I would emphasize that the course proposed through the substitute legislation recommended by the Executive is consistent with the rules of international law and with the policy of our own country over a period of 150 years. The basis for the recommendations made is the firm intention of keeping this country from being drawn into war. If there existed any desire to assist or to injure particular foreign countries this Government would not have been endeavoring persistently, within the limitations of our traditional policy, over a period of many years to do its utmost to avoid the outbreak of a general war. I earnestly hope that the Congress will lend the fullest measure of its cooperation in the endeavor to avoid war in the first place and to place this country in a position of the greatest security possible, should war break out. In the tragic event that peace efforts fail and that a major war occurs, there will be general agreement within the United States that every effort must be exerted to keep this country from being drawn therein.

I must also refer to the impression sedulously created to the effect that the sale of arms, munitions and implements of war by this country is immoral and that on this ground it should be suppressed in time of war.

As a matter of fact almost all sales of arms and ammunition made in recent years by our nationals have been made to governments whose policies have been dedicated to the maintenance of peace, but who have felt the necessity of creating or of augmenting their means of national self-defense, thereby protecting otherwise helpless men, women and children in the event that other powers resort to war. In the face of the present universal danger all countries, including our own, feel the necessity of increasing armament, and small countries in particular are dependent upon countries like the United States which have the capacity to produce armaments. Our refusal to make it possible for them to obtain such means of necessary self-defense in a time of grave emergency, would contribute solely towards making more helpless the law-abiding and peace-devoted peoples of the world. If such action is moral, and if, on the contrary, sales of the means of selfdefense for the protection of peaceful and law-abiding peoples are immoral, then a new definition of morality and immorality must be written. This task might be left to the proponents of the arms embargo.

I must also refer to another impression created by propaganda to the effect that the abandonment of the arms embargo would increase power of action on the part of the Executive branch of the Government and conversely that the maintenance of the embargo would

serve as an additional check on the powers of the Executive. It is difficult to see how either of these propositions could possibly hold true. An impartial granting of access to American markets to all countries without distinction gives the Executive no additional power to choose among them and to commit this country to any line of policy or action which may lead it either into a dangerous controversy or into war with any foreign power.

The legislative proposals which were recommended to the Congress through the communications which I transmitted to Senator Pittman and to Congressman Bloom on May 27 providing for the safeguarding of our nation to the fullest possible extent from incurring the risks of involvement in war contemplate the elimination of the existing arms embargo and are as follows:

(1) To prohibit American ships from entering combat areas; (2) To restrict travel by American citizens in combat areas; (3) To require that goods exported from the United States to belligerent countries shall be preceded by the transfer of title to the foreign purchasers;

(4) To continue the existing legislation respecting loans and credits to belligerent nations;

(5) To regulate the solicitation and collection in this country of funds for belligerents; and

(6) To continue the National Munitions Control Board and the licensing system with respect to the importation and exportation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war.

This six-point program was the best that could be devised after much painstaking thought and study, and after many conferences with members of the Congress, of how best to keep this country out of a conflict should it arise. It rests primarily on the established rules of international law, plus the curtailment of certain rights of our nationals, the exercise of which is permitted under international law but which might lead to controversies with belligerents and eventual involvement in foreign wars.

There has thus been offered as a substitute for the present act a far broader and more effective set of provisions, which in no conceivable sense could breed trouble but which to a far greater extent than the present act would both aid in making less likely a general war, and, while keeping strictly within the limits of neutrality, reduce as far as possible the risk of this nation of being drawn into war if war comes.

In connection with our foreign affairs, I think all must agree

that, unless a spirit of collaboration and cooperation characterizes the relations between the Executive and Legislative departments of the Government, the peace and other vital interests of this country will inevitably be jeopardized.

Having spent the best years of my life as a member of the two Houses of Congress, I have the warmest feeling of friendliness toward the membership of, and the greatest respect for, the Legislative Department, and, in that spirit, I earnestly hope for the closest possible cooperation in matters affecting our country's best interests and its security in the present grave international situation.

At this time when critical conditions obtain throughout the greater part of the world I am sure that we are all equally persuaded that while the fullest measure of constructive criticism is helpful and desirable, and is of course most welcome, partisanship should play no part in the determination of the foreign policy of this country.

