more. Here, if anywhere, the American people should vote the question.

These are some of the reasons why I believe that Europeans must settle their own problems, and that we cannot hope to settle those problems for them. We have plenty of problems here at home. I hope that this committee and Congress will continue to focus on our own peace just as England, France, and Russia always focus on their own peace and their own problems. We are not equipped to play power politics by remote control. American idealists like Mr. Wilson, for instance, are not safe at European diplomatic poker tables. Even when England plays the balance-of-power game, it is strictly from motives of self-preservation. No Old World nation is out to make the world safe for anything; they leave that to naive idealists across the water.

I hope our Government will concentrate on our own national interest. I hope it will not gamble with the lives of our young men and the property of our citizens, in the very dubious effort to control the behavior of European states.

We can't assume that wishing not to fight will protect anybody from the explosives in the great powder magazine which Europe has become. All we can confidently predict is this: The effect of the next war will include some we can hardly imagine, because the weapons of that war are almost beyond our imagining. The civil war in Spain was not even a dress rehearsal.

The treaty which will end that war-if anybody is left with a hand steady enough to write a treaty-is still further beyond prediction. The idea that after that war Hitler will move on to world conquest strikes me as the wildest kind of hysterical guessing. A better guess is that Hitler will be dead or in exile, and all Europe too prostrate to think about further conquests for a generation.

For any nation to engage in war now for ideological reasons is a kind of ceremonial suicide. It is like the Chinese who hang themselves in protest against some public action. They have no assurance that the action will be changed, but they have every assurance that they themselves will be quite dead.

Into this cockpit we need not go, and there is no mercy which we can extend if we do go. We simply join, with the wooziest of motives, the suicide club. Mr. Chairman, I beg of you to let us vote before we join that club.

I happened to be in Texas during one of the recent international crises. People out there were interested, waited eagerly for news, but were not hot and bothered. Arriving back in New York, Í encountered a totally different atmosphere, more hysterical, violent, frightened. Pretty soon I began to get frightened, too, and, with Dorothy Thompson, saw the end of the world coming next Friday morning. Texas people were not worrying about the end of the world, but about cotton, oil, and Maury Maverick. Washington, I found, is almost as jittery as New York. I suppose these jitters can poison Congressmen. They well-nigh poison me from time to

time.

We need the calmer voice of the continent when a decision between life or death must be faced. America does not begin until one crosses the Appalachians. We are too close to Europe here on the

seaboard; too close to people who have just got off the boat and know exactly what Hitler is going to do; too close to "experts" who have guessed wrong on every move since Munich.

The plain people of America have a lot of sense. On these particular questions I would back them against the experts. Moreover, they have to pay the freight. It is their boys who would be mutilated.

We have already abandoned economic neutrality to some extent and apparently we are going to abandon it further. The clear sentiment of our President and of the people who favor these economic measures is to stop short of war. But it has been proved that if a war does occur in Europe, these very actions are extremely likely to lead us into it. That is why we need the safety device on this bill. If we are going to drive within inches of the edge of a precipice, we need a fence on the edge. This bill is such fence.

Senator HATCH. I suggest the fence should be built a little distance before you get to the edge. That would be much safer.

Mr. CHASE. That is right. I quite agree with that statement, Mr. Chairman.

Here we are, 130,000,000 of us, on the grandest slice of continent on earth. We have right under our feet almost everything we need to give the last family a decent standard of living. We do not need to go out and take anything because we have it here. We do not need to fight anybody unless they come and try to take away what we have. God help them if they do!

We have no territorial ambitions, no surplus population to be exported, no driving need for a place in the sun. We have no yearnings for military achievement, no traditional enemies, no revanche to appease. We do not need to go totalitarian. We do not need flags, swastikas, Klieg lights, goose-steppers at the salute, military mobilization, to show the world how strong we are. The world knows how strong we are.

