If England then, has anything against us we will be able to take care of England or any other people. And as between the apparent friendship or friendship that we might get from England, do not forget the mixed population of this country. When you keep sending arms and ammunition to England to fight Germany with, you are making at least a questionable friend of every man who is by blood related to that country, and by preserving our own good relations between our own people, we are showing that we are one nation and one people; by showing great care of the feelings of our own Americans, whatever you do with England, there will be no man in America who will not say, " You did just right; our people first, then England or Germany or any other nation afterwards." That is one thing to be considered, and I tell you my friends, particularly from New York, the effect of that feeling which has gone abroad is tremendous to-day. That is what defeated Gov. Glynn for governor of New York, the feeling that this Government was not neutral and impartial. If this virile note had been sent three months ago Gov. Glynn, a Democrat, would be governor of New York, and not Gov. Whitman. The people are awake. You may have a press that will distort, a press that will cover up and conceal, but in the West the millions of our people, like you and myself, Mr. Chairman, feel that we must do that which is for the best interests of this country.

Our first care is not for Germany or England, but for ourselves. Let the people decide, if England shows its teeth, whether we as a sovereign, as a sovereign people, have violated our obligations to England. I trust that the day will come when not only the President shall be empowered, but when Congress shall have the absolute right to prohibit the exportation at any time of armament under any conditions. Then you will make an epoch in international law like the Monroe Doctrine, in the protection of our interests and the maintenance of the peace of the world.

I trust you will seriously consider this question, and I wish to be pardoned, Mr. Chairman, for taking so much of your time. I wish also to submit a short memorandum which I have here, and which I have not covered in my remarks.

(The paper referred to follows:)

The proposed resolution authorizing the President of the United States at his discretion to prohibit the export of arms, ammunition, and munitions of war of any kind from the territory or any seaport of the United States until otherwise ordered by the President or by Congress, should be welcomed as a right step forward in the evolution of the unwritten law which governs the world.

It is a radical departure from the theory that one nation should avail itself of every opportunity to profit by war between other nations. The passage of this resolution will place the attitude of our Government on a plane of altruism which is bound to effect the conduct of nations in wars to come. A higher sense of duty to other nations and the world at large has been developed in international law in the last century. Nations have been satisfied to let other warring nations "fight it out" without any direct help from them to any of the warring nations. This measure would preclude indirect help.

Another important step in the development of international law has been an effort to stop all wars by referring differences to arbitration, and while personally I have always favored the principle of the arbitration treaty, I have only conceded its practicability within certain limits, but I am puzzled that I do not find announced among the supporters of this resolution champions of arbitration treaties other than Congressman Bartholdt.

I expected to have all the lovers of peace from Andrew Carnegie down championing this measure to the utmost, for it will accomplish more for the ending of the present European strife and thereby advance the cause of universal peace than all the pamphlets, meetings, and subsidizing agencies of the peace proponents.

Every cartridge and every ounce of powder furnished to a warring nation from this country helps to prolong the war, and just as soon as the warring nations learn that the factories of this country can not furnish the wherewith to prolong the war and that they must rely on their own resources for ammunition they can be expected to consider that fact seriously in measures for peace.

Certainly no one will accuse us of violating neutrality laws if we refrain from shipping munitions of war. It is true that France, England, Russia, and Japan are the four countries to which we can ship ammunition. Germany and Austria and Turkey, the other contesting nations, are so situated that ammunition sent them would never reach them. But supposing conditions were changed and shipments of ammunition could be made to the latter nations, the principle would not be changed, but we could expect in these days of proBritish sentiment that the principle would find more favor in this country than it does now. But suppose this principle was accepted by the nations and we were at war with England and the Krupp works would be stayed by the new principle from furnishing ammunition to England, wouldn't the principle be hailed with great acclaim in this country?

Would the history of the Alabama claim ever have been written if this principle had been accepted during the Civil War? Of course, no one expects England to keep a treaty if its violation benefits that country, but the violation of the principle outlined by this joint resolution by England could not have been defended by her with the same sort of logic and plausibility with which she defended the Alabama claim.

Of course, men manufacture instruments of death for gain, and the desolation in 100,000 homes caused by their profits receives scanty notice in the ledgers of the manufacturing concerns. Of course the manufacturers will object to the measure on the ground that it hurts business. They may question the right of the President of the United States to forbid the export of ammunition, but would not the President of the United States be justified in forbidding exports of ammunition to the so-called allies on the ground that such exports tend to a diminution if not a breach of the friendly relations existing between us and Germany and Austria? If Germany is defeated--and I am putting a hypothetical case, for in my own opinion the worst that Germany will get in this war is a draw-the German people will attribute in a large share their defeat to this country, and the bitterness which such conviction will engender in the German people will not be conducive to improving our relations with Germany. In that case Germany might not be able to injure this country commercially as much as it would if it is the victor. If victorious the German people would be justified in claiming that we have proven ourselves unfriendly to her, and her legislation and her measures and our commercial and international relations would for years to come be tainted with the distrust and enmity of the German people.

