It has been said by some people I heard it intimated by someone before the Senate committee a week ago-last Monday, I think it was—that many of the people did not know, they were not familiar enough with what was going on. Well, in connection with that, the Gallup poll conducted a poll with those listed in Who's Who, or a cross section of them, and come to find out, 55 percent of those were against our going into the war, and 45 percent were for it. Showing that even in that selected list, a very large part of whom, no doubt, are college professors, most of whom are interested in our getting into the war, nevertheless, only 45 percent were for it. What would we go to war for? Mr. Chairman, we are told it is because of the menace of totalitarianism. Now, totalitarianism is nothing in the world but the concentration of power in the executive, and with that definition, with which I think no one can quarrel, I maintain that we in the United States in the past 8 years have built up one of the most powerful, strongest totalitarian governments there is in the world today, and the claim that we should go to war to defend democracy becomes simply a hollow pretense.

I might mention, Mr. Chairman, two things that Mr. David Lawrence has called attention to in his recent week's issue. I will just enumerate them:

1. Usurpation of legislative power by F. C. C. over radio stations. I need not go further into that. You recall what I referred to. The other thing: Danger to private utility industry by national policy.

The CHAIRMAN. He has an article in this week's Star on that subject, and I read it and I agree with everything he said. What is the use taking up our time with that?

Mr. HART. I just called your attention to that. I am not going to read them.

Now, as I said before, we are told that in many of these matters that come up there is need for haste. In this case here the message of the President, and I think certain other remarks made by General Marshall, were to the effect that two-thirds of the members of the troops would have to be replaced, and the implication was that that would have to be done fairly soon unless this bill were immediately passed, and of course, the figures have been published since then showing that it will be November before the term of service of any of these troops expires, then something less than 14,000 less than 6,000 in December, and then the number mounts through the following winter months. So it would seem certain that plenty of time could be taken to discuss the thing thoroughly in the light of the situation today.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the whole picture is changed by the coming of Soviet Russia into the war in the first place, as has been hinted here already, Russia coming in is certainly occupying Germany and is going to weaken Germany.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, did not Hitler go in to Russia instead of Russia coming in?

Mr. HART. Well, I did not mean to imply that Russia was the aggressor.

Mr. SHORT. Your idea, Mr. Hart, is that they are growing weaker over there as we are growing stronger over here?

Mr. HART. They are growing weaker as we grow stronger. But any situation that would ally this country on the side of Soviet Russia would be, in the light of our experience here with the Communist activities in the United States, nothing short of grotesque. We have had four of five-in fact, I have got six investigations here listed in the past 20 years, of which the latest is the Dies committee, all of them bipartisan, four national and two State, and every one of them making a unanimous report finding great activity here on the part of representatives of the Soviet Government seeking to overthrow the Government of the United States. So that if we were going to go into war now on the side of Great Britain we would be an ally of Russia, and I think without doubt the result would be that if we won, which we might not do-that is always possiblewe would find ourselves, probably, under the influence of the philosophy of communism, as would Britain also, and I think that would not be entirely to the dislike of a good many of those who at the present time are trying to get us into the war.

Mr. Chairman, that is the substance of what I want to say. General Reckord said the object of the American Army and preparing ourselves for war was to protect the American way of life. I believe the way to protect the American way of life is to withdraw from the constant further penetration into the foreign affairs of other nations.

We hear many stories, much gossip about the extent to which the equipment of the United States Government has been sent to other countries, notably to Britain.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hart, I do not want to interrupt you, except for the fact that are 27 members of this committee and 26 of them are opposed to the war, and we have all of those facts, and if you would like, we will be glad to print whatever manuscript you have in the record, but unless you have something else outside of your written document, I suggest that you let that go into the record and we will print it.

Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, in view of the lateness of the hour I will just stop right here.

The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not want you to do that, if you have something further to present.

Mr. HART. No; I have concluded what I had to say. I will be very glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by the committee? Thank you very much, Mr. Hart. Your statement has been very interesting and we apreciate it.

(Mr. Hart submitted the following paper :)

REMARKS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS ON THE PROPOSAL TO EXTEND BEYOND ONE YEAR THE PERIOD OF SERVICE OF DRAFTEES AND NATIONAL GUARDSMEN

(By Merwin K. Hart of New York, appearing as a private citizen, July 25, 1941)

I am in favor of taking all necessary steps for the defense of our country. Hence, solely for the purpose of defense, I favor retention in the Army of those men, whether draftees or National Guardsmen, whom the responsible Army authorities believe absolutely necessary for defense.

It is my understanding of General Marshall's statement before this committee that he favors returning to civil life such of the present draftees or National

Guardsmen as can possibly be spared. And I believe, because of what I consider to be the state of public opinion, that in line with the above thought, as many as possible should be returned.

