possible. As is well known, we will gladly agree to Very few of them know anything about it at all, but the common man a total abolition of submarines if it is posslble to obtain the consent of in the street cau readily see that the Senate of the United States would all five powers to such a proposition, and in any event we suggest that be leaping in the dark to ratify a treaty when it is a matter of public the operations of submarines be limited to the same rules of inter knowledge that there are written documents pertaining to the treaty national law as surface craft in operation against merchant ships, so and dealing with the treaty that the President of the United States that they can not attack without providing for the safety of the says that Members of the Senate and the people of the United States passengers and crew. shall never see and shall never know the contents thereof because " it Second, our suggestion to the Japanese would produce an over-all is incompatible with the public interests." relation satisfactory to us, and we hope to them. In conformity with If this treaty is ratified without the Senate receiving every word our relations in the past it is not based upon the same ratio in every written in connection with the treaty, then the Senate has surrendered class of ships. a right of the people guaranteed to them by the Constitution and has We have not made proposals to the French and Italians, whose prob abrogated one of the functions delegated to it by the founders of our lems are not so directly related to ours that we feel it appropriate Government, and the legislative department of the Government has at this time to make suggestions to them. A settlement of the Italian smTendered to the executive department. You will have set a precedent and French problem is essential, of course, to the agreement. contempiated. that will enable future Presidents, either intentionally or unintention The United States delegates do not feel at liberty to discuss any ally, to enter into treaties and submit them to the Senate for its advice further details in figures, and it Is obvious that the announcement of and consent, and to withhold from the Senate information which, if hypothetical figures by others is calculated only to provoke argument. known, would probably defeat the ratification of the treaty. Our delegation is in agreement on every item of our program, and Heretofore the President and the Senate with respect to treaties have we are in the most hopeful spirit that in cooperation with the other been on equal footing. All cards were on top of the table. Now the delegations the primary purposes of the conference, namely, the termi Executive holds a card in the hole and says to the Senate play your nation and prevention of competition in naval armament and such re hand and take my word for it that the card in the hole is nothing but ductions as are found consistent with national security, may be a joker and doesn't count. accomplished. Stay with it until you know all the facts and you will have performed This is all that we deem it helpful to state until our suggestions a public service worthy of a Senator. have been considered by the delegations to whom they have been sent. Sincerely your friend, CLEM J . .TONES. Mr. COPELAND addressed the Senate. After having spoken for over half an hour he yielded the floor for the day. His MEMPIDS, TENN., J ·uly 11, 1930. entire speech is printed in the RECORD of July 16. Senator K. D. McKELLAR, Senate Office Building, WashingtotJ, D. C.: RECESS I read in to-day's paper that President Hoove1· refuses to show Senate Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in treaty papers. That it would be a breach of trust. I think it is a recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. breach of trust against the people of the United States for him to The motion was agreed to; and the Senate (at 5 o'clock refuse 96 able Senators the privilege of seeing these papers and making p.m.) took a recess until to-morrow, Wednesday, July 16, 1930, their own decision as to whether or not the treaty should be passed. at 11 o'clock a. m. Surely the combined minds of the Senators are as good as a man's who was former British subject. I hope you fight this to a finish, for we just took a terrible licking on that disastrous tariff bill that was SENATE passed. WEDNESDAY, With kindest personal regards. July 16, 1930 EDWARD M. SALOMON. (Legislative day of Tuesday, July 8, 1930) The Senate met at 11 o'clock a. m., on the expiration of the Mr. REED. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York recess. yield to me, in order that I may put an article in the RECOIID? The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate resumes the considera· Mr. COPELAND. I yield. tion of the naval treaty. Mr. REED. I ask leave to have printed in the CoNGRESSIONAL LONDON NAVAL TREATY RECORD the press release of the staterrumt by Secretary Stimson on February 6, 1930. In executive session the Senate, as in Committee of the There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be Whole, resumed the consideration of the treaty for the limita printed in the RECORD, as follows : tion and reduction of naval armament signed at London, April AMERICAN DELEGATION, LONDON NAVAL CONFiilRENCE 22, 1930. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New York [Mr. (Statement by Henry L. Stimson, chairman of the American delegation, CoPELAND] is entitled to the floor. February 6, 1930) Mr. FESS. Will the Senator yield that I may suggest the At the opening of the conference, the United States delegation made no absence of a quorum? stateiMnt of its position of the needs of its country beyond the histori Mr. COPELAND. I yield for that purpose. cal fact of the agreement in principle for parity between Great Britain Mr. FESS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. and the United States. We are now in a position where we can go The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll. further. Following discussions among ourselves and negotiations with The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators the British and Japanese which have clarified the limits of possible answered to their names : agreement our delegation has made suggestions as follows: Bingham Gould McKellar Shortridge First, with Great Britain immediate parity in every class of ship in Black Greene McMaster Smoot the navy. The gross tonnage of these two fleets is substantially Blaine Hale McNary Steiwer 1,200,000 tons apiece. The negotiations between President Hoover and Borah Harris Metcalf Stephens Caraway Harrison Norris Sullivan Prime Minister MacDonald last summer practically redudd the discus Copeland Hastings Oddie Swanson sion of parity between them to the comparatively insignificant difference Couzens Hatfield Overman Thomas, Idaho in their respective cruiser class tonnage of 24,000 tons. We propose to Dale Hebert Patterson Thomas, Okla. Deneen Johnson Phipps Townsend settle this difference as follows : Under our suggestion the actual ton· Fess Jones Pine Trammell nage difference between the two cruiser fleets will be only 12,000 tons. Fletcher Kean Reed Vandenberg Of the larger cruisers armed with 8-inch guns, Great Britain will have George Kendlick Robinson, Ark. Walcott Gillett Keyes Robsion, Ky. Walsh, Mass. 15 and the United States 18, an advantage to the latter of 30,000 tons. Glenn King Sheppard Walsh, Mont. or the smaller cruisers armed with 6-inch guns, Great Britain will have Goldsborough La Follette Shipstea-d Watson • 18.0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JULY 16 l\Ir. Melli STER. I desire to announce that my colleague the in the interest of an immediate limitation of naval armament to scrap senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. NoRBECK] is unavoid all these ships. _ ably absent on official business, and that he will be ·absent for The United States proposes, if this plan is accepted- the remainder of the session. (!) To scrap all capital ships now under construction. This includes Mr. McKELLAR. I wish to announce that my colleague the 6 battle cruisers and 7 battleships on the ways and ln course of bullding junior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BRoCK] is unavoil.lably de and 2 battleships launched. tained from the Senate. I ask that this announcement stand The total number of new capital ships thus to be scrapped is 15. for the day. Listen to this : Mr. SHEPPARD. I desire to announce that the senior Sena tor from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH] and the senior Senator The total tonnage of the new capital ships when completed would be 618,000 tons. from Missouri [Mr. HAWEs] are detained from the Senate by illness. (2) To scrap an of the older battleships up to, but not including, tht I also wish to announce that the senior Senator from New Dela-u;are and North Dakota. The number of these old battleships to Mexico [Mr. BRATTON] and the junior Senator from South be scrapped is 15. Their total tonnage is 227,7 40 tons. Carolina [Mr. BLEASE] are detained from the Senate by illness This plan, if carried out, would have meant the scrapping of in their families. 845,000 tons of battleships. I also announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. ASHURST], It will be remembered that when thaf conference met, under the Senator from Maryland [M.r. TYDINGS], the Senator from the plan of enlargement of the United States Navy started in Texas [l\lr. CoNNALLY], and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. 1916 the United States had the largest and strongest of that BARKLEY] are ab ent on official business, attending sessions of time in the world. That was the cause of that conference. the Interparliamentary Union in London. Great Britain wanted to stop the building of those battleships; Mr. SWANSON. My colleague the junior Senator from Vir and, observe what the American representatives did at that ginia [Mr. GLAss] is unavoidably detained from the Senate. I conference. They agreed to scrap those 15 great battleships, ask that this announcement may stand for the day. two of them launched, and the others nearly completed. In Mr. FESS. I desire to announce that the junior Senator from addition to that, they agreed to scrap 15 other battleships at a North Dakota [Mr. NYE] is detained on business of the Senate, cost to the United States of over a half billion dollars. attending sessions of the special committee to investigate cam What did Great Britain do? How many ships did she scrap? paign expenditures. I will let this announcement stand for the Prior to the conference she had scrapped some 15, and after <.lay. the conference she scrapped some 15 more obsolete ones. She Mr. KEYES. I desire to announce that my colleague the kept the very flower of her Navy, while America sank 835,000 senior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MosEs] is absent tons more than Great Britain had, all told, obsolete sunk and from the Senate on account of the death of his mother. I ask not sunk. I want to say that there was never in all the history that this announcement may stand for the day. of time such a naval victory as Great Britain won over the Mr. NORRIS. I desire to announce that my colleague the United States in the naval victory of 1922 at the Wa hington junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HoWELL] is absent from conference. The sinking of the armada was insignificant in the Senate on account of illness in his family. I ask that this comparison with the sinking of that great American battleship announcement may stand for the day. fleet by the British diplomats in 1922. The Battle of Trafalgar The VICE PRESIDENT. Sixty Senators have answered to was of infinitesimal importance as compared with the great their names. A quorum is present. naval victory which Great Britain won over the United States Mr. WAGNER. 1-.ir. President, on my way from the Senate at the Washington conference in 1922. Office Building to the Capitol I was intercepted by some con What was the result of it? I want to call the attention of stituents, and I was delayed so that I arrived here about one the Senate to the result. minute after the roll call was completed. I should like to have All of us remember that the propaganda then was the ~--3 the RECORD show my presence. ratio just as the propaganda now is parity. In the London con The VICE PRESIDENT. The RECORD will give the Sena ference the propaganda was parity; in the Washington confer tor's statement. ence it was the 5-5-3 ratio. When America sunk those 15 great Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. President, I was not recorded on the new war vessels, the greatest that were ever constructed by any quorum call just made. I entered the Chamber a moment after nation of the world when she voluntarily carried out her the roll call was concluded, but not quite in time to be promise made by Mr. Charles Evans Hughes, one of our dele recorded. gates, to sink that enormous tonnage of battleships, did we get Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President-- parity? Did we get a 5-5-3 ratio? Why, bless your oul, Mr. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from New York President, the United States did not get anything of the kind; yield to the Senator from Tennessee? it got absolute inferiority to Great Britain in battleships. Mr. COPELAND. Does the Senator wish to address the What was the result? When the pact was signed, instead of Senate now-? having a 5-5-3 ratio, Great Britain was to have 22 battleships Mr. McKELLAR. I would prefer to do so, but I do not and America was to have 18; and also Great Britain during a want to interfere with the Senator from New York. term of years was to reduce her battleships until they finally · Mr. COPELAND. Very well; I yield the floor. reached the number of 18. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized. Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Mr. President-- Mr. M KELLAR. Mr. President, on yesterday the Senator The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Tennessee from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED] discussed in some detail the yield to the Senator from California? making of the treaty. He had a good deal to say about the sev Mr. McKELLAR. I will yield for a question, but not for a eral categories, and in the discussion which I intend to present speech, this morning I shall follow along similn.r lines. Mr. SHORTRIDGE. How did the Senator from Tenne see The Senator from Pennsylvania, after the preliminaries were vote on the treaty of 1922? over, first discussed the 1922 naval conference at Washington. Mr. :McKELLAR. I did not vote. He and I have very different views as to what was the result of .Mr. SHORTRIDGE. If present, how would the Senator bave tbat conference. Of course, as we all know, it concerned only voted? battleships and aircraft carriers in the main. To be more spe Mr. McKELLAR. I would have voted against the treaty had ci1lc, it did not do much else than concern the battleship cate- I been here. gories of the various navies. . Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Former Senator Gerry, of Rhode Isl.and, - In order to see just what was accomplished at that conference, announced that if the Senator from Tennessee had been present I want to read from the speech -of Mr. Hughes outlining what he would have voted "yea." was proposed. It is a very short excerpt from his speech. Mr. MoKELLAR. I was in Tennessee in my campaign at that Said Mr. Hughes: time as I remember and Senator Gerry did not properly an no~ce my position. 'The Senator will find in the RECORD time The principal features of the proposed agreement are as follows : and time again my position stated on the floor of this body in CAPITAL SHIPS opposition to that treaty, and, as I recall, both before and after The United States is now completing its program of 1916 calling for the treaty was ratified. 10 new battleships and 6 battle cruisers. Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Did the Senator from Tennessee correct One battleship has been completed. The others are in various stages the record which has stood here since 1922? of construction ; in some cases from 60 to over 80 per cent of the con Mr. McKELLAR. Yes; I have corrected it, not once but many struction has been done. On these 15 capital ships now being built times. I have made speeches against that treaty ever since it o>er $330,000,000 have been spent. Still the United States is willing was ratified, and the Senator knows it; be IJas heard me make 1930 CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-SENATE 181 'those speeches on the floor, and I am making a speech now themselves to the London conference showed that they did not against the treaty. I am correcting that record now. believe we were on a parity. Why do I say that? They made a 1\lr. SHORTRIDGE. I see the Senator is doing so, but did propo al in the document which was put in the REro&D yester he state that Senator Gerry had misquoted him or misstated his day by the Senator from Pe1msylvania [Mr. REED] after the po ition? Senator from California [Mr. JoHNSON] asked that it go in the Mr. McKELLAR. No; to be perfectly frank, I never knew RECORD. It is a proposal to Great Britain, and is found on until I looked the matter up a day or two ago he had made page 164 of the RECORD. I quote as follows: that statement. He was in error about it, and that ·is all there 4. In order to realize now is to it. Now, let us see what happened as the result of the Washing Li~en to this- ton conference. Did we get a ratio of' 5-5-3? Oh, no. We got 4. In order to realize now the parity of battleship tonnage whieh a ratio of battleships of 22 for Great Britain to 18 for the was ultimately contemplated by the Washington treaty by balancing United States. Is there any 5-5-3 ratio about that? Not at all. the Rodney and Nel.son, the United States may lay down one 35,000-ton However that was not the principal disappointment. I want battleship in 1933, complete it in 1936, and on completion scrap the 'to call attention to the fact that after the number of battleships Wyotning. · wa fixed at 22 to 18, the American Battle Fleet was inferior Mr. President, here are our own delegates seeking to get in tonnage. At present, as applied to ships considered in the parity, and were refused it, and yet the President of the United pending treaty, there is a difference of 21,000 tons, while under States and the Senator from Pennsylvania have said that we the Washington treaty the difference in battleship tonnage wru~ already have arity in battleships, because we have 15 under nearly 75,000. So our fleet was inferior in numbers; it _was this treaty to Great Britain's 15! Let us see about that Let inferior in tonnage; and it was inferior because the A.mencan us follow that up another step. ships were older, the average age of the American vessels being Great Britain under the 1922 treaty had the right to build 12.3 years and of the British 11.4 years. two more ships to replace two of her ships, and she built the The next important difference in the two fleets was that the Rodney and the Nelson of substantially 35,000 tons each. Those average speed of America's 18 ships was 21 knots an hour, two ships are now completed and a part of her navy. We have while the average speed of Great Britain's 22 ships was 25 nothing in our Navy comparable to them. knots an hour. Four knots difference in Great Britain's favor. Under the 1922 agreement, however, I desire to call atten The next difference was in guns. The American battleships tion to the fact that we have a right to build two more ships of were greatly inferior in the size of guns, and are still inferior the Rodney and Nelson class to replace others of our Navy. in all these particulars. One battleship in the American fleet That right is taken away by this treaty ; so that it turns out mounts 12-inch guns, 11 have 14-inch guns, and 3 mount 16-inch that if we ratify this treaty we are deprived of the right to guns. The smallest main gun in the British fleet is a 15-inch get parity with Great Britain in battleships. We are deprived gun, found on 13 vessels, while the remaining ships have 16-inch of the right we now have to build counterparts of the Rodney guns. and the Nelson, ships of 35,000 tons. We have that right now In addition to that, the American ships were, for the most under the 1922 treaty; but under this treaty, if it is ratified,' ·part, inferior to the British ships in armor. Remember, Sena the right of America to build two more of the Rodney and tors, when the Washington treaty was actually signed the Nelson class is taken away; and that is one of the troubles American battleship fleet was inferior in numbers-18 to 22- about this treatY. Great Britain wants to continue her present inferior in the age of the ships ; inferior in guns and in gun superiority in battleships, and she does it in this treaty. There caliber; and inferior in speed by 4 knots an hour, which is an is not the slightest parity. item of very great importance in naval warfare; but, over and So I say that the ratification of this treaty, instead of bring above all that-and here comes the " joker" in that treaty ing about the present parity in battleships, as the Pre ident said six months after. the treaty was signed and ratified what hap and as the Senator from Pennsylvania said, insures permanent pened? We all remember that President Coolidge sent a message superiority on the part of Great Britain. to the Congress aying that experts had found that 13 of Amer The Senator from Pennsylvania says: "Why, we will @t the ica's 18 battleships could not shoot as far as all of the British advantage in having the right to recondition the remainder of ships by from 3 to 4 miles. Parity ! Instead of there being par the 13 old battleships." Well, so we do receive it; but when we ity at the close of that conference, so far as fighting power goes, recondition them, in the first place, what is it going to cost? Great Britain had 22 battleships and America had 5 of a similar The naval expert says that to continue that job it will cost kind. What happened when President Coolidge sent in his $80,000,000. We could build two new ships like the Rodney and secret message, which was considered in secret by the Congress the Nelson at the same cost that it will take to recondition at his request? He asked, as I remember, for six and a half these 13 old ones ; and after we recondition them and after we million dollars to start the work-to do what? To elevate the elevate their guns there is no assurance that they will be equal guns on 13 of our 18 battleships so that they might possibly to the great battleships of Great Britain that have already ·hoot as far as all the British guns could shoot been built. Certainly it is admitted on all sides that they are Congress without a word agreed to it; we did not hesitate not the equal of the Rodney and the Nelson; and there we are. a moment; we furnished the President the money to get us out The President says, however, and so does the Senator from as far as possible of the deplorable situation in which we had Pennsylvania, that this is taken care of by another situation. been placed. Was the money expended for the purpose for "Oh," says the President, "we have made an agreement for which it was appropriated? No. Great Britain to sink 5 battleships, America only 3, and Japan 1, Great Britain at once protested. She said, "You have made and that puts America in the position of having 15 ships to 15 an agreement and here it is ; you took 18 battleships by name; ships with Great Britain, and we have equality, and we have it we are not responsible that your guns can not shoot as far as now." our guns; you voluntarily sank your great new vessels; your Mr. President, instead of bringing about equality, the very spokesman, Mr. Hughes, voluntaiily agreed to sink your good reverse is true. It is true that under the proposed agreement ve sels, and you took these old ones. You have got to stick by we do not build any new battleships until 1936, and none of the your agreement." And we did stick by it. President Coolidge powers do. It is true that Great Britain sink 133,000 tons of did not use that money; that six and a half million dollars was battleships and we sink 73,000 tons, in round numbers ; but does not used for the purpose of elevating those guns; the appropria that briDg about parity? Why, quite the contrary. The Sena tion went by default. It was restored to the Treasury. Later tor from Pennsylvania says that the five battleships that Great on, as I understand, however, represeni<'ltives of the Executive, Britain is going to sink under this treaty have a larger gun with bat in hand, so to speak, went to Great Britain and asked caliber and that the ships are newer than America's. Suppose her if we could not elevate the guns on two of our ships, and that is so ; it does not bring about parity. Why? The reason it Great Britain, knowing that she had a tremendous superiority does not bring about parity is that as long as Great Britain holds in battleships, graciously allowed us to elevate the guns on two the Hood, the Rodney, and the Nel.son, superior to anything we of our ships. Instead of a 5-5-3 ratio, in tead of a 22-18 ratio, have in our fleet, you could reduce them to three, and the in substance that gave us a ratio of 22 to 7. inferiority of America would grow as you reduced them down. Is there any parity about that? It is clearly a "joker"; and With 15 ships in our Navy, 13 of them these old ships which yet the Senator from Pennsylvania boasted yesterday that one have to be reconditioned and the guns elevated, 2 or 3 of them of the reasons why this treaty ought to be ratified was that we I believe of a better quality, with Great Britain retaining the had obtained the gracious permission of Great Britain to elevate very best in her Navy, there is no possibility of parity. the guns on the remaining 13 of our old ships ! Why, Mr. President, our own delegates asserted that there Parity! I doubt very much whether in battleship strength we was not parity when they demanded just half the right to build are 1, 2, 3 with Great Britain. It is exceedingly doubtful to-day just one of the Rodney class. They did not demand all the whether-in battleships we are on a parity with Japan, and surely ·right we now have. Under the 1922 agreement America had there 1s no parity with G.reat Britain. Our own delegates the right t.9 build two battleships of the Rod·ney and N eZso~" 182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE JULY 16 class; but our delegates at the London conference did not Mr. REED. -Not that -I know of. . I do not think it has ever demand all our present right to two. They just demanded half been printed in book form. of it. They just demanded the right to build 1 battleship.; :Mr. McKELLAR. These other records were publi hed within and Great Britain turned it down, and would not permit them a very hort time after the conference, shorter than the time to build any, but did graciously permit them to elevate the guns th.at has elapsed since the London conference, for the benefit on the 13 old battleships under the 1922 agreement in return of the American people, the Senate, and everybody else. for an agreement guaranteeing_them continued contl·ol of the M'r. JOHNSON. Mr. President-- dms. _ Mr. McKELLAR. I wonder why it is that this third confer I want to ay with regard to the 1922 agreement that it ence failed to follow the example of the two preceding confer was the greatest injustice that wa ever done Amer:ca. Over ences and have a record taken and kept and published about half a billion dollars went to the bottom of the sea. Eight the proceedings? hundl'ed and thirty-fi e thousand tons of the greatest ships The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from "Tennes ee ever built went to the bottom of the ea. Over half a billion yield to the Senator from California? dollars of the American people's money invested in these ships Ml·. McKELLAR. I yield. went to the bottom of the ·sea .. What did Great Britain do? Mr. JOHNSON. Echo answers, "Why," to the question asked She sank 15 old hulks of 150,000 tons, or perhaps it was 10. by the Senator from Tennessee. But I think I can inform the he contr!buted no thing. While the Senator from Pennsylvania Senator from Tennessee that while a record has not been pro ays and the Pre ident emphasizes that Great Britain is sink vided to any of those who are interested, nor to the United ing 133,000 tons of battleships to America's 73 00 under the States Senate, which is entitled to the record, neverthele , the present treaty, I think I have demonstrated that with the ink State Department, I am advised, is engaged now in printing a ing of those ships we are still in an unpardonable po ition of volume devoted to its view , and po sibly more than its views, inferiority as to Great Britain; and no man, I do not care who concerning the London conference. That book is in- course of it i , who will examine into this subject and who knows the printing. Its proofs, complete, I am advised, have been accorded facts, can for a moment say that there is parity between Great to one admiral who wa f1iendly to the plan that was adopted Britain and America in battleship fleets. by the ,American delegation, and has been secretly guarded by Mr. President, I want Senators to remember those figures- him, and will be delivered to the public and the Senate after 133,000 tons sunk by Great Britain under this treaty to 73,000 action upon this treaty shall have been taken. tons of the United States-but when we come to · cons:der the Mr. McKELLAR. They want to take no chances. whole tonnage, we have done in this treaty just what we did Mr. JOHNSON. None. in refe1·ence to the treaty of 1922. We are doing all the sinking. Mr. McKELLAR. They will give no information until after I have the figures here. 1\fy recollection is that we sink about the thing is over. Lock the table after the horse is gone. 23 ,000 tons, all told. Great Britain sink 173,000 tons, and Mr. President, it is a r markable thing. I want to say that Japan sinks 71,000 tons. I publicly here in the Senate protest against the secrecy sur Having had that much to say about battleships, if I am. rounding this conference in London. I do not believe a repre .. wrong about it I want to have a denial now. Is there any sentative of the people, whether he be President, or whether he Senator on this floor familiar with the battleships who .believes be Senator, whether he be a commissioner at a peace confer that we have parity in our battleship fleet, or _will have when ence, or any other repre entative officer or executive officer, has we have 15 to 15 under the terms of this treaty? If so, I the right to conduct the people's business in secret. That is the . hould like to have him state it. trouble with this treaty. That is the reason why this is not a The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED] yesterday stated real peace treaty. that the American delegates were at a disadvantage because we That is the rea on why the treaty is a ham, and it has been had so few hips when they went into this conference. Who publicly a.ckriowledged as a sham by a great many. That is the put us at that disadvantage? It was the administration of reason why only three of the five powers signed it. That is the Pre ident Harding, under the leader hip of Mr. Charles Evans reason why we did not get anywhere. That is the reason why · Hughes, now .Mr. Justice Hughes, that put us in this pitiable we almost brought on a war between France and Italy, when we po ition of inferiority ; and they did it by sinking 835,000 tons were making. this treaty. While this treaty was being made, of American ships without any consideration whatsoever. The they got up so much ill feeling, so much bad blood, so much 10 or 12- ships that Great Britain actually sank after the con jealousy, so much misunderstanding, so much concealment, that ference were immaterial. The tonnage at be t was 150,000 tons, the result was that France and Italy were openly charged with as against our 835,000. If we had not gone into the 1922 con being on the verge of war, and neither one of them signed the ference and a conference had been called this year, see what a real treaty. M. Briand and M. Tardieu both time and again position of strength we would have been in to have traded with left the confe1·ence because they did not like the methods that Great Britain. were being pursued, among other things. Oh, they say they do not want to trade. I do not know The public bu iness should be tran acted in public. There whether our delegates wanted to trade or not, but there were should not be any secret understanding or secret submission. orne British and Japanese delegates who did a lot of trading It ought to be in the open light of day. The American people in both of those conferences. They did a lot of effective trading do not want their business transacted in secret. We have seen in both of those conferences. They traded America out of her that in the Senate. There were protests against secret ses ions po ition of fir t place and put her down probably in a position of the Senate for, lo, these many years, and we just got open of third place among the navies of the world. It is a trade sessions after many years' fight, and we have open essions now. tllat I do not subscribe to, that I did not believe in at the time Secrecy is one of the reaso~ for the failure of this treaty, and I do not believe in now. I think it was the greatest blow the failure to get the signatures of all the powers, the failure to America that could possibly have been inflicted upon her. to carry through the plan. If these matters had been con I next come to the cruiser question. The Senator from Penn ducted in the open, we would have fared very much better, and sylvania tells us about our pitiable condition as to cruise'rs a treaty on very much fairer terms to_the United States would when the conference met. Let us see what happened. By the have been the result. way, there is something remarkable that I want to stop here long Now, I come to the question of cruisers, following the argu enough to call attention to. I call the attention of the Senator ment of