recommended a general embargo, which was adopted April 6, 1812. In 1898 a joint resolution of Congress directed an embargo on coal and munitions of war.

Under this, in 1905, President Roosevelt issued a proclamation forbidding the export of arms, ammunition, and munitions of war to the Dominican Republic. This joint resolution was amended later by a resolution introduced in the Senate by Senator Root of New York so as to make it in effect applicable to American countries only. Under this, in 1912, President Taft issued his proclamation forbidding the export of arms and munitions to Mexico.

Mr. TEMPLE. In regard to that last statement, under what enactment was that 1912 proclamation?

Mr. VOLLMER. That was under the act of 1898 as amended. Mr. TEMPLE. It was amended in 1912 by the Root Senate resolution?

Mr. VOLLMER. Yes, sir. On February 4, 1914, President Wilson lifted this embargo on the grounds as announced by him, that Huerta had ports and could secure the importing of such materials, whereas Carranza had none. In the spirit of true neutrality, as contrasted with neutrality on paper only, it was the judgment of President Wilson that we should treat both parties exactly alike and not extend or withhold aid to or from either if actual existing circumstances were such that both parties in fact were not equally befriended.

Now, on the constitutionality of embargo acts, I have investigated the works of Willoughby, Black, and Story on the Constitution, all of which affirm the power of Congress by joint resolution or act to enact embargoes. Story says, volume 2, section 1289, and succeeding sections:

No one can reasonably doubt that the laying of an embargo suspending commerce for a limited period is within the scope of the Constitution, but the question of difficulty

This is in reference to President Jefferson's embargo

was whether Congress, under the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, could constitutionally suspend and interdict it wholly for an unlimited period--that is, by a permanent act having no limitation as to duration, either of the act or of the embargo. It was most seriously controverted and its constitutionality denied in the Eastern States of the Union during its existence. An appeal was made to the judiciary upon the question; and it having been settled to be constitutional by that department of the Government, the decision was acquiesced in, though the measure bore with almost unexampled severity upon the Eastern States.

Mr. COOPER. As I recollect it, it only went as far as the United States circuit court; it did not reach the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. VOLLMER. That is right.

Mr. COOPER. But that decision was so strong that it was taken to be the law.

Mr. VOLLMER. Yes.

The argument was that the power to regulate did not include the power to annihilate commerce by interdicting it permanently and entirely with foreign nations. The decision was that the power of Congress was sovereign, relating to commercial intercourse qualified by the limitations and restrictions contained in the Constitution itself. Nonintercourse laws are within the range of legislative discretion; if Congress had the power, for the purpose of safety, of

preparation or counteraction, of suspending commercial intercourse with foreign nations, it is not limited as to duration any more than as to manner and extent of the measure.

Citing United States . Brig William (2, Halls, L. J., 259); Gibbon v. Ögden (9th Wheaton, 191, 1 Kent's Commentaries, p. 405).

I also find in this work which I have cited, John Bassett Moore's Digest of International Law, that the decisions of our State Department have been unanimous up to date in claiming the right for this country-that is, for the citizens of this country acting as individuals to export arms, ammunition, and munitions of war to the citizens or subjects of belligerent powers, subject only to the remedy of seizure and confiscation on the part of the other belligerent. I have not conferred with my colleague, Dr. Bartholdt, with reference to that point, but, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to admit that that has been the uniform holding of our country in the various notes sent out by the State Department upon that subject. So that it seems to me that it is clear that we are dealing with a question not of technical right-no question as to our power in the premises-but a question of national policy. What do we want to do? What do we believe that it is wise and right for us to do in the premises? On that question I would attempt to make a few suggestions to this committee, if you will be so kind as to do me the honor of attending.

It appears to me that the resolution can be defended upon moral, upon economic, and upon sentimental grounds, as well as upon the broad basis of national policy. Holding the moral consideration to be superior, I shall take up that point first.

In the first place, our present practice, in my humble judgment, is irreconcilable with the historical peace attitude of this country. We have been the most prominent advocate and it has been our pride as a Nation to be the most active and progressive exponent of the peace policy, of the peaceable settlement of international differences, and this practice of feeding fuel to the flames of war and making money out of the sale of war materials, in my judgment, is irreconcilable logically with the attitude so long and so consistently held by our country.