If, on the contrary, we shut off all ammunitions to all the countries, and Germany wins or loses, Germany will know that the one great nation that has proved to be her friend will have been America, and America will be the gainer, and the gainer by many millions more than the millions our manufacturers might gain in this war by manufacturing ammunition.

Therefore, from an ethical as well as a self-interest standpoint, the President should be empowered to prohibit the export of all ammunition. It will show to the world that America believes in real neutrality; that it will sacrifice millions of dollars to help end a great war.

When the day comes that peace in Europe is near and this country will be called upon to play the most important part in adjusting the differences of the nations, may it come into the world court with clean hands; let it face the nations concerned with a clean conscience and with the conviction that it has neither helped nor injured any of the nations whose fates it shall decide.

And just as soon as this country can convince the world-by passing this measure that its policy toward the world is guided by justice and not by the almighty dollar it will have added to this era of great things a monument for righteousness which will influence the world at large for the world's good.

Mr. BARTHOLDT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I wish to introduce as the next speaker Mr. Karl A. M. Scholtz, of Baltimore, Md.

STATEMENT OF MR. KARL A. M. SCHOLTZ, OF BALTIMORE, MD., SECRETARY OF THE MARYLAND CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF AMERCAN NEUTRALITY.

Mr. SCHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, together with Mr. Stephen J. McDonough, a member of the last legislature of the State of Maryland, and a number of others, we formed a committee of Maryland citizens, organized for the furtherance of American neutrality. Owing to the attitude of our local press, which does not represent the people, some 20 citizens got together and, with the assistance of about a hundred others, we held, on the 27th of December, a meeting at the Hippodrome in Baltimore City, which has the largest seating capacity of any public building in the city. We got practically no notice from the public press of this meeting, except what was put in by paid advertisements, and the other advertising that we got was by the distribution of cards. Despite this meager notice, despite the fact that the entire arrangements were made within two weeks, we had an attendance there that filled the place to its full seating capacity, over 3,000 being the seating capacity. We had people out on the stage and in the boxes and everywhere, and we had to take off the scenery to make room for them; and then we had an overflow meeting in another theater around the corner, and that meeting was as enthusiastically in favor of this resolution as you can imagine, or of some resolution similar to the one that your honorable committee is considering.

I have here a copy of the resolution passed at that time, which I shall read to you, with your permission, that being, perhaps, the quickest way of explaining the views of the people there. [Reading:]

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT A CITIZENS' MEETING HELD IN BALTIMORE, MD.,

DECEMBER 27, 1914.

Where's in these troublous times, when so many of the great nations of the world are engaged in bloody strife, it does not behoove the United States to judge between them as to the right and justice of their cause;

Whereas we are at peace and amity with all the nations of the earth, and, regardful of immortal Washington's admonition, we should "beware of all entangling alliances," therefore it becomes our duty ever to maintain a just and impartial neutrality toward all:

Whereas, looking with horror upon the war and the awful and bloody conse quences thereof, we set aside a day consecrated to prayer for a speedy termination of the direful conflict:

Whereas, though we so pray, we give the lie to our prayers when, for the sake of profit measurable only in dollars and cents, we permit and make sale or armaments of war that are used to prolong the conflict, increase the bloody slaughter, increase the destruction and devastation, and increase the woe and suffering of those who, innocent of all blame, feel it most, women and children made widows and orphans, hungry and homeless-all this under the specious plea that there is no positive prohibition in law to forbid the sale and export of arms and munitions of war;

Wheres, though such commerce may not technically be considered as an act of hostility toward any nation, it does work to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of others of them, and the sentiment thereby engendered against us may beget a hate that will grow in time to disturb our peace and security as a Nation;

Where is if we wish to be true to ourselves, true to the traditions of our great men, honest in the sight of God and man, then we must forbid and prohibit the sale and export of war munitions of every kind, the use of which will tend to prolong and make more bloody the war, for as a people we can not afford to accept the Cain curse and blood guiltiness of contributing by a single day to the length of the war; we must not permit a woman or a child to be made a widow or an orphan by American-made bullets fired from Americanmade guns for the sake of making dollars for Americans;

Whereas it has been said by a great writer on international law that "if the neutral instead of wheat should send powder or balls, cannon or rifles, this would be a direct encouragement of the war, and so a departure from the neutral position. The State which has professed to be a friend to both has furnished one with the means of fighting against the other, and a wrong has been done": Therefore be it

Resolved, That we, as citizens of the United States and of the State of Maryland, in mass meeting assembled, do hereby voice our strong protest against any action or conduct upon the part of our Government or its officials which might, without any derogation of our own rights as a Nation, tend to offend or injure any nation with which we are on terms of peace and friendship and so violate that strict and impartial neutrality which we are in duty and honor bound to observe; and be it further