my friend the senior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. from Pennsylvania to it. Here is a book of seven or eight hun REED). He says we went into the conference handicapped in dred pages about the Washington conference, giving all the the matter of crui ers; and we did. It is perfectly evident peeches, all the various proposals, and finally the agreement. why. Great Britain came over here in 1922 and got us stopped Apparently everything about that conference is in book form, in battleships. I say stopped in battleships ; we not only published for the world. I then turn to the naval conference stopped building them, but we sank all our best ones. We sank at Geneva in 1927, and I find in book form 220 pages about about 30. We sank about $500,000,000 worth. that, containing all the various propo als, the differences, and As soon as Great Britain did that, what next did she do? practically all the facts about it. I have not seen any book at She went right back and began to build cruisers, building them all or any record at all of the 1930 conference. May I ask the as fast as she could. She bad us stopped in battle hip , she Senator from Pennsylvania whether any record was kept of that bad a great superiority over us in battleships, so she went to conference? the next class of ship , she went to cruisers, and she began to Mr. REED. A record was kept by the general secretary, Mr. build them. Hanke. I want to take up the first cia s of cruisers first. The Presi Mr. McKELLAR. Where is that record? dent said that we have a superiority in cruisers of the first Mr. REED. I imagine it is in the State Department, or a class, or class A-that is, 10,000-ton, 8-inch-gun cruisers. copy of it. Nothing under heaven could be further from the fact. Great Mr. McKELLAR. Has a copy of it been furnished the Senate? Britain has 19 of those cruisers to-day. I want to give the 1930 CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-· SENATE· 183 names of them. I am making no mistake about it. She bas the what she now has in the second class, namely, 10 ships of 7,000 Shropshire~ the Stt.sseaJ, the Devonshi1·e, the London., the Can tons each, with &inch guns. berra., the Australia, the Sttf{olk, the Cun.,.berland, the Kent, the They did not get by with that, but they got. this conference in Oo-mwall, the Berwick, the Effinghan.,., the F-robisher, the 1930, and they got by with . it there. How did they get by? Hau.:kins, the Vindictive, the Dorsetshire, the Erreter, the Nor Mind you, there is no division into subcategories in battleships. folk. and the York--19 of them. We have two of that class. there is no division by this conference into subcategories of When we found that Great Britain was building all these submarines, no division into subcategories in destroyers, no large cruisers our naval officers saw that it was necessary for division into subcategories in aircraft carriers. But in cruiser us to do something, so they recommended 23 of these 10,000-ton and cruisers alone they are divided into subcategories by thi crui ers, they made that our naval program, and we have been treaty under the statement that the United State has a supeli building up to it. We have two already completed. We have ority in cruisers. There is no such thing as uperiority in seven or eight more in the course of construction. We have cruisers of this class A. We have not got it. been wise enough to bring them up to 21, as I remember, and At the end of the treaty period, if we build to the very limit President Hoover stopped of his own accord the building of during the entire time of the treaty, Great Britain will have three when the London conference was called. 19 of the 10,000-ton 8-inch-gun cruisers and the United States What was the purpose of the London conference? The pur can not possibly get over 16. We are prohibited from getting pose of the conference was almost identical with the purpose of them. The unanimous opinion of all American naval officers the conference in 1922. The purpose of the 1922 conference was all of them except those appointed by Mr. Hoover and one or two to stop America from building battleships, to sink as many of of those have changed their minds-is that the 8-inch guns and the good ones as possible, and the purpose of the conference of the larger ships are superior to the 6-inch guns and the smaller 1930 was to ·stop America from building these cruisers of the ships. I do not think it would take a naval officer or a naval 10,000-ton, 8-inch-gun class. And they did it. They really expert to understand that. The very statement of the ki.nd of cut us dmvn 7, for we can only build as many as 16 during the guns shows that the one is superior to the other. period of the treaty, while our program calls for 23. Admiral Pratt was appointed chief of something in the Navy We need not conceal the purpose of the conference from our ! do not remember his exact title--and he has become a convert selves. That was the purpose of it, and that was what was ac to the 6-inch guns, which I shall dis cu~s directly. One or two complished. Can there be any doubt about it? Not at all. I other naval officers under appointment by the President have think I have the proof right here beyond the shadow of a doubt. the same view. But the overwhelming opinion of our naval Listen to what the Briti h Admiralty had to say about cruisers officers, a.· disclo ed by the evidence taken before the Committee in 1922 and then witness what they did in 1930. I am talking on Naval Affairs, is that the United States needs for her about the 10,000-ton, 8-inch-gun cruisers. This is what they defense at least twenty 8-inch..gun 10,000-ton cruisers. "\Ye have wired their representatives in 1922: no naval bases in the world outside of our own waters except We welcome your decision to press for the total abolition of sub at Manila, I believe. We are not like England in that respect. She has naval tations in all parts of the world-some 42 of marines. Even if yon can obtain this, we wish to be consulted before them, I believe. We have got to have the larger type of ship • a final decision is taken upon the limited scales of construction in with a wider range of cruising so our commerce can be pro small craft permitted to the various signatories. The position of Britain, with her world-wide possessions and food supplies, on the one tected on the high seas. Everybody agrees to that. There is no hand clearly requires an entirely different standard from that ac dissension of opinion in that regard. It is conceded by all. Yet what is the purpo e of Great Britain? It is to stop us ceptable by self-contained nations. We apprehend, however, that there from building those kinds of ships, and in this treaty she does 1B very little chance of the abolition of submarines being agreed upon, it. By 1936, at the end of the treaty period, we get 16, 1f we and in this event we must insist at all costs upon absolute freedom in build them all, if Mr. Hoover does not again reopen the law. regard to the character and number of all vessels under, say, 10,000 tons. Within two years thereafter we are entitled to two more, but that is our limit. The Navy officers say that 23 such ships are Tho e people think ahead, and I take off my hat to the rep nece ~ sary for our defense. The naval officers whom we sent resentatives of our mother country. They know what they over to the London conference, "Admiral" Stimson and the want, and they know it ju t about as well as any people in the other civilian admirals, say that our naval officers do not know world. They came here in 1922 for one purpose, and that was what they are talking about and that 16 is all we need during to sink the superior battleship fleet of America.. They accom the life of the treaty. pli bed it. They met in London in 1930 with one purpose, and I do not know whether our naval officers know what they are their purpose was to stop America from building any more talking about or not. I am inclined to think they do. I am than possible of the 10,000-ton, 8-inch-gun cruisers. They accom inclined to think that President Wilson bad a very long head on plished it. his shoulders. I have been in public life now for about 20 years. Why do I say that? The conference of 1927 at Geneva I have come in contact with a great many great men. I think proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. Why did that con President Wilson had the master mind of all those with whom ference fail? Because somebody did not di cover there the sub I ever came in contact. I think he had the most wonderful category idea. I do not know who discovered it finally, but it grasp of public affairs of any public man I ever knew and the was not discovered in 1927, or, if it was, it was not agreed to. most wonderful information about them. I remember one occa Say what you please about Calvin Coolidge; he is very canny. sion when I had announced that I was going to vote for ex He saw the point. The purposes of the 1927 conference were President Roosevelt to have a major generalcy and a divi ion in preci ely the same as that of the 1930 conference, and Cal France. President Wilson sent for me, talked to me out here • turned them down. Great Britain had a tremendous advantage in the President's room. He said: there. America did not have even one of the large cruisers at " I am not a military man. I am a civilian. l\!y life has not that time, and without any of them he1· representatires stood been spent along military lines, and neither has yours. there and fought and won. " When I went into this war I called a conference of the I heard some Senator yesterday pay a tribute to Mr. Gibson, expert military men of the United States and asked them to one of our commissioners. He gave him the credit for stopping recommend the man who could do this job in Europe effectively the conference at Geneva. I do· not know to whom the credit and well. They recommended General Pershing. I believe that belongs, but if it was to 1\Ir. Gibson, I say all honor to him for their I'ecommendation was good. I have appointed him to be standing by American policies and American defense in that in charge of American forces in France and I am going to the controversy. mat for him. I am going to stand by him until the end. I am The subcategory situation was not announced, they did not not a. military man and I am not going to put my civilian stop America from building those ships ; and after that confer judgment up against the judgment of those military men in ence, it will be remembered, we added five more 10,000-ton, whom I have confidence. In like manner I have selected the 8-inch hips to our program. We provided that in a law passed naval officer to command the naval forces of the United States, in 1929, and I am going to refer to it directly. I hope the Sena and I am going to the mat for him. I am going to stand by tor from Idaho will be here when I refer to it, because a section him." was inserted in that act on his suggestion which is intensely I want to say, Senators, that in both positions Pre ident Wilson interesting in view of his present position on this treaty. exei.·cised splendid judgment. It worked out perfectly. Who The British did not get what they wanted. In 1927 Great could have made a greater commander than General Pershing Britain wanted 70 cruiser ships of all kinds. She bad 19 of the in the great World War? Who could have managed our naval great 10,00o-ton class. She had about 50 of the lesser than affairs better than the admiral who had charge of them? 10,000-ton class, or the 6-inch-gun class. She demanded that as That was President . Wilson's view. That is my view about her minimum ami. I believe, wanted America to have 15 of the this matter. I am not a military man. I am not a naval man. 10,000-ton clas . I believe he was willing for her to retain But men whom we have educated, whom we have selected from 184 CO~GRESSION AL R.ECORD- SENATE JULY 16 various parts of the country, "whom we have given the greatest in any event, I for one, will never by my vote permit the other military or naval education possible in the world, have spent country to select the kind of guns with which we al-e going to their lives in trying to serve their Government along military fight her. It would not be common sense, and, so far as I am and naval line . They have become men who stand as high as concerned, I shall not agree to it. any men in military life. When they tell me that they believe Mr. Pre ident, I was greatly interested in another feature of that our battle ·hip fleet, in order to provide a proper defense the speech of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. REED]. I for my country, hould be this or that, I am going to take their want to read the title of this treaty, which is "a treaty for the view about it. I do not believe "Admiral" Stimson knows how limitation and reduction of naval armament." I wish to dis to run or control our naval defense. As between this great body cuss the question of the reduction the treaty proposes to bring of nJlval office1 , naval experts, admirals, men whom we have about ; but before I go into a new subject I wi h to give the educated from the ground up, whom we have passed through the figures as to what we agree to do in the way of sinking by this Naval Academy and given experience in our Navy, and treaty. I can not find the exact figures just at this moment, but "Admiral " Stirn on, I do not hesitate. I will take their views I will give them in a substantially accurate form. before I take the views of any civilian. I believe they are right, :Mr. President, by the terms of thi treaty we ink, all told, and that we are wrong when we undertake to ratify a treaty 23 ,00~ tons, Great Britain 173,000 tons, and Japan 71,000. which prohibits us from building the kind of ship which the These :figures are the totals for all cla se of ships to be sunk. American naval experts say are to the be t advantage of the As I have previously tated this morning, in the conference United States and for the best defense of the United States. at Washington in 1922 America agreed to sink 835,000 ton , Mr. President, we have shown that during the life of the Great Britain agreed to ink 150,000 tons, and Japan agreed to treaty Great Britain is superior to us as to these ships as 19 is ink a small tonnage. Under the pending treaty America agrees to 16. She has 19 of them, and we will only have half that to sink some 238,000 tons, Great Britain 173,000 tons, and many during the principal life of the treaty. Is it not until Japan, as I remember, 71,000 tons. If we shall continue this 1936 that we can, by using all possible dlligence, build up to kind of "reduction" of naval armament, it will take but three the number of 16. When the claim is made that the United or four more conferences like the 1922 and the 1930 conferences States is superior in 10,000-ton 8-inch-gun ships during the life for America to have no Navy at all. We are agreeing to do of the treaty, it is absolutely incorrect ; it is not a correct the sinking. We will sink more than double what Great Britain statement of the fact. We are absolutely inferior, overwhelm will sink. ingly inferior, in the ships that Great Britain has. This treaty Of comse, if we want to disarm, if we want to leave our coun was carefully and wonderfully made in this respect. It is quite try helpless, if we want to leave it as China is left, this is a remarkable that when they were trying to give America supe :tine policy; but, in my judgment, Mr. President, America is riority in battleship of the A class, 10,000-ton -inch-gun battle the greate" t force for peace in all the world to-day. Why do ship , they give Great Britain 19 during the enfu·e life of the I ay that? It is because we do not covet any other nation's treaty while the United States can not possibly get but 16! territory; we do not want the po. se ion of any other coun I next come to the less-than-6-inch-gun, 10,000-ton ships. try; we do not want the property of other nation ; we do not • Here is our situation: We have 10 of them, 73,000 tons. How want to interfere with their rights ; we do not want to interfere many has Great Britain? She has 39. She just gave an order with their sovereignty. We have but one de ire, and that is to a few days ago through her Parliament f.or three more. She safeguard our own welfare, to maintain the peace of the world, is not stopping the construction of this type of vessels. Talk so far as we can, and to trade in harmony and peace and good about limitation of armaments! Talk about reduction ! The will with all the world. That is the purpose of America. It is only real reduction is being made by the United States: The a high and noble pm·pose. other reductions are not ubstantial. Great Britain has 39 to Is that the purpose of other nations? Quite the contrary. our 10, nearly four times as many. The ambition of Great Britain is to take the lands of other What is the propo al with reference to that matter? Our nations wherever she can take them. She has been doing it naT"al officers say that of these ships of the smaller class we throughout her entire history. In the la t war she received a have all