Second, I believe it to be irreconcilable with the doctrine contained. in the President's recent neutrality proclamation in which he cautions us as a people to avoid every transaction appearing to give preference to one of the belligerents.

Third, on the 4th of October, 1914, this Nation prayed for peace, in response to a presidential proclamation. Are we anxious to achieve the reputation of being the archhypocrite among the nations of the world, that we go into the Lord's holy sanctuary and get into spiritual communion with Him and profess a sincere and loyal devotion to the cause of peace, when we have blood money in our pockets? The wicked king in "Hamlet," you will remember, resorts to prayer at one period of his checkered career, but it does not seem to work very well. He gets up and says:

My words fly up; my thoughts remain below.
Words without thoughts never to heaven go.

Did only our words fly up on the 4th of October last and our thoughts remain below? What a curious change there has been in our ideas of neutrality. Our present attitude is that of a neutrality

upon paper only. On the 4th of February last President Wilson, in lifting his embargo on munitions of war to Mexico, declared that we should stand for genuine neutrality, considering the surroundings and existing facts and circumstances of the case. And that, in my humble judgment, is a correct doctrine, because ethical considerations always arise out of a concrete state of facts and are governed by them. This is not an abstract question. He held in that case that because Carranza had no perts, while Huerta had them and was able to import these materials, that it was our duty as a Nation to treat them upon an equality if we wished to observe the true spirit of neutrality as compared with a mere paper neutrality. Is the reasoning not as strong, is the obligation not as sacred in this case as in the case of Mexico, when we have within our borders from 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 people who are related by the ties of blood and affection with one of the belligerent powers? Are they not entitled to as much consideration as a lot of Mexicans?

I said that our ideas of neutrality had undergone a curious transformation. At the beginning of this war our conscience was so tender upon the subject that the administration discouraged New York bankers when they proposed to loan money to one of the belligerents. And to-day we are ourselves furnishing those very things for which they wanted to borrow the money. Is this not straining at a gnat and swallowing the proverbial camel? I have heard of people's conscientious scruples not permitting them to eat meat but consuming gravy that was cooked from the meat, but I have never heard of anybody whose conscience objected to the taking of the gravy while consuming the meat. Is it possible that this is an illustration of the thought of Alexander Pope when he said:

Vice is a monster of so dreadful mien
That to be hated needs but to be seen,

But seen too often, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

We are furnishing the instruments of murder to one side only of a contest in which we profess that all the contestants are our friends, thus materially assisting part of our dear friends to murder others of our dear friends. We thus become particeps criminis to the most collossal crime against humanity and civilization known to the history of the world. Our present attitude of professed neutrality on paper has been best expressed in the epigram, "Dollars for Belgium and dumdum bullets for Germany." The proof of the manufacture of dumdum bullets and the export of them to the allies is on file in the State Department, so I am informed. Just what proportion of German widows, orphans, and cripples will be to our credit as a people when this horrible war is over no man can tell, but I fear the account will be a large one. We are met with the argument that the adoption of this resolution in itself would be an unneutral act. There is nothing in law to justify this argument, and nothing in the precedents, because we have repeatedly altered our position in regard to this very thing while a foreign war was going on, which we affected in that way.

The CHAIRMAN. You say we have repeatedly done it?

Mr. VOLLMER. The last time was in the present war in Mexico.

The CHAIRMAN. And in what other instance would you say it has been altered?

Mr. COOPER. Did we not change it twice in this war that is now in progress in Mexico?

The CHAIRMAN. He argues that we changed it in that way, and I am asking him in what other instance we changed it.

Mr. COOPER. Did we not change it more than once?

The CHAIRMAN. I think not.

Mr. BARTHOLDT. We first put an embargo on arms in President Taft's administration, and then raised that embargo under President Wilson's.

The CHAIRMAN. But Mr. Vollmer has cited that case and I have asked him to name another case.

Mr. VOLLMER. Well, I have that one in mind particularly. I do not recall now any other case where there was a repeated change during the progress of one war.

Mr. TEMPLE. I think the later changes in the Mexican war were not by proclamation under the resolution of 1912, but simply by military order.

Mr. COOPER. Have we not just changed our attitude?