The Army is up against a difficult problem, in view of the implied, if not expressed promise to the men that the period of service was to be 1 year. But even this promise must yield to the necessities of national defense.

But I am wholly opposed to any action by this Congress with respect to this matter that will encourage the administration to get us into war. I believe, therefore, that whatever the form of bill or resolution to be adopted by this Congress authorizing the retention of these men, or some of them, beyond 1 year, it should contain a clear statement that none of the troops of the United States shall for any purpose be sent outside the Western Hemisphere unless and until this Congress has declared war.

I urge this provision because I believe that unless the Congress speaks in unmistakable terms, the war party in the administration will take advantage of the act or resolution and construe it in such a way as to inch this country even further, and possibly over the brink, into war.

The existing provisions of law limiting the service of draftees and National Guardsmen to 1 year unless Congress declare "that the national interest is imperiled" was included presumably because without that provision Congress would have refused to pass the bill. This was a piece of deceit toward the people. And this is only one of many pieces of deceit of which the war party has been guilty, and by which members of this Congress have undoubtedly been misled.

The people are overwhelmingly for national defense. This Congress has appropriated many billions of dollars for the purpose of national defense. But if the polls, national and otherwise, which have been taken since the war broke out, now nearly 2 years ago, mean anything, the people remain overwhelmingly opposed to our country entering the war.

All members of this committee are familiar with these polls, which show the American people as opposed to entrance into the war, by anywhere from 2 to 1 to 9 to 1. The most recent poll by a committee of educators and others, headed by President Hutchins of the University of Chicago, showed the people standing 4 to 1 in opposition.

The poll of the Daily News of New York City, published in its issue of July 15, shows that of more than 174,000 persons polled within the State of New York, more than 70 percent said "No" in answer to the question, "Shall the United States enter the war to help Britain defeat Hitler?" This from New York, perhaps the greatest hotbed of war propaganda in the United States, certainly should give us pause. Is Congress going to let this country be dragged into Europe's war in the face of such evidence?

This bill of necessity raises vital questions, including even the question of the continued existence of our present form of government. Spokesmen for the administration say the people of the United States are threatened by totalitarianism, the threats being represented by Germany and her allies. I am, and always have been, utterly opposed to the totalitarianism of Germany. But totalitarianism is merely the concentration of power in the executive. It stands in contrast to the distribution of power laid down by the Federal Constitution between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches.

And while the administration and its spokesmen have preached constantly of democracy, the administration has actually been building up a totalitarianism here in the United States. The President really admitted this when he said in his message to the Congress as far back as January 3, 1936:

"They realize (he was apparently speaking of the bus ness leaders of the country) that in 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people's government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hand of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people."

In my opinion, and that of a multitude of people, this administration has, through these "new instruments of public power," provided the very "shackels for the liberties of the people" that the President said would result if these powers were in other hands.

No better illustration of this can be mentioned than the recent case of one Doyle, who, because he favored a resolution to investigate Communist activities in the National Maritime Union, was fired out of his union, thereby losing his

job with his employer, which happened to be the Government of the United States. For it appears there was an agreement of some sort (said to be entirely unlawful) between the National Maritime Union and this particular part of the Government, that the Government would hire none but members of the National Maritime Union.

We have come a long way toward totalitarianism since Mr. Roosevelt uttered his words of January 1936. And it is characteristic that much of this has been done furtively. It has been slipped over on us, as it were. This has happened again and again. Some such attempts have been made and frustrated because the plans leaked out and became public. But much new law of a tyrannical kind has been put through. Within recent weeks, by a short amendment so phrased that it was not understandable by the general public, and whose true meaning, I am advised, was not understood by most members of the Congress, additional powers were granted by this Congress to the Government with respect to agriculture, as a result of which agriculture, the largest single industry in the nation, will be brought under complete government control.

I believe, and I understand many others believe, that there is not the remotest chance that this control will be abandoned after the war.

There is only one inference to draw from the events of recent years, namely, that there exists among those most powerful with the administration, a conspiracy to do away with the American form of government and to set up a totalitarianism form in its stead. In the light of this, the incessant preachments about democracy are the hollowest sham.

And, just as I believe there is a conspiracy to take us over into a totalitarian form of government, so likewise I believe there is a conspiracy to get us into this war. I am forced to the conclusion that our entrance into the war is, in the minds of those in the administration who are molding the policy, secondary to the objective of setting up a totalitarian government of their own brand. The war powers of the Constitution, so eagerly invoked by these men, are welcome to them who in the name of democracy are converting this country to a despotism.