We are fortunate above all others, and unified above all others. Therefore, in a sense we have civilization in our keeping. The responsibility is passing from the Old World to the New. We may not be worthy of it, but we are getting it by default.

Our destiny is here. I believe that the safest, soundest guardian of that destiny is the franchise of the people-all the people of this Republic.

That is all I have to say Mr. Chairman.

Senator HATCH. We are very glad to have had you here. Your views were very interesting and instructive, as they always are. Mr. CHASE. Thank you, Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY VOORHIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator HATCH. Representative Voorhis, the committee will be glad to hear you at this time.

Representative VOORHIS. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to what Mr. Chase had to say. Perhaps I can save you a good deal of time by saying amen. I did not hear him say anything that I did not agree with. However, there are just three or four points that I have in mind to which I should like briefly to refer.

In the first place, I think I have listened to or read most of the arguments against this measure, but I do not think anyone has answered the obvious fact that it is the people who have to pay the expense of war, and it would seem that a consideration of ordinary human decency and justice would require that they should be given the opportunity to say "yes" or "no" about it.

In the next place, I am of the opinion that many parts of the country have a bad case of national jitters. I am in favor of doing the thing that I think will tend to reduce that situation. I am concerned about some legislation that Congress may pass in this session, which I think in all probability has no sound, reasonable basis, but is merely the result of a sort of hysteria that seems to be sweeping many people off their feet.

I am rather convinced that the passage of this resolution would have the effect of calming those people down, making them feel that nobody is going to take their boys away from them, or get them out on a limb where they are necessarily committed to war without their having an opportunity to say something about it.

In the third place, I would like to reemphasize the point Mr. Chase made, which, to my mind, is perhaps the most fundamental of all, namely, that it is of primary interest to anybody who is really concerned about the future of democracy, about the solution of American economic problems, to penetrate into the future of the Nation in such a way as to present a fairly decent opportunity for the common man. It is basically important that we should give attention to our domestic problems, and history teaches the best way that can be done is by getting people to feel that there is an enemy some place to whom primary consideration must be given. I am not sure but what there is an enemy to democracy; I think there is; but I am fairly certain that to defeat that enemy is the best demonstration of what we can do with democracy. I think a constructive solution would be improvement in foreign relations, in our domestic market, our decent relationship between money on the one hand and real service on the other. I believe that would constitute a better defense of democracy than anything I can conceive of on the field of battle. The United States is now in a position to make our contribution.

It is not Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia or some place like that, that causes him to be a danger to the United States. It is a belief, in my opinion, in the propaganda that is being spread around to the effect that the only way to stop him is by war.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in the fourth place, I believe for Congress to take favorable action on this resolution would be an example that would be very important. I am not so very naive about that, although I have been told that I am. I still believe that the people of the world in all nations, including Germany, are extremely afraid of war. I am not at all sure but that the spectacle of the United States providing such a referendum as this resolution proposes, whereby the people of the country themselves could vote on the question of war, would have a very salutary effect. Some day, I think, the people of the world are going to realize that, whereas perhaps there is an instinct to combat, there is also a more fundamental instinct for selfpreservation, and the day will come when people are going to hesitate about entering into combat, if they do not want to go over the

Several objections have been raised that I would like to discuss very briefly. In the first place, it is said that we could not meet emergencies. I do not think that holds water. At present we cannot declare war without Congress is in session and passes a resolution. I do not believe anybody honestly thinks that the commander of an American battleship in the Far East or some far-distant place would refuse to defend himself against sudden attack until Congress had declared war. We now have an armed force. The Executive now has an armed force sufficient to meet any emergency, and would have the same opportunity were this resolution adopted.

The argument regarding the Western Hemisphere falls to the ground. The resolution includes the Western Hemisphere.

Senator MILLER. How does it include the Western Hemisphere? Representative VOORHIS. It does not apply in the case of countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Senator MILLER. I did not clearly understand what you said.