Mr. TEMPLE. I say, not by proclamation but my military orders. The CHAIRMAN. That would be only one change.

Mr. TEMPLE. That would be changing it back again, changing the military order and putting it on again.

Mr. COOPER. As I remember it, an embargo was put on and then, because Carranza had no ports and Huerta did have, it was lifted, and then was it not restored?

Mr. TEMPLE. Immediately after the fleet was ordered down there the arms began to go across in such large quantities that it was reimposed by military order.

The CHAIRMAN. It was made to apply to both sides.

Mr. COOPER. Well, that is twice.

Mr. VOLLMER. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. Within a year. That is repeatedly.

Mr. BARTHOLDT. If I may be permitted, Mr. Chairman, our attitude in the present war was changed in this way: When Mr. Morgan, of New York, called upon President Wilson and asked him whether it would be compatible with the public interest to make a loan to France, he was informed by the President that it was not advisable to do so. Later on, however, the State Department came to the conclusion that there was no law forbidding such a loan and the loan has been made. So that was one change.

Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Vollmer, I did not have the pleasure of hearing the first part of your statement to the committee. What would be your remedy in the way of affirmative action by this country, as a Government, to prevent the exportation of arms from this country? The CHAIRMAN. To pass his resolution.

Mr. VOLLMER. Resolutions 377 to 378 are identical on that point. Now, to resume my argument to meet the contention that this would be an unneutral act. I know of no more vivid illustration than one I heard my colleague, Dr. Bartholdt, make recently. Suppose that two men are fighting in this room and I have on this table knives, pistols, and other weapons, and one of these two men can not get

near me and I keep handing them out to the other man, offering them by word of mouth to both of them. Is my attitude impartial? Am I not assisting materially the one in conquering the other? And if I decide for myself and for my own interest and by my conscience that that is not right and thereupon refuse to pass out these weapons any longer, am I guilty of an unneutral act toward either of these two contestants?

Now, as to the economic side of it. It is argued that we are making money out of it, that it gives employment to our labor and our capital. I believe the Secretary of Commerce has recently reported that at the time of that report some $2,000,000 worth of that sort of material had been exported. I presume it is more up to this date, and will be a great deal more in the future. But whatever the amount, it is an insignificant portion of our total foreign trade. If we can shorten this war by one month, the export of a single one of our great staples-take cotton, for instance will overbalance the profit a hundred fold, in my judgment. Not only can we, in my opinion, shorten this war by this action but we can absolutely stop it in 90 days.

Mr. BARTHOLDT. If you will permit an interruption right here, I will say, that in one single month the sales of cotton have decreased $87,000,000.

Mr. GOODWIN. Would you invoke the power of Congress against the exportation of everything besides arms that might prolong the war, such as manufactures of grain or foodstuffs which, while not munitions of war in a direct sense, yet in a collateral sense they are? Mr. VOLLMER. No. The resolution is confined to arms, ammunitions, and munitions of war.

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes: I know the resolution is confined to that. I quite agree with you on the high moral ground and the ethics of the matter; I think we are, in a measure, particeps criminis in lending a hand; we should not, of course, draw the line between the belligerents. I think it is a moral wrong to aid this great holocaust over there. You confine your embargo to all shipments of arms, ammunitions, and munitions of war?

Mr. VOLLMER. Well, that was my idea. Dr. Bartholdt and I conferred before we got up this resolution.

Mr. GOODWIN. But some of those countries are quite able to manufacture arms while they may be lacking in other supplies, such as foodstuffs, clothing, blankets, horses, and mules necessary to prosecute the war.

Mr. VOLLMER. Let me say to you that there is no other nation that can supply the materials covered by this resolution in great quantities except our own. The Scandanavian countries and Holland have all prohibited their exportation.

I was about to say that here lies our great overwhelming economic interest as a people-in the shortening or stopping of this awful war. The CHAIRMAN. Just a question on the line touched upon by Mr. Goodwin. What would you think of the shipment of horses to one of the belligerents?

Mr. VOLLMER. Well, personally, I should say that it would be one of the most effective ways to stop the war if we could prohibit their shipment. The life of the horse on the battlefield-I am told it has been figured out-is four days. If that is true, they will run