In the present situation of danger a peaceful nation like ours cannot complacently close its eyes and ears in formulating a peace and neutrality policy, as though abnormal and critical conditions did not exist. The entire question of peace and neutrality at this serious -juncture in its possible effects upon the safety and the interest of the United States during coming months is of the utmost importance. This question should, in my judgment, receive full and careful consideration and be acted upon by this Government without unnecessary or undue delay.

CORDELL HULL

134

Department of State Bulletin, vol. I, p. 57

Press Release Issued by the White House on July 18, 1939 41a

The President and the Secretary of State maintained the definite position that failure by the Senate to take action now would weaken the leadership of the United States in exercising its potent influence in the cause of preserving peace among other nations in the event of a new crisis in Europe between now and next January.

41 Issued after a conference between the President, the Secretary of State, and Senate leaders.

135

711.942/235

The Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador (Horinouchi) WASHINGTON, July 26, 1939.

EXCELLENCY: During recent years the Government of the United States has been examining the treaties of commerce and navigation in force between the United States and foreign countries with a view to determining what changes may need to be made toward better serving the purposes for which such treaties are concluded. In the course of this survey, the Government of the United States has come to the conclusion that the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Japan which was signed at Washington on February 21, 1911, contains provisions which need new consideration. Toward preparing the way for such consideration and with a view to better safeguarding and promoting American interests as new developments may require, the Government of the United States, acting in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Article XVII of the treaty under reference, gives notice hereby of its desire that this treaty be terminated, and, having thus given notice, will expect the treaty, together with its accompanying protocol, to expire six months from this date.

Accept [etc.]

CORDELL HULL

136

Department of State Bulletin, vol. I, p. 158

President Roosevelt to King Victor Emmanuel of Italy

42

AUGUST 23, 1939.

Again a crisis in world affairs makes clear the responsibility of heads of nations for the fate of their own people and indeed of humanity itself. It is because of traditional accord between Italy and the United States and the ties of consanguinity between millions of our citizens that I feel that I can address Your Majesty in behalf of the maintenance of world peace.

42 Arrangements for Ambassador Phillips to deliver the message to the King in person at Turin, Italy, were made by Premier Mussolini and the Italian Foreign Minister, Ciano. Ambassador Phillips was authorized to give Premier Mussolini a copy of the communication.

It is my belief and that of the American people that Your Majesty and Your Majesty's Government can greatly influence the averting of an outbreak of war. Any general war would cause to suffer all nations whether belligerent or neutral, whether victors or vanquished, and would clearly bring devastation to the peoples and perhaps to the governments of some nations most directly concerned.

The friends of the Italian people and among them the American people could only regard with grief the destruction of great achievements which European nations and the Italian nation in particular have attained during the past generation.

We in America having welded a homogeneous nation out of many nationalities, often find it difficult to visualize the animosities which so often have created crises among nations of Europe which are smaller than ours in population and in territory, but we accept the fact that these nations have an absolute right to maintain their national independence if they so desire. If that be sound doctrine then it must apply to the weaker nations as well as to the stronger.

Acceptance of this means peace, because fear of aggression ends. The alternative, which means of necessity efforts by the strong to dominate the weak, will lead not only to war, but to long future years of oppression on the part of victors and to rebellion on the part of the vanquished. So history teaches us.

On April fourteenth last I suggested in essence an understanding that no armed forces should attack or invade the territory of any other independent nation, and that this being assured, discussions be undertaken to seek progressive relief from the burden of armaments and to open avenues of international trade including sources of raw materials necessary to the peaceful economic life of each nation.

I said that in these discussions the United States would gladly take part. And such peaceful conversations would make it wholly possible for governments other than the United States to enter into peaceful discussions of political or territorial problems in which they were directly concerned.

Were it possible for Your Majesty's Government to formulate proposals for a pacific solution of the present crisis along these lines you are assured of the earnest sympathy of the United States.

The Government of Italy and the United States can today advance those ideals of Christianity which of late seem so often to have been obscured.

The unheard voices of countless millions of human beings ask that they shall not be vainly sacrificed again.