Representative VOORHIS. Some people say that the adoption of this resolution will not keep us out of war. I agree with that. I do not think this resolution would provide to an absolute certainty that we would not become involved in war, and I think it is a very dangerous position to take to say that it would.

Senator HATCH. I am afraid that idea is growing.
Representative VOORHIS. Which idea?

Senator HATCH. That the adoption of this resolution would be an absolute preventive of war. I would like to see the sponsors of the resolution, like yourself, continue to make the point clear that it will not have that effect.

Representative VOORHIS. I think that is very important. We know the power of propaganda. The people can be stirred up as well as Members of Congress; perhaps more easily. At any rate, we know that power is exercised in times of economic distress. I would not put all my eggs into that one basket, but I do feel that it would be a help in all probability.

Another argument is that you would have an inevitable barrage of conflicting propaganda which would serve to confuse the people. I think you have that now, and I do not think it can be increased materially. I think Mr. Chase pointed out two or three aspects of it. It is not necessary to enlarge upon them. We know we have pressure groups on both sides right now, working as hard as they can. For those of us who are sincerely concerned about the welfare of our own Nation and our democracy, in the sense I spoke about a while ago, I think it is important that we pursue an independent course in all these matters and do not permit ourselves to be swayed by this propaganda or be too much afraid of it. I am trenmendously impressed by the depth of the feeling on the part of the people on this question, the earnestness with which I hear from them. The one most important thing to them is for the Congress to keep America out of war.

Senator MILLER. It seems to me that this resolution calls for action by two different groups-first, by the Congress, and then by the people. In the meantime, it gives the conditions time to adjust themselves and for the force of propaganda to be lost. At least, that would be one effect, and the other might be that that would be augmented. It would require some time for the submission of the ques

tion to the people and the action by the people on it. I think that is a safety valve.

Representative VOORHIS. Yes.

Senator WILEY. Here is another idea that has been suggested by this exchange of thought. Probably the resolution is not clear enough on the subject. It occurs to me that if the people should vote for war, that would be a mandate for war. Originally, the idea was that we would not go to war without Congress saying so. Why should not the resolution be so changed that, even with the mandate of the people, it would not necessarily mean war unless Congress then declared war?

Representative VOORHIS. Is not that the intent of the resolution?
Senator WILEY. No. What do you think of that, Mr. Chase?
Mr. CHASE. I think it is a good idea.
Representative VOORHIS. So do I.

Senator WILEY. You spoke about the people being influenced by propaganda. I think the resolution should be changed to provide that, even though the people voted for a war, there could be no war until we had a declaration of war by the Congress. If we had such a provision as that, it would mean there would be no war unless and until Congress confirmed the vote by its declaration. It seems to me that would be a double check on the situation that would be very valuable.

Representative VOORHIS. I should think it would take a constitutional amendment to take away the right of Congress to declare

war.

Senator WILEY. That is what this would do. This is a constitutional amendment?

Representative VOORHIS. I mean in addition to what this may do. What you say is entirely agreeable to me. I agree with you. I think that Congress should take action.

Senator WILEY. Listen to this language. This is what the resolution says:

Except in case of attack by armed forces, actual or immediately threatened, upon the United States or its Territorial possessions, or by any non-American nation against any country in the Western Hemisphere, the people shall have the sole power by a national referendum to declare war or to engage in warfare

Overseas.

That is very clear.

Representative VOORHIS. I should prefer it to provide that Congress may not declare war unless there is a national referendum.

Senator WILEY. I wanted to get your reaction, and I was glad to get the reaction of Mr. Chase. We are here as servants of the people, trying to do that which should be done in the interest of the people. I like your statement that the adoption of this resolution would be a notice to the people of the world that the people of America will not be involved in a war until they have first had a chance to vote on it. That is what this means I think that that would make a favorable impression upon the people generally throughout the world. That is what we are working for, but I believe the change I suggested would improve the resolution. I am glad that you agree with that, and apperantly Mr. Chase agrees with it. I will propose it at the proper