that are necessary; that what we need are 10,000-ton veritable empire as her portion of the- spoils, and Japan· re 8-inch-gun cru: ers. It is said that we might have a few more ceiT"ed almost an empire. Her purpose and the purpo e of 6-inch-gun cruisers, but it is wholly immaterial. What does Great Britain are entirely different from the purpo e of Amer Great Britain say? Great Britain says, "All right. Six-inch ica. We wanted no indemnity; we wanted no territory; we guns are the best guns. You have got to build the kind of wanted no superior right . All we wanted was to protect our hips we want you to build. They are more effective than your intere ts, to maintain our proper defense, to maintain the peace 8-inch guns. They can hoot ju t as far and penetrate ju t as of the world, and to trade with the nations of the world in har far at a distance of 18,000 yards, and we think they are better." mony and peace wherever we de ire to do so. That is our ambi If they think they are better, why not let Great Britaill build tion, but what I have stated are the ambitions of these other them ju t as she sees fit? If she thinks they are better than powers. the 8-inch-gun 10,000-ton cruisers, why is Great Britain so What will happen, Mr. President, if we disarm ourselves? greatly interested in having a I:mit placed on the number of We will be in just the same condition which the Senator from 10,000-ton 8-inch cruisers we have? Pennsylvania depicted on yesterday. We will be at a woeful It is said the difference between what the Naval Board disadvantage. If we shall disarm, if we shall sink our ships, recommended and what we get under this treaty is immaterial. if we hall do away with our defense, if we shall destroy our If it is immaterial, why does Great .Britain lay so much stres Navy, either by piecemeal or all at once, as we came mighty upon our not bu:lding them? Why is the subcategory system near doing in 1922, we hall have destroyed our own power to arranged in order to prevent it? What does Great Britain ay? do good in the world, and the.I'Pl'ly we shall have destroyed the • She says, "'All right. You want parity. We wlll give you greatest force for peace in all the world. There is but one way parity if you will take the kind of parity we will give you. We we can hold our proper place and aid in preserving the peace are willing for you to take so many ·of the kind of guns and of the world, and that is to ha\e a strength equal to that of the sh 1ps that we want you to build, namely, 6-inch-gun, les -than- mo t powerful nation. That is the only way it can be brought 10,000-ton cruisers. We do not want you· to have the kind of about. So, Mr. President, I say when we disarm and no other guns and the kind of ships that yoill' experts, your naval offi nation disarms we are doing our country the greatest wrong cers, say are best for your defense. We think they are wrong. and the greatest injustice, and not only doing our country a We want you to build 6-inch-gun cruisers and you can build great injustice but we are doing the peace-loving world an them up to a parity if you want, to do it." injustice. Mr. President, I do not know but what that is a very fine Who cares whether China in any conte t is on one side or thing for Great Britain. If I should unfortunately get into a the other? Who cares whether India, for instance, is on one fight with HUBERT D. STEPHENS, at whom I am looking, and I side or the other? Though there are several times more people had a good revolver, a .45-caliber gun-! am not very familiar in India and in China than there are in America, who cares with them, but I believe that is a good size, substantial gun-! about what their position is on any world question? They have would want him to use against me the smallest caliber and no power to enforce their po ition; they are helpless; and we, weakest gun I could persuade him to buy. I would rather for too, will be helpless if we disarm, if we continue to sink our him not to have any rr I was going to get into a fight with him. Navy as has been done in the e two conferences. 'l,hat is Great Britain's position in this conference. Mr. President, I am no militarist; I am a peace-loving man; Here we, who are representing America and America's de but I know that the American people are never going to tand fense, are going to let another nation select the kind of guns for wrong .or injustice to be done to them, and the only .way with which we are to fight! We allow her to select those guns we can prevent wrong and injustice is to have a navy adequate by our consent! to our defense and our needs. So far as I am concerned, I pray to God that we may never I call attention here, Mr. President, to a remarkable omis ion get into war with Great Britain or with any other nation, but in the statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. R.EED] 1930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA'l,E 185 on yE>sterday. He tried to show that Great Britain would sink stroyers that we shall have to replace, if we carry out the a few more battleships than would we, and that is true; but it terms of this treaty, will cost $236,000,000. is equally true that, even with those ships sunk, Great Britain Submarines to be replaced, $99,000,000. will 3ave a superiority over America in battleships, and, con Modernizing battleships, $70,000,000. sidering all sinkings, including submarines, destroyers, and A grand total of $773,000,000 for these ships that we are per battleships, America will sink nearly twice as much tonnage mitted to build under this treaty, and a great number of which as Great Britain will sink. However, not a word was said our own experts say we ought not to build ! The financial ex about that during the entire propaganda sent forth in behalf of perts in the Navy Department have said that by the time we this treaty. complete the program authorized by this treaty it will cost the It has been constantly dinned in our ears that by a reduc United States Government an additional $1,070,000,000 ; and tion of naval armament a great saving will be effectuated for Senators talk about this treaty reducing taxes on the the American people; that we will not have to keep up a great American people! Why? Is a billion dollars of so little im Naval E tablishment at enormous cost. That was exactly what portance that we may just wave it aside and say, "All right; let was said. in 1922. That was the reason given for the Washing us build them." Great Britain tells us what kind to build. ton conference. I will digress here long enough to show how Let us build as she directs. Many of these ships that are wrong were those who made that contention, and I will give the authorized to be built are not the kind of ships that our experts figures. Instead of decreasing the cost of naval armament we say are necessary to our defense. They do not want to build have increased the cost every year but one since 1922. them, but we must build them under this treaty if we are to One of the reasons for the propaganda in favor of the 5-5-3 have parity. We must build them if we carry out the terms of ratio in 1922, as stated by Mr. Hughes and others, was that the treaty ; and yet they cost over a billion dollars, and still such a ratio would involve a reduction in taxes of the American Senators talk about reducing taxes by this treaty,! people because of a decrease in naval expenditures. It would 1\Ir. President, I again say that it Just is not the fact; that is bring them down to a minimum ; it would save the American all. There will be no reduction of taxes ; but, instead, we shall people an enormous sum every year in taxes. Let us see what have the greatest expenditure of money that we have ever had the facts are as to that contention : for naval building in this country. In 1923, the first year after the Washington treaty, we spent Why is the Senate going to do it? What reasons are there $322,000,000 on our Navy; in 1924 we spent $324,000,000 on our for doing it? There is no reason for doing it. It is a wasteful Navy; in 1925 we spent $326,000,000 on our Navy; in 1926- and an extravagant expenditure of the public money. If there and that was the only year when the amount fell, and it only were no other reason than this single reason, the treaty ought fell $15,000,000-we spent $311,000,000 on our Navy; in 1!>27 we to be defeated. We ought not to undertake this tremendous spent $322,000,000 on our Navy, in 1928 we spent $338,000,000, building of a navy under the treaty; and surely we ought not in 1929 we spent $362,000,()00, in 1930 we spent $364,000,000, and to build it when we have to build the kind of ships that our the appropriations for 1931 for our Navy are $382,000,000. Yet, experts say we should not build, and build largely the kind of :Mr. President, we hear much about saving taxes to the Ameri ·ships that Great Britain wants us to build. Is it fair? Is it can people as the result of naval conferences! just? Is it right? , When we were building up our Navy, when we were building I next come to the question of destroyers. the giant battleships that Mr. Hughes sent to the bottom of the When we went into the conference, as stated by the Senator sea, what did we spend? In 1911 we spent $119,000,000-not from Pennsylvania yesterday, we had-I will put the figures half as much as we have been spending each year since the in exactly, and depend on my memory for accuracy-we bad Washington conference of 1922-in 1912 we spent $135,000,000; 290,000 tons of destroyers. Great Britain had a much smaller in 1913, $133,000,000; in 1914,$139,000,000; in 1915,$141,000,000; tonnage, 191,000 tons. Japan had a substantial number of de in 1916, with the World War on, $155,000,000; and in 1917, stroyers. The exact figures I will give in the REcORD. What when we were fighting the war and building great battleships, happened? We just came on an equality with Great Britain on we spent $257,000,000 on our Navy, or nearly $100,000,000 less destroyers. We did not charge her anything for it: We That its proclamation of the 22d of April last is to be taken as the. the force of a law and to be carried into execution like all other laws effect and expression of that decision. by the executive magistrate. To say, then, that the power of making treaties, which are confessedly laws, belongs naturally to the department That is the outline which Mr. Jtladison gave of the arguments which is to execute laws is to say that the executive department natu set forth in the first of the letters of Mr. Hamilton on this rally includes a legislative power. In theory this is an absurdity; in subject Then Madison says: practice a tyranny. The basis of the reasoning is, we perceive, the extraordinary doctrine, that the powers of ma.king war and treaties are in their nature execu And I think we may well ponder these wise words. tive, and therefore comprehended in the general grant of executive power Mr. Madison goes on: where n. 't especially and strictly excepted out of the grant. The power to declare war is subject to similar reasoning. A declara Let us examine this doctrine; and that we may avoid the possibility tion that there shall be war is not an execution of laws; it does not of mistaking the writer it shall be laid flown in his own words ; a pre suppose preexisting laws to be executed. It is not in any respect an caution the more necessary, as scarce anything else could outweigh act merely executive. It is, on the contrary, one of the most deliberate the improbability that so extravagant a tenet shuuld be hazarded at acts that can be performed, and when performed has the effect of repeal so early a day in the face of the public. ing all the laws operating in a state of peace, so far as they are in Now he quotes verbatim the language used by Mr. Hamilton consistent with a state of war, and of enacting as a rule for the execu tive a new code adapted to the relation between the society and its in his Letters of Pacificus : foreign enemy. In like manner a conclusion of peace annuls all the His words are : " Two of these {exceptions and qualifications to the laws peculiar to a state of war and revives the general laws incident to executive powers) have been already noticed-the participation of the a state of peace. Senate, in the appointment of officers and the making of treaties. A These remarks will be strengthened by adding that treaties, par third remains to be mentioned-the right of the legislature to declare ticularly treaties of peace, have sometimes the t-tl'ect of changing not war and grant letters of marque and reprisal." only the external laws of the society, but operate al o on the internal ~ain: " It deserves to be remarked, that as the participation of the code, which is purely municipal, and to which ttie legislative authority Senate in the making of treaties and the power of the legislature to of the country is of itself competent and complete. declare war, are exceptions out of · the general executive power, vested From this view of the subject it must be evident that although the in the President, they are to be construed strictly, an ought to be ex Executive may be a convenient organ of preliminary communications tended no further than is essential to their execution." with foreign governments on the subjects of treaty or war and the That is the end of the quotation. Then Madison proceeds on proper agent for carrying into execution the final determinations of the his own account: competent authority, yet it can have no pretentions, from the nature of the powers in question compared with the nature of the Executive If there be any countenance to these positions,. it must be found either, trust, to the essenti_al agency which gives validity to such determina first, in the writers of authotity on public law; or, second, in the tions. It must be further evident that if these powers be not in their quality and operation of the powers to make war and treaties; or, third, nature purely legislative they partake so much more of that than of in the Constitution of the United States. any other quality that under a constitution leaving them to result to It would be of little use to enter far into the first source of informa their most natural deportment the legislature would be without a tion, not only because our own reason and our own Constitution, are the rival in its claim. best guides, but because a just analysis and discrimination of the powers Another important inference to be noted is that the powers of making of government, according to their executive, legislative, and judiciary war and treaty being substantially of a legislative, not of an executive, qualities·, are not to be expected in the works of the most received nature, the rule of interpreting exceptions strictly must narrow instead jurists, who wrote before a critical attention was paid to those objects, of enlarging executive pretentious on those subjects. and with their eyes too much on monarchical governments, where all powers are confounded in the sovereignty of the prince. It will be At this point Mr. Madison goes into the third phase of his found, however, I believe, that all of them, particularly Wolsius, Bur!e argument and says tbis : maqul, and Vattel, speak of the powers to declare war, to conclude It remains to be inquired whether there be anything in the Constitu peace, and to form alliances, as among the highest acts of tbe sov tion itself which shows that the powers of making war and peace are ereignty, of which the legislative power must at least be an integral considered as of an executive nature and as comprehended within a nnd preeminent part. general ground of executive power . . It will not be pretended that this Writ~ rs such as Locke and Montesquieu, who have discussed more appears from any direct position to be found in the instrliment. particularly the principles of liberty and the structure of government, If it were deducible from any particular expressions, it may be pre lie under the same disadvantage of having written before these subjects sumed that the publication would have saved us the trouble of the were illuminated by the events and discussions which distinguish a very research. recent period. Does the doctrine, then, result from the actual distribution of powers Of course they did, as a matter of fact. These great authori among the several branches of the Government, or from any fair ties antedated the Revolution by a good many years, and so analogy between the powers of war and treaty, and the enumerated were not familiar with what had taken place in America. powers vested in the Executive alone? Let us examine : Then I continue my quotation from Mr. Madison, speaking In the general distribution of powers we find that of declaring war about these arne writers: expressly vested in the Congress, where every other legislative power is declared to be vested, and without any other qualification than what Both of them, too, are evidently warped by a regard to the particular is common to every other legislative act. The constitutional idea of government of England, to which one of them owed allegiance, and the this power would seem, then, clearly to be that it is of a legislative other professed