(The letter from Gen. R. E. Wood appears in an earlier part of these hearings.) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 6 OF THE NEUTRALITY ACT Ambassador JESSUP. I would further like to point out that in October 1941, I wrote a letter to Senator Hiram Johnson of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations proposing an amendment to section 6 of the Neutrality Act, which would have permitted the arming of merchantmen. I would like to refer to this, although I think it has also been referred to previously in this committee. Senator SPARKMAN. I believe that letter was placed in the record yesterday afternoon. Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes. I wanted to ask a question about it, how ever. Senator SPARKMAN. Give us the date of it again. Ambassador JESSUP. The letter is October 1941. I do not have in this reprint the day of October. It was printed in hearings of the Senate committee dated October 24, 1941. I have relied here on the reprint in the hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, October 21, 22, 23, and 24, 1941. Reading from these hearings at page 251: Senator JOHNSON of California. I also offer for the record a statement by Philip C. Jessup, a gentleman of high repute, and an international lawyer of standing. Both of these are in the form of letters to me. The beginning of my letter to Senator Johnson is as follows: Being confined to bed as a result of injuries received in an airplane accident 2 months ago, I am unable to accept the invitation extended by you to appear before the Foreign Relations Committee to offer testimony on the proposal to authorize the arming of American merchant vessels. I, therefore, take advantage of Senator Taft's suggestion that I send you in writing a few observations on the consequences of repealing section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939. Senator FULBRIGHT. How did Senator Taft suggest you do that? By letter? Ambassador JESSUP. I have not found the letter. I would assume that was telephone. I had a good deal of telephone connection at that time with various people down here. As I say, I was still laid up and I find in other files that I have here that it was a telephonic request from Senator Taft. Senator FULBRIGHT. Was Senator Taft in agreement with your views at that time? Ambassador JESSUP. I believe he was, sir. Senator SPARKMAN. I am sure that letter was placed in the record yesterday, but you might give a copy to the reporter. It will not be duplicated. (The document referred to appears in an earlier part of the hearings.) SENATE VOTE ON THE ARMING OF MERCHANT MEN Ambassador JESSUP. With regard to Senator Taft's viewpoint on the arming of merchant men, and the views of others, I would like to Temporary Chairman: MRS. BENNETT CHAMP CLARK Wife of the Senior U. S. Senator from Missouri Invocation: DR. GEORGE ALBERT SIMONS Pastor, Christ Methodist Church, Glendale, L. I. Group singing directed by Robert Crawford-Music by Ebens' Band On October 30, 1940, at Boston, President Roosevelt made a sacred pledge to the voters of America. He said: One year later, on October 30, 1941, the people of New York meet at Madison Square Garden to commemorate that sacred promise and to demand that IT MUST BE KEPT. 89965 - 51 (Face p. 218) read the final vote in the Senate on this resolution to permit the rearming of the merchant vessels. It was 50 to 38 in favor of arming them with 8 not voting. This is in the Congressional Record, volume VII, page 8680. I opposed in this letter to Senator Johnson the arming of the merchant men. The Senators who, in the voting, opposed the arming and voted against the resolution were as follows: Adams, Aiken, Bilbo, Brewster, Brooks, Burton, Butler, Byrd, Capper, Chavez, Clark of Idaho, Clark of Missouri, Danaher, Davis, Gillette, Holman, Johnson of California, Johnson of Colorado, La Follette, Langer, Lodge, McCarran, McNary, Maloney, Nye, Shipstead, Smith, Taft, Thomas of Idaho, Tobey, Tydings, Vandenberg, Van Nuys, Walsh, Wheeler, White, Wiley, and Willis. I do not claim any power or influence in affecting the votes of these gentlemen. The only point that I make in reading this list is that the view which I advocated in October 1941 was a view which also, for whatever reasons, seems to have been the view of these 38 gentlemen who voted against the arming of the merchant vessels at that time. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The Smith you mentioned there was not Smith of New Jersey. He did not happen to be a Member of the Senate at that time. Senator SPARKMAN. That was Smith of South Carolina. Senator GILLETTE. May I also say for the record that the Gillette read there is the present Gillette he is talking about. Senator SPARK MAN. I think it would be well to put that roll call in the record. Senator FULBRIGHT. I am wondering if the Brewster mentioned is the same Brewster who is here today? Senator BREWSTER. It is the same. Senator SPARKMAN. It might be helpful to both the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Alabama, and perhaps the Senator from Arkansas, to go back and review some of these votes in the House also in the earlier days. Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I was not even in the House in those days. Senator SPARKMAN. I think it may be well to put that roll call in the record in order that it may be complete. (The additional information required follows in this record.) [Excerpt from Congressional Record, November 7, 1941] The final vote in the Senate on the resolution to amend the Neutrality Act in order to permit the arming of merchant vessels was 50 to 38 with 8 not voting (CR v. 87, p. 8680): |