I note the feverish effort to extend Government control over the people. This control is being extended at the instance of men who are supremely confident they know what is good for the people better than the people themselves. To borrow a phrase from this very group, they no doubt consider the people are "too damn dumb" to understand what is good for them. Perhaps this eagerness to rush us into rigid controls is merely a childish desire to set up in America bigger and better fetters than those employed in Britain herself. But, more likely, it is part of the concerted movement designed and carried out by these men for the purpose of securing control over the people, utterly contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.

These considerations were deserving of serious thought by the American people and by this Congress down to June 21, 1941, on which date Germany suddenly attacked Russia. Immediately Mr. Winston Churchill announced that Britain would extend all aid to Russia. President Roosevelt has since announced that in effect we would do likewise.

Now, therefore, since we have announced that the purpose of aid to Britain is to destroy the totalitarian menace in Europe, we would, if we actually backed Soviet Russia, convict ourselves of one of the greatest stupidities of all history. For if anything has been demonstrated in recent years, it is the fact that Soviet Russia, utterly contrary to her treaty engagement of 1933, has been plotting to overthrow the Government of the United States, if necessary by force.

While Germany is suspected, through the rather stupidly conducted German Bund and through her consular agents, to have stirred up interest in the United States in the cause of the Nazis, yet, compared with Russian activities over a period of many years, anything that the Germans have attempted— certainly anything they have accomplished-in the United States fades into insignificance.

These Russian activities have been the subject of many legislative investigations, including that of the Overman committee of the Senate of the United States in 1919; the Lusk committee of the New York State Legislature in 1919 and 1920; the Fish committee of the House of Representatives in 1930: the McCormick committee of the House in 1934; and, more recently, the Dies

61230-41- -9

committee. Each of these committees was bipartisan. Each of them made a unanimous report, and each of them found the facts to be precisely the same namely, that the Communist Party of the United States, acting under direct instructions from the Communist Internationale at Moscow, and supported by that latter organization, has continuously exerted itself to the overthrowing of the Government of the United States by force and violence (or, more specifically, by the use of the general strike and armed uprisingsee the Communist Internationale of February 1, 1934, p. 87), in violation of the penal laws thereof and of the rule of comity between supposedly friendly nations. That, in furtherance of that program its agents have penetrated our public school systems, as revealed by the findings of the Rapp-Coudert committee of New York; into many of our churches, as revealed by the reports of the committees mentioned; and into our various labor organizations. None of this is hearsay. All of it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by documentary evidence.

From this thoroughly established record, it must be apparent to anyone that the proposed policy of the administration, in giving aid and comfort to the Soviet Union, is a policy which gives aid and comfort to an actual enemy of the United States and as such makes all the claims of defense of democracy an utter sham.

In sum, then, national defense being the greatest need of the day, for the sole purpose of national defense the period of service of draftees and guardsmen should be extended, with such proper classes of exceptions as General Marshall and the appropriate committees of Congress may agree upon.

But, in my opinion, our national existence is threatened not only by forces from overseas, but from within. The House of Representatives has told what it thought of Communist activities in the United States by its constant majorities in favor of a continuance of the activities of the Dies committee. I take it that the Senate would not greatly differ from the views of the House. I believe, if this country should now ally itself with Soviet Russia, that when the war ended, even if Britain, Russia, and the United States should win, we would find both Britain and the United States dominated by Marxism. Communism would have conquered the world, even sooner than it expected. I have little confidence in the thought, uttered by Winston Churchill and by some in the United States, that we can be for Russia but against communism. Communist influence with someone in the administration is today so strong that the Seaman Doyle, of whom I spoke before, was discharged by the Government because a Communist-controlled union threw him out. Can it be supposed that communism's influence in the United States would be any less after we and Soviet Russia had as allies fought a successful war?

In my opinion, the key to the situation is for Congress to renew its complete control of the power to declare war, including in that the power to commit this nation to policies that are certain, or even likely, to involve us in war. For. if the power to declare war means anything, it includes the power to prevent our getting into war. If there exists a hiatus between the sole power of Congress to declare war, and the sole power of the President to be Commander-in-Chief, that twilight zone should be under the control of Congress rather than the President.

Partly, to that end, I urge the Congress, in legislating to permit the retention of men really needed for our defense, to state clearly that no American troops will be sent overseas. This would but put into law the promise made by the President to the people when he was a candidate for reelection last fall.

The people, through many unofficial poils, have unmistakably said they are opposed to our country entering the war. It is the duty of this Congress, if it does not accept the trend of these polls, to poll the people officially itself before it permits this country to involvement in this war.

Can you gentlemen, who believe in democracy, do anything else?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thomas J. Reardon, of Hartford, Conn., wishes to make a statement. Have you a written document you would like to file, Mr. Reardon?