an admiration bordering an idolatry. Montesquieu, and not an executive nature. however, has rather distinguished himself by enforcing the reasons and This conclusion becomes irresistible when it is recollected that the the importance of avoiding a confusion of the several powers of govern Constitution can not be supposed to have placed either any power ment than by enumerating and defining the powers which belong to legislative in its nature entirely among executive powers, or any power each particular class. And Locke, notwithstanding the early date of his executive in its nature entirely among legislative powers, without work on civil govemment and the example of his own government before charging the Constitution with that kind of intermixture and consoli hls eyes, admits that the particular powers in question, which, after dation of different powers which would violate a fundamental principle some of the writers on public law he calls federative, are really distinct in the organization of free governments. If it were not unnecessary to !rom the executive, though almost always united with it, and hardly to enlarge on this topic here it could be shown that the Constitution was be separated into distinct hands. Had be not lived under a monarchy, originally vindicated and bas been constantly expounded with a dis in which these powers were united, or bad be written by the lamp which avowal of any such intermixture. truth now presents to lawgivers, the last obFervation would probably · The power of treaties is vested jointly in the President and in the never have dropped from his pen. But let us quit a field of research Senate, which is a branch of the legislature. From this arrangement, which is more likely to perplex than to decide, and bring the question merely, there can be no inference that would necessarily exclude the to other tests of which it will be more easy to judge. power from the executive class, since the Senate is joined with the So now Mr. Madison enters upon the second phase of his President ln another power, that of appointing to offices, which, as far argument, and I quote: as relate to executive offices at least, is considered as of an executive nature. Yet, on the other band, there are sufficient indications that If we consult for a moment the nature and operation of the two the power of treaties is regarded by the Constitution as materially powers to declare war and to make treaties, it will be impossible not diJI('rent from mere executive power and as having more affinity to the to see that they can never fall within a proper d('finition of executive legislative than to the executive ch~acter. powers. The natural province of the executive magistrate is to exe cute laws, as that of the legislatUre is to make laws. All his acts, It seems to me these words are very significant, coming from therefore, properly executive, must presuppose the existence of the laws the father of the Constitution, from the man who stood pre to be executed. A treaty is not an execution of laws. It does not eminent in the constitutional convention of 1787, the man who presuppOBe the existence of laws. It is, on the contrary, to have itself had more to do with the building of the Constitution than any 200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE JULY 16 other man in the convention. So, I t~ink we may listen, and power of removal, or at least are equally within a grant of executive listen with great respect and attention to what is said by Mr. power. Nothing of this sort has been attempted, nor probably will Madison. be attempted. Nothing can in truth be clearer than that no analogy It will be of interest, I think, to know that this book which I or shade of analogy can be traced between a power in the supreme hold in my hand was dated at Washington in May, 1818. A officer responsible for the faithful execution of the laws to displace a copy of this letter I am reading was submitted to 1\Ir. Madison, subaltern officer employed in the execution of the laws; and the power who reviewed it at the time of the bo(}k's publication. to make treaties and to declare war, such as these have been found to That is merely a side remark, to give significance to the au be in their nature, their operation, and their consequences. thenticity of the document, and also to call attention to the Thus it appears that by whatever standard we try this doctrine, it great importance of the utterances here recorded, coming as they must be condemned as no less vicious in theory than it would be do from the father of the Constitution. I continue my quotation: dangerous in practice. It is countenanced neither by the writers on One circumstance indicating this is the constitutional regulation under law nor by the nature of the powers themselves, nor by any general whicb' the Senate give their consent in the case of treaties. In all other arrangements or particular expressions or plau ible analogies to be found in the Constitution. cases the consent of the body is expressed by a majority of voices. In Whence, then, can the writer have borrowed it? this particular case a concurrence of two-thirds at least is made neces There is but one answer to this question. sary, as a substitute or compensation for the other branch of the legis The power of making treaties and the power of declaring war are lature, which, on certain occasions, could not be conveniently a party to royal prerogatives in the British Government and are accordingly the transaction. treated as executive prerogatives by British commentators. But the conclusive circumstance is that treaties, when formed accord We shall be the more confirmed in the necessity of this solution of ing to the constitutional mode, are confessedly to have the force. and the problem by looking back to the era of the Constitution and satisfy operation of laws, and are to be a rule for the courts in controversies ing ourselves that the writer could not have been misled by the doc between man and man, as much as any other laws. They are even trines maintained by our own commentators on our own Government. emphatically declared by the Constitution to be "the supreme law of That I may not ramble beyond prescribed limits I shall content myself the land." with an extract from a work which entered into a systematic expla So far the argument from the Constitution is precisely in opposition nation and defense of the Constitution, and to which .there bas fre to the doctrine. quently been scribed some influence in conciliating the public assent Referring to Hamilton's doctrine. to the Government in the form proposed. As there are but few, it will be most satisfactory to review them. (At this point Mr. CoPELAND yielded the floor for the day.) one by one. Wednesday, July 16, 1930 'l'hen he makes reference to that part of the Constitution which Mr. COPELAI\'D. Mr. President, I have been quoting from provides that the President shall be the Commander in Chief of historical documents, from the fathers of the Republic, to make the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia when clear that it was never intended the Senate should accept with called into the actual service of the United States. Mr. Madison out question a treaty as it was written. The Senate has co says in that C(}nnection: ordinate power with the President in making a treaty. Indeed, There can be no relation worth examining between this power and the the Senate has the last word. A treaty is not a fini hed docu general power of making treaties. And instead of being analogous to ment from the American standpoint until the Senate has had the power of declaring war, it affords a striking illustration of the opportunity to modify, to radically change, or to ratify. incompatibility of the two powers in the same hands. Those who are I turn aside for the moment to speak about what the Senator to conduct a war can not in the nature of things be proper or safe from Nevada has said. He has expres ed far better than I can judge , whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. the thought I have had in mind, that another appeal should be They are barred from the latter function by a great principle in free made to the President to give us these documents. It never was government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the rntended by the fathers that there should be kept from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws. Senate the information which led to the formulation of a treaty. " He may require the opinion in writing of the principal officers in That information should not be denied us now. each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the It is a pathetic thing-the popular idea that the President duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant has the treaty-making power. The popular idea is that that reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in power is exclusively in the hands of the Pre ident. I have had, case of impeachment." These powers can have nothing to do with the as some other Senators have had, many letters from constitu subject. ents. I received one this morning which I wish to quote becau e Then he quotes again : it is appropriate to the discussion now in hand. This letter begins: "The President shall have power to fill up vacancies that may hap pen during the recess of the Senate by granting commissions which The undersigned, your const.ituents, have been following the course shall expire at the end of the next session." of the special session of the Senate with much interest and concern. The same remark is applicable to this power, as also to that of "re We are of the opinion that a special session was not at all a necessity, ceiving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls." The par that the Senate should have ratified without prolonged discussion the ticular use attempted to be made of this last power will be considered London naval treaty. We believe that the commission sent to England in another place. to confer '"ith foreign powers was chosl'n with great discretion, and achieved 'the best possible results, and that the only course for the In that .other place he speaks of the importance of having the Senat-e to take, now that it is in special session, is to ratify that power of getting information lodged somewhere. The Presi achievement with as little delay as possible. dent through the ambassadors would be able to get informa tion which would be important in determining up(}n a treaty. That is what I hear from constituents occasionally, the impli· cation being that the Senate has but one duty-namely, to ratify Then Madi ·on quotes again from the Constitution: the treaty and go home. "He shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed, and Mr. President, as I have attempted to show by the documents shall commission all officers of the United States." To see the laws to which I have referred, by what Mr. Madison, the Father of faithfully executed constitutes the essence of the executive authority. the Constitution, had to say about treaty making, the Senate But what relation has it to the power of making treaties and war; has certainly coordinate power in the making of a treaty. that is, of determining what the laws shall be with regard to other As I read the Constitution and the debates over these mat nations? No other certainly than what subsists between the powers of ters, I can understand why the making of treaties and the ap executing and enacting laws; no other, consequently, than what forbids pointment of ambassadors went together in the Constitution. a coalition of the powers in the same department. In the first place, it was intended that the Senate itself should I pass over the few other specified functions assigned to the Presi make treaties. Then it was discovered that there should be dent, such as that of convening the Legislature, and so forth, and so some way of gathering the " intelligence "-and "intelligence " forth, which can not be drawn into the present question. I put in quotation marks, because that was the word which It may be proper, however, to tlike notice of the power of removal was used-to get the information, to get the material. Then, from office, which appears to have been adjudged to the President by the when a treaty was formulated, it was to be turned over, in my laws establishing the executive departments, and which the writer has judgment with the "intelligence," the material upon which the endeavored to press into his service. treaty was founded, to the Senate, in order that the Senate He meant that Mr. Hamilton made use of that argument to might make such changes and such mod:fications as it desired, further the idea which he was attempting to press upon the or might determine that the treaty, as formulated, was a 'Yise people. Madison continued: instrument and worthy of acceptance. To justify any favorable inference from this case it must be shown Mr. President, I agree fully with the Senator from Georgia that the powers of war and treaties are of a kindred nature to the in what he said just now to the Senator from Nevada, that the 1930 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-SEN ATE 201 President ·himself ought to .be first in his desire to make public certain Senators, under the seal of secrecy and in confidf'nce, to everything appertaining to this treaty. This should be done in see those documents. Yesterday he stated that certain Senators order that there may not be a suspicion of hidden things, of had availed themselves of that permi8sion. I declined to avail secl'et understanding , of evasions, or of other secrets which myself of that permission. might be imagined by the public. Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I am sure it is quite clear I have seen in the press that one of our ambassadors, in his to the Senator from Wisconsin that it is not a favor conferred letters to the President, was very frank in describing Members upon a Senator, but it is his right to see the documents if he of this body. According to the newspaper report I saw, he is going to vote advisedly upon the treaty. called one Member "un table," and another "a pinhead," what Mr. BLAINE. ::\1r. Pre ident, will the Senator yield fur ever that means. I do not care anything about that, and neither ther? does any Member of the Senate care what any ambassador may The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New have said about any Senator. If the application fits at all, the York yield further to the Senator from Wisconsin? Senator under suspicion would laugh about it, as eYerybody Mr. COPELAND. I do. else would. l\1r. BLAINE. By what authority or by what pretense of But when I see in the press the intimation that there is a authority does a Member of the Senate have possession of secret understanding that three or four of these cruisers which secret documents which he regards as confidential but whose we are permitted to build under the treaty are not to be built, contents he is willing to divulge to some other Senator? If that there is a secret understanding that they are not to be they are confidential to the Senator while he was a commis constructed at all, and that the treaty as given to the public is sioner or delegate, that confidence remains, and it seems to me not a true statement of exactly what will be carried out by our that it is a violation of the responsibility of the commissioner country, then I am deeply concerned, and the public ought to be. in the matter, wben he ceases to be a commissioner and again I do not believe there are any statements or any provisions assumes his position as a Senator on the floor of the Senate, in the e secret paper , so called, whic-h amount to much. I do for him to offer to divulge their contents. not believe that if we had them we would be changed in our I have not heard the entire debate, and I rather assume that course. But we have a right to have them, we are entitled to I may not have some information which is very material; but have them, and I am not so sure that as Senators we are if a Senator who, at the time he was a member of the delega exercising our constitutional and sworn duty unless we do have tion to London, bad the papers which were confidential, those those papers in order that we may know exactly what they papers remain confidential throughout the period of his com contain. missionership, and when he ceases to be a commissioner and Mr. President, I remember a statement made by Mr. Cooley in reassumes his position on the flo6r of the Senate as a Senator. his Constitutional Limitations. then be occupies exactly the same position as any other Mem Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President-- ber of the Senate, and his authority to make known those con The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GEORGE in the chair). fidential papers, as I view it, can no longer exist. He has Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from ceased to be a commissioner. Confidence was shrouded about Wisconsin? those documents while he was a commissioner. Mr. COPELAND. I yield. If a Member of the Senate, having resumed his position on Mr. BLAINE. I was absent during the debate on the