Resolved, That we do most earnestly protest against and object to any further sale and export of arms and munitions of war from the United States to the belligerents whereby one nation or party of nations may have an advantage of other nations, deeming such sale and export to be incompatible with a due regard for that impartiality which requires our country to "abstain from every act which may better or worsen the condition of a belligerent "; and be it further Resolved, That we do call upon Congress and the President to immediately enact such laws as will exactly fix the status of contraband articles in conformity with that high standard of morality which we as a Nation and as a people profess and ought to hold to, thereby fixing a just and humane standard which can serve as an object and precedent to all the nations for time to come, and so also serve as an enduring testimonial of our honor and good faith; be it further Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be sent to the President of the United States. the Members of Congress, and to the governors of the States of the Union.

Albert L. Fankhanel, chairman, Hon. Peter J. Campbell, John P.
Cunningham, Dr. A. R. L. Dohme, John T. Doyle, Frederick A.
Gottlieb, John J. Hanson, John Hannibal, A. H. Hecht, Evan A.
Heinz, Henry G. Hilken, Rev. Julius Hofmann, Alfred T. Jones,
Henry Kelly, Thomas J. Luby, Stephen J. McDonough, Martin
Meyerdirck, George H. Mohlhenrich, Edward A. Pfund, William
F. Pirscher, Paul Prodoehl, Conrad C. Rabbe, Hugo Steiner,
Charles R. Schmidt, John Tjarks. Louis T. Weis, Edward
Trainor, Prof. Henry Wood, Thomas J. Welsh, Karl A. M.
Scholtz, secretary,

Citizens' Committee.

Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I just want to say this, I do not think there is any question as to the right or wrong of this matter of selling or exporting arms and ammunition. I think we all agree that it is wrong and that it ought to be stopped. The only fear in the minds of a good many is the effect or possible effect upon our neutrality, whether it might not be considered a hostile act to England. I think it has been said here that we are acting strictly within the rights of our sovereign powers as a nation, and that no other nation would be justified in being offended thereby. There are some people who, regardless of the moral effects, oppose it for selfish reasons, because they see a chance to make a dollar, disregarding the fact that by prolongation of the war we are losing far more than we are making by it. The moral of their argument reminds me of a story that I am going to give you for what it is worththat is, on the moral issue. Two of our dusky friends and fellow constituents undertook an expedition upon the colonel's henhouse

one dark night. They got up to the henhouse, one on the inside to pass the chickens out and the other on the outside to receive them. The one on the inside was passing the chickens out pretty lively when suddenly it occurred to him that perhaps he was doing something wrong, and he said to the other darky, "Sambo, don't you know we are both members of the church, and this here action on our part, it seems to me, is not right morally." Sambo answered, "Never mind the morals, that is a question for somebody else to answer: you just pass out the chickens.”

That is the situation here. A great many of our people are disregarding the rights and wrongs of the issue and simply say, “Disregard the morals, let somebody else answer that; let us make the profits." Now, I say that is not the attitude you can afford to take, and that is not the attitude that we can afford to take. This is a question of right and wrong, and we have it within our power to decide it right, and pass this resolution, which puts it up to the President; and I think the President is wise enough and just enough to decide when to exercise that right.

I thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. How many more gentlemen are to be heard, Mr. Bartholdt?

Mr. BARTHOLDT. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have three here, and I do not think they will make any extended remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be convenient for them to stay over until to-morrow?

Of

Mr. BARTHOLDT. No: it will not take but a very few minutes. course there is one speaker who is coming from St. Louis. He is to arrive at a quarter past one.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we will hear him to-morrow.

Mr. BARTHOLDT. Very well; that can be arranged.

I will call now upon Mr. John B. Mayer, of Philadelphia, Pa.

STATEMENT OF MR. J. B. MAYER, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED SINGERS OF PHILADELPHIA: REPRESENTING ALSO THE AMERICAN NEUTRALITY LEAGUE.

Mr. MAYER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, after the very extensive discussion and arguments of the professional gentlemen, I wish to submit the position of the ordinary citizen. I am president of the United Singers of Philadelphia, an organization of about 15,000 citizens, of which two-thirds understand the German language, while one-third speak only the American language. I represent also the American Neutrality League, an organization which has recently been formed for this cause.

In October of the past year President Wilson requested all American citizens to unite in prayer for an early restoration of peace in Europe. The majority of the people did, and still do, comply with the wishes of our Chief Magistrate; but while their fervent prayers ascend heavenward a small set of people manufacture for and supply some of the fighting factions in Europe with munitions of war, thereby assisting in prolonging the hostilities, for an early cessation of which the majority of people are praying. I shall not discuss the ethical side of this apparent duplicity; our reputation as a candid