so the floor of the Senate and having set aside his cloak as com called secret documents. I do not know whether the Senator mi sioner, divulges the contents of those documents to another from New York was present or not, but if he was present he Member of the Senate, it eems to me a very peculiar situation, can give me the information I am seeking. I understood from at least peculiar in this, if the Senator will bear with me, that the newspaper reports of the debate that at least two .Members the treaty-making power, the treaty-negotiating power, de ·of the Senate have had access to all of the papers . and confi- clines to permit the Senate of the t!nited States to have access dential communications relating to the negotiation of the to those papers, yet permits Members of the Senate wbo were treaty. Is that correct? the executive agents at the time those papers were confidential Mr. COPELAND. I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania to have them. It seems to me we are in a most strange situa (Mr. REED] say that the papers were in his office. I do not tion. It seems to me that the Executive alone can disclose the know that he said all of the papers, but he said the documents confidential documents. It confuses me somewhat and I would were in his office and that any Senator who cared to take oath be glad to have that confusion dissipated, because I am very or obligate himself not to breathe anything that he read in anxious to consider the treaty from the standpoint of all the them would be permitted to see them. Am I right in that, may facts and not merely some of the facts. I ask the Senator from California? Mr. COPELAND. Of course, I see what tOO Senator has in Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield- mind, but I am merely a Senator who was not alse> a treaty Mr. COPELAND. Certainly. maker and therefore can not answer his question. Mr. JOHN SON. That is substantially the statement of the I do not know bow the Senator from Wisconsin feels about it ~enator from Pennsylvania. My opinion is, however, that he or bow any other Senator feels about it, but when I read what did not seek to include the dispatches which passed between the Madison and others who were in the convention of 1787 said Secretary of State or the office of the Secretary of State here about such a matter, it is perfectly clear to me that a Senator and Ambassador Castle in Japan, or the dispatches and com by right should be given every bit of information which the munications which passed between our delegation in London President had. We should have what one of the old writers and Ambassador Castle in Japan. I think that his intenti Apparently 1\Ir~ Hamilton was not fully satisfied with what the jlid of a foreign power the price of his' treache.ry to. his constituent . John Jay had said about treaty making. I read No. 75 of the The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion -Federalist and find that Hamilton had this to say: of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit in· With regard to the intermixture of powers, I shall rely upon the ex terests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those whkh concern its planation heretofore given, of the true sense of the rule upon which that intercourse with the rest of the world to the sole disposal of a magis objection is founded ; and shall take it for granted, as an inference from trate created and circumstanced as would be a Pre ident of the United States. them, that the union of the executive with the senate, in the article of treatie , is no infringement of that rule. I venture to add, that the 1\Ir. President, what tronger argument could po sibly be used? particular nature of the power of making treaties indicates a peculiar It is no reflection upon our present great Chief Magistrate but propriety in that union. Though several writers on the subject of gov it was the wisdom of the father that there should be su& a ernment place that power in the class of executive authorities, but this divi ion of power in the making of treaties; that it should not is evidently an arbitrary disposition; for if we attend carefully to its be left solely to one man. Mr. Hamilton has concisely and elo "operation it will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the quently made clear the reasons why. He said: executive characters, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the 1'he history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion definition of either. of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit in :Mr. Hamilton makes practically the same statement regard terests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those which concern it ing this joint action that Mr. Madison made in the letters of intercourse with the rest of the world to the sole dispo al of a magi . Helvidius. To continue the quotation from Hamilton: trate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States. The es ence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the He continued : execution of the laws and the employment of common strength, either To have intrusted the power· of making treaties to the Senate alone for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the would ha>e been to relinquish the benefits of the constitutional agency functions of the Executi¥e Magistrate. . The power of making treaties of the President in the conduct of foreign negotiations. It is true that is plainly neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the the Senate would, in that case, have the option of employing him in execution of the subsisting laws nor to the enacting of new ones, and this capacity; but they would also have the option of letting it alone, still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are and pique or caval might induce the latter rather than the former. co11tracts with foreign nations, which ha>e the force of law, but derive Besides this, the ministerial servant of the Senate could not be expected it from the obligation of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by to enjoy the confidence and respect of foreign powers in the same ex the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and tent with the constitutional representative of the Nation, and," of sovereign. The power in question seems, therefore, to form a distinct course, would not be able to act with an equal degree of weight of department, and to belong properly neither to the legislative nor to the efficacy. While the Union would, from this cause, lose a considerable executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed, as indispensable in the advantage in the management of its external concerns, the people would management of foreign negotiations, point out the executive as the lose the additional security which would result from the cooperation of most fit agent in those transactions ; while the vast importance of the the Executive. Though it would be imprudent to confide in him solely- trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a po1~on of the legislative body in the He goes back to the same subject again: ofijce of malting them. Though it would be imprudent to confide in him solely so important That was a part of the statement of Mr. Hamilton. It is no a· trust, yet it can not be doubted that his participation would mate wonder that Mr. Madison quoted it in making stronger still rially add to the safety of the socie.ty. It must, indeed, be clear to a his own argument that the function of the Executive in treaty demonstration that the joint po ses ion of the power in question by making is almost exclusively the gathering of material. the President and Senate would afford a greater prospect of security We have a great Secretary of State. I have known him for than the separate possession of it by either of them. And whoever many years and respect him highly. Sometimes in the heat of has materially weighed the circumstances which must concur in the deuate there are criticisms of him. I always resent them in appointment of a President will be satisfied that the offi.ce will alway my heart because I am extremely fond of our Secretary of bid fair to be filled by men of such characters as to render their con State and feel that he has done his part well in bringing to currence in the formation of treaties peculiarly desirable, as well on the gether the "intelligence," the materials on which this treaty score of wisdom as on that of integrity. has been founded. The criticism I have to pass is not upon Mr. Hamilton makes clear that it was the intention of the the Secretary of State. 'l.'he criticism I have to pa s is upon founders of the Government, the intention of the delegates to the President, in that he fails to trust the ~enate with the the Constitutional Convention of 1787, .to designate the Presi information which he bas, information which might be of dent as the one to negotiate, to gather the material, the infor po ible value to us in passing our judgment upon thls in mation, the "intelligence," to bring together the material strument. which he would turn over to the Senate. His duty is to do thi When I say that I say it of a man whom I respect and who in order that the Senate might determine whether or not the has my friendship, if he will accept it. But I do think the instrument passed to the Senate was the proper instrument in President makes a dreadful mistake if he fails to place before view of the negotiations made by the President. the Senate material which will aid us in determining whether Mr. President, to me it is so clear that I can not understand or not this treaty should be ratified. If there is nothing to why anybody should take. the opposite view. The fact that we conceal, there is no reason why the material should not be passed a resolution such as we did in the Senate i an indica given. If there is anything to conceal, or if the President tion that that is the sentiment of the Senate. That action thinks it is of doubtful propriety to give it to the public, let shows we believe we honld have this material, and we should us pass judgment on that and share with him or, if need be, have it. One of the thoughts I have in mind is to try to do what taka full responsibility for any publicity which may be given I can to induce the President to give us this material in order to uch rna terial. that we may pass upon this treaty with full information of I quote f"!lrther from Mr. Hamilton: what every item in it really means. However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive Mr. Hamilton continued in this number of the Federalist: magistrate is an hereditary monarch to commit to him the entire power The remal'ks made in a former number- of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust And he refers to the number which I r~d as coming from the that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. pen of Mr. Jay- That is pretty good, coming from Hamilton. That might have The remarks made in a former number will apply with conclusivt'! come from a Democrat. I continue the quotation : force against the admission of the House of Representatives to a share It has been remarked upon another occa ion, and the remark is un in the formulation of treaties. The fluctuating, and, taking its future questionably just, that an hereditary monarch, though often the op increase into the account, the multitudinous composition of that body, pressor of his people, has personally too much at stake in the govern forbid us to expect in it those qualities which are essential to the proper ment to be in any material danger of being corrupted by foreign powers; ex~cution of such a trust. Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of but that a man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank foreign politics ; a steady and systematic adherence to the same views; of chief magistrate, possessed of but a moderate or slender fortune, and a nice and uniform sensibility to national character; decision, secrecy, looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably and dispatch are incompatible with the genius of a body so variable and be obliged to return to the station from which be was taken, might so numerous. The very complication of the business, by introducing a sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice duty to interest, which it necessity of the concurrence of so many different bodies, would of itself would require superlative virtue to with tand. An avaricious man afford a solid objection. The greater frequency of the calls upon the might be tempted to betray the interest of the state for the acquisition House of Representatives and the greater length of time which it would of wealth. .An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement by often be necessary to keep them together when convened, to obtain their 1930 CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-SENATE 205 sanction in the progressive stages of a treaty would be a course of so Senators will recall what happened in the convention, and great inconvenience and expense, a..,s alone ought to condemn the project. then, having that in mind, they will see how well chosen were In other words, :Mr. Hamilton took the position that secrecy his words " compelled the convention to confer upon him an and dispatch would not be possible if so large a body were equal share in the power to make treaties." It was not the brought together. The implication is that the Senate being a intention of the Constitutional Convention in the early days smaller body, as it was likely to continue to be, the President and weeks of its deliberations to give the treaty-making power might properly place before it any material which he has in to the President. It was proposed to have that retained by the his hands. Congress and probably by the Senate. But as the debates con- Mr. President, I have quoted extensively particularly from tinued it became very apparent that the Senate was in no posi Mr. Madison. I think we have every right to call Mr. Madison tion to enter into the negotiations. Tll:e President appointed the the Father of the Constitution. Certainly no one will dispute ambassadors and the ministers, and his Secretary of State came his large part in the building of that instrument. There were in contact with the diplomatic representatives of other countries. more brilliant men in the convention than Mr. Madison. Prob- The Senate itself, except through a committee, a very awkward ably he was surpassed in intellect by Mr. Hamilton, perhaps by way of transacting business, had no means of gathering the James Wilson. but what Mr. Madison lacked in imagination he material, and so, as Senator Lodge said: made up in good sense. No one can read the debates without The obvious fact that the President must be the representative of the recognizing Madison's preeminence in the constitutional conven- country in all dealings with foreign nations and that the Senate in tion. Every student of those events must decide that he is tts very nature could not, like the Chief Executive, initiate and conduct indeed the Father of the Constitution. negotiations, compelled the convention to confer upon him an equal . hare A little while ago the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. .McKEL- in the power to make treaties. This was an immense concession by LAR] paid a tribute to Thomas Jefferson. It was a beautiful the States, and they bad no idea of giving up their ultimate control to tribute and a deserved one, as I see it. I wonder if it has ever a President elected by the people generally. Here, therefore, is a reason occurred to the Senator how much Mr. Jefferson may have influ- for the provision in the Constitution which makes the consent of the enced Mr. Madison? They were neighbors down in Virginia, 1 Senate by a two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of any living quite near together. Mr. Madison was 8 or 10 years treaty projected or prepared by the President. The required assent of younger than Mr. Jefferson. They were kindred souls in their the Senate is the reservation to the States of an equal share in the love of books. They were students of history, philosophy, and sovereign power of making treaties which before the adoption of the government. I have no doubt that Mr. Madison sat at the feet Constitution was theirs without limit or restriction. of Jefferson as Saul sat at the feet of Gamaliel. I have no That is, under the federation the making of treaties was in doubt Mr. Madison absorbed from Mr. Jefferson many of his the hands of the States, but in planning the new system it was ideas of government. While Jefferson was absent in person in found, as I have said, that there was no expeditious or effective France at the time of the Constitutional Conventon, I ha\e no way of getting the information except by the activities of the doubt he was in the convention in spirit. From those two Vir President. Giving to him a share in the making of the treaties ginians, Mr. Madi on and his godfather, Mr. Jefferson, has come was, as Lodge said, a great concession on the part of the States, much that we now find in the Constitution. because the States then were much more jealous of their rights I have quoted at length from Madison's letters of Helvidius than they are to-day, I am sorry to say. because of the light they shed upon the treaty-making power and the relative responsibilities of President and Senate. No Here-- better authority can be found. Senator Lodge says- Mr. President, it is perfectly clear to me from what I have heard in this body, from my own reading, and from what the therefore, is the reason for the provision of the Constitution which fathers have said that there is concurrent authority, to say the makes the consent of the Senate by a two-thirds majority necessary to least, in the President and the Senate in the malting of trea the ratification of any treaty projected or prepared by the President. ties. We have recognized our relationship to the Executive in The required assent of the Senate is the reservation to the States of an matters which occur in this body. I find that Rule XXXIX of equal share in the sovereign power of making 'treaties which before the the Senate provides as follows : adoption of the Constitution was theirs without limit or restriction. The President ot the United States shall from time to time be fur Senator Lodge cQntinues: nished with an authenticated transcript of the) executive records of the The Senate being primarily a legislative body can not in the nature Senate, but no further extract from the Executive Journal shall be fur of things initiate a negotiation with another nation, for they have no nished by the Secretary, except by special order of the Senate; and no authority to appoint or to receive ambassadors or ministers. But in paper, except original treaties transmitted to the Senate by the Presi every other respect under the language of the Constitution, and in the dent of the United States and finally acted upon by the Senate, shall be intent of the framers, they stand on a perfect equality with the Presi delivered from the office of the Secretary without an order of the Senate dent in the making of treaties. They have an undoubted right to recom for that vurpose. mend either that a negotiation be entered upon, or that it be not under The President has knowledge of everything that we do here. taken, and I shall show presently that this right has been exercised and In the last year or so we have had no closed executive sessions, recogni,zed in both directions. but when we had closed executive sessions, when the official re A day or two ago the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKEL porters were excluded and there was no stenographic record LAR] -called attention to the action of President John Adams in made to be given to the public, there were authenticated records a message dated December 15, 1800, addressed as follows : made by the Secretary of the Senate and transmitted to the President. This is the rule so that he may know what is Gentlemen of the Se1!4te: done in our closed executive sessions. I think that is right. I tra11smit to the Senate, for their consideration and decision, a con The President has knowledge all the time of what we do rela vention, both in English and F~encb, between the United States of Amer tive to treaties. If we were to have a closed executive session ica and the French Republic, signed at Paris on the 13th day of Septem to-day, he would be given a report of our actions. We have tried ber last, by the respective plenipotentiaries of the two powers. I also always to have that spirit of cooperation between the Executive transmit to the Senate three manuscript volumes containing the journal and the Senate that makes for cordial relationship and for good of our envoys. government. I can not for the life of me see why the President JOHN ADAMS. ~hould possibly object to our having just as full and complete It seems that this did not quite satisfy the Senate, and so, on information as he has, to our having all the material that he the 19th of December, the Senate adopted a resolution asking for has, in order that we might reach the conclusion that he has all the negotiations, the dispatches and letters and communica reached that the treaty is as it should be. tions which passed between the parties. Then Mr. Adams sent A little while ago I made reference to the fact that our late a second message on December 22, 1800, as follows : colleague, Henry Cabot Lodge, had written upon the subject of the treaty-making powers of the Senate. In Scribner's Maga Gentletnen of the Senate: zine for January, 1902, at page 33, is an article from his pen, In confo1·mity with your request in your resolution of the 19th of The Treaty-making Powers of the Senate, by Henry Cabot this month, I transmit you the instructions given to our late envoys Lodge, Senator from Massachusetts. I wish to make reference exh·aordinary and ministers plenipotentiary to the French Republic. to some of the statements written here by S-enator Lodge. I It is my request to the Senate that these instructions may be con find, for instance, this language: sidered in strict confidence and returned to me as soon as the Senate shall have made all the use of tbem they may judge necessary. The obvious fact that the President must be the representative of the JOHN ADAMS. country in all dealings with foreign nations and that the Senate in its very naturf' could not, like the Chief Executive, initiate and conduct Why could not President Hoover have intrusted us with the negotiations, compelled the convention to confer upon him an equal papers in the case of the London treaty? Even in our resolu share in the power to make treaties. tion we suggested that the President might make any recom- 206 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE JULY 16 mendation he desired as to how they should be used; and ton's time in regard to consulting the Senate before or during a nego President Adams, on his own account, in his letter of December tiation but recognizes folly that although reasons of convenience and 22, 1800, suggested "that these instructions be considered in expediency had led to the abandonment of ,consultation with the Senate strict confidence and returned to me as soon as the Senate shall prior to a negotiation, yet it was an undoubted constitutional right or have made all the use of them they may judge necessary." So the President to so consult the Senate, and of the Senate to take part, if there is nothing new in the request of the Senate for the orig- it saw fit, at any stage of a negotiation. President Jackson says: inal documents. What is new about the situation is the refusal "I am fully aware that in thus resorting to the early practice of the of the President to send the material. Government, by asking the previous advice of the Senate in the dis- In looking over the work entitled '"'Treaties, Conventions, charge of this portion of my duties, I am departing from a long, and International Acts, Protocols," and so forth, by 1\Ialloy, I find for many years unbroken, usage in similar cases. But being satisfied that in 1899 the House of Representatives adopted a resolution that this resort is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution, asking the President to transmit to it "if not incompatible with that it is strongly recommended in this instance by considerations the public service, such correspondence as may have passed of expediency, and that the reasons which have led to the ob ervance between the Department of State and various foreign govern- of a different practice, though very cogent in negotiation with for menta concerning the maintenance of the ' open door' policy eign nations, do not apply with equal force to those made with Indian in China." On the 27th of 1\Iarch President McKinley sent all tribes, I flatter myself that it will not meet the disapprobation of the the material, whi~h takes pages and pages in this great volume, Senate." so that the House might have for its information all the valuable • • • • • • • information concerning that matter. On February 10, 1854, President Pierce sent to the Senate the Gads- Mr. President, we are certainly entitled to have the material den treaty, signed by the plenipotentiaries on December 30, 1853, and in connection with the London 11aval treaty in order that we with it certain amendments which he recommended to the Senate for may wisely act on it. adoption before ratification. It would be difficult to find a better Senator Lodge, in his article, following what I have already example than this, not merely of the right of the Senate to amend but of quoted, referred to the contacts between the Senate and Presi- the fact that Senate amendments are simply a continuance of the nego dent Washington on var!ous occasions when he came in person tiations begun by the President. to the' Senate Chamber to confer with the Senators as to what should be the procedure with reference to certain treaties, par- At various points along this part of the article Senator Lodge speaks of the continuance of the negotiations and of the fact ticularly with the Indians. I quote fm'ther from the article of_ that the treaty is not finished, it is not complete, until we find Senator Lodge, as follows: the action of the Senate itself. On February 14, 1791, a message was sent in which illustrates, in From these various examples it will be seen that the Senate has a very interesting way, how close the relations were between the Senate and the President in all matters relating to treaties, and how com- been consulted at all stages of negotiations by Presidents of all parties, from Washington to Arthur. It will also be observed that the right pletely Washington recognized the right of the Senate to advise with to recommend a negotiation by resolution was exercised in 1835 and him in regard to every matter connected with our foreign relations. In this message be explained his sending Gouverneur Morris in an again in 1888, and was unquestioned by either Jackson or Clevel'and, who were probably more unfriendly to the Senate and more unlikely to unofficial character to England in order to learn whether it were pos- accede to any extension of Senate prerogatives than any Presidents sible to open negotiations for a treaty, and with the message he sent we have ever had. It will be further noted that the Senate in 1862 various letters, so that the Senate might be fully informed as to all advised against the Mexican negotiation, and that President Lincoln this business, which was, in its nature, entirely secret and unofficial. frankly accepted their decision and did not even ask that the treaties So the evidence piles up that it was the intention of the which bad been actually made mea;time should be considered with a founders of the Government, and was the actual practice in the view to ratification. early days of the Republic, to have all the treaty material, The power of the Senate to amend or to ratify conditionally is, of secret and unoffic!al, given to the Senate. course, included in the larger powers expressly granted by the Constitu- At another point Mr. Lodge says: tion to reject or confirm. It would have never occurred to me that It is not necessary to multiply instances under our first President. anyone who had read the Constitution and who possessed even the These cases which have been quoted show how Washington interpreted most superficial acquaintance with the history of the United States the Constitution which he had so largely helped to frame. It is clear could doubt the right of the Senate to amend. But within the last year that in his opinion, and in that of the Senate, which does not appear I have seen this question raised, not jocosely, so far as one could see, to have been controverted by anybody, the powers of the Senate were but quite seriously. It may be well, therefore, to point out very briefly exactly equal to those of the President in the making of treaties, and the law and the facts as to the power of the Senate to amend or alter that they were entitled to share with him at all stages of a negotiation. treaties. How plain and clear it is that the Senate has the right to I think that matter is now well understood and accepted- have the information which we should have in ·dealing with the that the Senate has the right to amend a treaty. But Lodge instrument before us. makes clear, as Hamilton and Madison did in their writings, I find, according to the article of Senator Lodge, that- that the Senate has not only concurrent power but that it should have like information a.nd just as much information as On December 6, 1797, President Adams, in submitting an Indian deed, the President had from his negotiators in the formulation of which was the form taken by the treaty, suggested that it be condi- the treaty. tionally ratified; that is, that the Senate should provide that the treaty In the conclusion of his article Senator Lodge says: should not become binding until the President was satisfied as to the investment of the money, and the resolution was put in that form. This The results of the preceding inquiry can be easily summarized. Prac- is interesting, because it is the first case where the President himself tice and precedent, the action of the Senate and of the Presidents and suggests an amendment to be made by the Senate. the decision of the Supreme Court show that the power of the Senate in the making of treaties has always been held, as the Constitution I quote further from the same article, as follows: intended, to be equal to and coordinate with that of the President, May 6, 1830, President Jackson, in a message relating to ' a treaty except in the initiation of a negotiation which can of necessity only proposed by the Choctaw Indians, asked the Senate to share in the be undertaken by the President alone. The Senate has the right to negotiations in the following words: "Will the Senate advise the con- recommend entering upon a negotiation or the reverse, but this right elusion of a treaty with the Choctaw Nation according to the terms it has wisely refrained from exercising, except upon rare occasions. which they propose? Or will the Senate advise the conclusion of a The Senate has the right to amend, and this right it has always exer treaty with that tribe as modified by the alterations suggested by me? cised largely and freely. It is also clear that any action taken by It not, what further alteration or modification will the Senate the Senate is a part of the negotiation, just as much so as the action propose? " of the President through the Secretary of State. In other words, the There is much difference between the position taken by the action of the Senate upon a treaty is not merely to give sanction to Executive at that time and the attitude of the present adminis- the treaty but is · an integral part of the treaty making, and may be tration, which apparently is to the effect, "There is the treaty; taken at any stage of a negotiation. there it stands; take it or leave it." How can the Senate help How can we talk about making a treaty if the treaty is handed but feel resentful when it is whipped into line, when the lash is to us ready-made? ' cracked over its head, and when Senators are called from Mr. Lodge says: wedding trips and from foreign lands to come here and vote for It bas been frequently said of late that the Senate in the ruatter the treaty? of treaties has been extending its powers and usurping rights w~i<'..h To continue the quotation from Mr. Lodge: do not properly belong to it. That the power of the Senate has grown President Jackson then goes on to give his reasons for thus consult- during the past century is beyond doubt, but it has not grown at all ing the Senate. The passage is of great interest because it n,ot only in the matter of treaties. On the contrary, the Senate now habitually states the change of practice which had taken place since Washing- leaves in abeyance rights as to treaty making which at the beginning 1930 _CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-SENATE 207 of the Government it freely exercised, and it has shown in this great ity of the Senate, I have a right to see the documents and department of executive government both wisdom and moderation in determine for myself whether or not the record is clear. the assertion of its constitutional powers. There is no unfriendliness to the Executive in this. I respect This is not the place to discuss the abstract merits of the constitu the President. ! am so good a friend that I would gladly volun tional provisions as to the making of t:J:eaties. Under a popular gov teer to share his bm·dens. But in this particular matter it is ernment like ours it would be neither possible nor safe to leave the my. du!y to demand, with all respect, that, as is my sworn vast powers of treaty making exclu~ively in the hands of a single obbgab~n, I share the burden and responsibility of passing upon person. the merits, not of the treaty itself alone but of its foundation too. To. this end, as a representative of a sovereign State, i That is the same point that was made so strongly by Mr. have a nght to ask to be given what I believe to be my consti Hamilton, that this ought not to be the power of a single person, tutional right, an opportunity to inspect all the documents of the Executive; that it is unsafe in a democracy to leave such great power in the hands of one man. And so Senator Lodge bearing upon the matter before the Senate. In spite of the President's refusal it does seem as if sober emphasizes that, saying: second thought would lead him to comply with om· request for It would be neither possible nor safe to leave the vast powers of the papers. It is a sad commentary upon the treaty-making treaty making exclusively in the hands of a single person. Some control syste.m ~at the Senate is forced .. to put its approval on the over the Executive in this regard must be placed in the Congress, and pendmg mstrument with reservations which hint of secret un the framers of the Constitution intrusted it to the representatives of the d~rstandings. There certainly is in the pending reservation the States. That they acted wisely can not be questioned, even if the hmt that the Senate thinks there is a secret understanding. requirement of the two-thirds vote for ratification is held to be a too We should not ratify a treaty if we have in our minds even narrow restriction. These, however, are considerations of nci practical ~e very remote thought that there is something wrong ba~k of importance, and after all only concern ourselves. Our system of treaty l~. Even though we may be convinced intellectually that all is making is established by the Constitution and bas been made clear by r1gllt, there is always the suggestion, a deep-down feeling that long practice and uniform precedents. The American people understand perhaps something is bidden. ' it and those who conduct the government of other countries are bound to If the Senate ratifies the treaty with this reservation upon understand it, too, when they enter upon negotiations with us. There the "understanding" that there are no hidden featur~s no is no excuse for any misapprehension. It is well also that the repre secret evasions, and no limitations, it is exactly as if we ~ere sentatives of other nations should remember, whether they like our giving a quit-claim deed to the limitation and reduction of naval system or not, that in the observance of treaties during the last 125 armaments. The abstract of title of a treaty of this sort is years ther~ is not a nation in Europe which has been so exact as the clo~ded. We should not be in the position of giving a quit United States, nor one which has a record so free from examples of the claim deed. We should be able to give a warranty deed. abrogation of treaties at the pleasure of one of the signers alone. To put it mildly, the situation is an unhappy one for me or This is a wonderful tribute to tbe care, the punctiliousness, ~or any o~er Se~ator who might wish to vote for the treaty. It with which we have observed our treaties. IS almost unposs1ble to do so. The President should clear the Mr. President, from my standpoint this question does not in way. It is not yet too late. I wish my tongue might be touched volve any idea of maintaining the "dignity" of the Senate. I with some fire of eloquence to make it possible for me to utter never could get excited over that. I never can tolerate the atti words which would induce the President to send to us those tude that my dignity demands this or my dignity demands that. papers in order that we might see for ourselves that the treaty That is all foolishness, as I see it. I am not interested in this is pure gold. Then, instead of giving a quit-claim deed to naval matter then, because the dignity of the Senate is involved. limit~tion, we could whole-heartedly ~ive a warranty deed, guar There is a belief in many quarters, however, expressed by a· anteemg to all the world that this treaty is exactly what portion of the press, that it is the duty of the Senate to ratify, appears on its fac~ the treaty at once and go home. I saw a letter two or three If we could ratify the treaty under those circumstances, it days ago from a Member of the House, addressed to a Senator would go far. But, to my mind, to ratify it under other circum and I am fond of the man who wrote the letter-expressing the stances will hinder the cause of international peace. sentiment that it is our business to ratify the treaty and go' home. INVESTIGATION BY TARlFF COMMISSION--oiLS I have a different idea about the duty of ' the Senate. No body is more anxious to ~o home than I am, and I have a good Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. President, as in legislative session I home to go to, one that I really want to see. But, as I quoted! offer a resolution asking for certain information from the Tariff a little while ago from Judge Cooley, it is our duty, when there Commission regarding oils, and I ask for its present considera- is any question devolving upon us, to resolve it in accordance tion. with what we believe to be the constitutional way. The resolution ( S. Res. 323) was read, considered by unani If the testimony of the~e witnesses whom I have called here· mous consent, and agreed to, as follows: to-day-Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Jefferson and Senator Lodge-' Resolt:ea, That the United States Tariff Commis ion is hereby in means anything, it means that the Senate has the right to see' structed and directed to prepare and submit to Congress a detailed study these so-called secret documents. It has a right to know about of the costs of production and of transportation to the principal con any reservations which may or may not have been made. It has suming markets of the United States of the following commodities, a right to know whether means are sugge ·ted for evasion of the namely : Coconut oil and copra from the Philippine Islands and other letter of the treaty. As I said a little while ago, for the Presi principal produci.pg regions, palm oil, palm-kernel oil, whale oil, rapeseed dent's own peace of mind, I think be should give us these oil, perilla oil, and sesame oil. Also a statement of the principal uses papers, with a recommendation as made by President Adams, if of these oils in the United States and of the kinds and amounts of he so desires, that they are to be maintained in secret by the domestic oils and fats replaced in domestic indus~ry by such imports. Senate as a body. Then, if the Senate of its own accord sees :fit to give publicity to them, it is the fault of the Senate. INVESTIGATION BY TARIFF COMMISSION--oLIVE OIL, CHEESE, ETC. The Senate must carry the responsibility. I wish, however, the President might come to feel that he could trust us suffi Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I send forward, as in legis ciently to make this coordinate factor in treaty making as well lative session, a similar resolution and ask for its present con informed as he is himself. sideration. I said a little while ago, too, that I am not concerned about The resolution (S. Res. 324) was read, considered by unani any gossip which may be in these letters, or any facetious com mous consent, and agreed to, as follows: ments which may be found in the cable messages. We only laugh about those things. But we do wish to know whether Resolved, That the United States Tariff Commission is directed, under there are implied or express reservations, or secret evasions, the authority conferred by section 336 of the tariff act of 1930, and for which are not set out in the written treaty. the purposes of that section, to investigate the differences in the costs I have seen, and doubtless others have seen, a story to the of production of the following domestic articles or products and of any effect that there is an understanding _that three cruisers which like or similar foreign articles or products : Olive oil ; cheese ; cherries, we might build under the letter of the treaty will actually not sulphured or in brine; canned tomatoes and tomato paste; confectionery be built. I do not believe that is in any secret understandinoo and chocolates; laminated products in sheets (par. 1539 b). to that effect. Yet it has been stated, and we ought to kno; LONDON NAVAL TREATY whether it is true or untrue. The President ought to make clear whether such a statement is true or untrue. In executive session the Senate, as in Committee of the Personally, I have no suspicion that anything of importance Whole, resumed the consideration of the treaty for the limita is hidden in these papers. .But as one representative of a sov tion and reduction of naval armament, signed at London, April ereign State, a Senator with his share of the concurrent author- 22, 1930. 208 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE JULY 17 Mr. REED. Can the Senator from California tell us of any Mr. WATSON. I would like to ask the Senator whether or other Senator who wishes to speak on the pending treaty this not, beginning next Tuesday morning at 11 o'clock, he is willing evening? to fix a limitation of 10 minutes on debate for each individual Mr. JOHNSON. At present, none. Senator on each reservation and the treaty itself? Mr. REED. It is 7 minutes to 5, and I move that the Senate Mr. JOHNSON. He is not. stand in recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow. Mr. WATSON. I desire to serve notice now that we will have The motion was agreed to; and (at 4 o'clock and 53 minutes a session on Saturday. · · p. m.) the Senate took a recess until to-morrow, Thursday, July Mr. JOHNSON. May I suggest to the Senator that we meet 17, 1930, at 11 o'clock a. m.) also on Sunday? Mr. WATSON. Yes; the Senator may suggest that, but, as he treated my suggestion to him, I do not agree. That will gi\e SENATE Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Monday in which the oppo THURSDAY, July 17, 1930 nents of the treaty may have additional time in which to express themselves. I have no desire--- (Legislative day of Tuesday, July 8, 1930) 1\Ir. JOHNSON. I simply want to thank the Senator from The Senate met at 11 o'clock a. m., on the expiration. of the Indiana for his kindness. I appreciate beyond words that he recess. will give us until Monday next in which to express ourselves. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate resumes the considera Mr. WATSON. I am glad the Senator is so thoroughly satis tion of the naval treaty. fied with the situation. The truth is that a clear majority and LONDON NAVAL TREATY a very heavy majority are in favor of a vote. There has been no. desire at any time to shut off debate, but it became very In executive session the Senate, as in Committee of the eVIdent yesterday that there is quite a bit of talking indulged in Whole, resumed the consideration of the treaty for the limita for the purpose of killing time. There is no desire on the part tion and reduction of naval armament signed at London, April of the majority-and I have discussed it with many of them 22, 1930. to shut o~ any legitimate debate, but there is a desire to pre Mr. FESS. Mr. President, I suggest the ab ence of a quorum. vent taiJnng for the express purpose of dissipating a quorum. The VICE PRESIDEN'.r. The clerk will call the roll. Having a clear majority, we do not intend that that shall be The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators done. answered to their names : l\lr. JOHNSON rose. Allen Goldsborough Mcl\faster Shortridge Mr. WATSON. Does the Sen'ator desire to ask me a question? Bingham Gould McNary Smoot Black Greene 1\Ietcalf Stephens Mr. JOHNSON. No; I do not want to ask a question. When - Blaine Hale Norris Sullivan the Senator concludes I shall proceed. Borah Harris Oddie Swanson Mr. WATSON. That is the situation. Of course if we have Capper Hastings Overman Thomas, Idaho Caraway Hatfield Patterson Thomas, Okla. the majority that I think we ha\e, we shall then h~ve to resort Copeland Hebert Phipps Townsend to the only method we have left to us of closing debate. Couzens / Johnson Pine Trammell Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Mr. President-- Dale Jones Reed Vandenberg Deneen Kean Robinson, Ark. Wagner The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Indiana Fess Kendrick Robinson, Ind. Walcott yield to his colleague ? Fletcher Keyes Robsion, Ky. Walsh, Mas. - Mr. WATSON. Certainly. George La Follette Schall Walsh, Mont. Gillett McCulloch Sheppard Watson Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. I am wondering who it was Glenn McKellar Shipstead that was talking to kill time yesterday. Mr. McMASTER. I desire to announce that my colleague the Mr. WATSON. I do not like to mention any names. I do senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. NoRBECK] is unavoid not know whether my colleague was on the fioor yesterday. ably absent on official business, and that he will be absent for Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. There were three speeches made the remainder of the session. yesterday, I believe, and I wondered if my colleague would state Mr. McKELLAR. I wish to announce that my colleague the where the time killing took place. As a matter of fact all junior Senator from Tennessee [Mr. BROCK] is unavoidably de speeches kill time. I do not know how much good they d'o so tained from the Senate. I ask that this announcement stand far as convincing ·other Members of the Senate is concerned. for the day. I have a notion, however, that tho e who do speak are anxious Mr. SHEPPARD. I desire to announce that the senior Sena that the country should know what their views are. Here is a tor from South Carolina [Mr. SM:ITH] and the senior Senator matter which has been before the Senate now for less than two from Mi souri [1\:Ir. HAWES] are detained from the Senate by weeks, and it would seem almost impossible that much time illness. could be killed in that short space of time when the country is I tal o wish to announce that the senior Senator fl·om New simply being told what the treaty contains and the rea ons some Mexico [Mr. BRATTON] and the junior Senator from South of us have for being opposed to it. Carolina [Mr. BLEASE] are detained from the Senate by illness Whether speeches were made yesterday for it or against it, I in their families. am not certain, because I was not in the Chamber all the time, I also announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. AsHURST], but I think it rather difficult to say that time is being killed the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS], the Senator from deliberately when less than two weeks have been spent in the Texas [Mr. CoNNALLY], and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. consideration of a treaty which changes all the naval relations BARKLEY] are ab ent on official busine s, attending se ions of of the United States with the two most prominent naval powers the Interpar1iamentary Union in London. of the world. Mr. SWANSON. My colleague the junior Senator from Vir Mr. WATSON. Mr. President, I understand the importance ginia [Mr. Guss] is unavoidably detained from the Senate. I of the treaty. Every Senator here understands the importance ask that this announcement may stand for the day. of it. Every Senator here now has his mind made up definitely Mr. FESS. I desire to announce that the junior Senator from as to how he is going to vote on the question. So far as influ North Dakota [Mr. NYE] is detained on business of the Senate, encing the Senate is concerned, I do not think debate will change attending sessions of the special committee to investigate cam votes. No one has at any time sought to cut off legitimate de paign expenditures. I will let this announcement stand for the bate. I shall not mention names, and my colleague knows I day. should not, but it is true that on yesterday a speech was made Mr. KEYES. I desire to announce that my colleague the for the express purpose of delaying action until another Senator senior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. MosES] is absent arrives in the city. We were told so in express terms. I do from the Senate on account of a death in his family. I ask that not desire to mention any names, but I can do so if pressed on this announcement may stand for the day. the subject. Mr. NORRIS. I desire to announce that my colleague the All I want to say is that if the Senator from California [Mr. junior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HowELL] is absent from JoHNSON], having charge of the opposition, will agree that on the Senate on account of illness in his family. Tuesday we may begin a limitation of debate, as a matter of The VICE PRESIDENT. Sixty-three Senators have an course we will not seek to apply cloture. That would give the swered to their name . A quorum is present. opposition Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and ·Monday, in addi Mr. WA.TSON. Mr. President, with the kind permission of tion to the days they have had, and it would simply mean that the Senator from California [Mr. JoHNSON], I would like to ask the same Senators who have spoken hitherto will speak again. him whether or not he is ready at this time to agree on a time That is all right, but we can not sit here interminably to per toro~? · mit the same Senators to speak when the great majority are Mr. JOHNSON. He is not. ready to vote.
Congressional Record-Sen Ate •
