REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMI
Publicity Division
718 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
November 10, 1939 / G 162
For Release in Afternoon Newspapers
Of Monday, November 13, 1939 and
Thereafter.
Text of an address by Senator Warren R. Austin, of Vermont, Assistant Republi-
can Leader in the United States Senate, before the Women's National Republican Club,
of New York, and broadcast over the Mutual Broadcasting System Monday, November 13,
from 11:15 to 11:45 A.M., EST, follows;
There is no war party in the United States. The Republican Party will not be¬
come a war party for any of the causes now known to us or which can be reasonably
predicted. However the Republican Party does not represent an organization of
pacifists or isolationists or advocates of national inferiority and impotency. Our
service to the nation in the coming campaign consists in such leadership that the
existing unity of the American people upon the objective of keeping out of war will
not be disturbed. All of our politics should lead to that common objective. But
all of our efforts should give constant attention to preserving our free institu¬
tions in the process of building up resistance to war from the outside and from the
inside. One of the gravest dangers to the permanency of our system of limited
powers would be the inauguration of a third term for the President of the United
States.
The selection of a candidate by the Democratic Party is something in which the
Republican Party cannot and does not desire to consciously participate.
Nevertheless, the Republican Party could do much to bring this calamity upon
America in 1940 if it should hinder, impede and weaken the arm of the present ad-
ministration in executing our foreign policy expressed in the Act of Congress known
as the Neutrality Act of 1939 and the proclamations of the President made in pur-
suance thereof.
In my opinion such conduct on our part would tempt the voters of America to
sacrifice the wise precedent of limited terms for the Chief Executive, in both the
Democratic nomination and the subsequent election.
Resistance of public opinion to charges that the administration now uses the
present foreign policy as a means of covering up selfish purpose, failure in the
domestic program and for the express purpose of promoting a third term, is a logical
consequence of preponderant faith in that policy. That resistance would be made by
many Republican votes swinging against the candidate making such charges.
Events accompanying the extraordinary session of Congress as well as the action
taken thereby revealed a people devoted to Republican principles. They domonstrated
a settled persuasion in favor of those countries striving to keep alive the word and
the spirit of representative government. Republicans whom I know as leaders of
2
thought and staunch party workers sincerely hope that the United States, as a
sovereignty, will keep an attitude as helpful as possible to those countries in
the world who fight and sacrifice to save the untrammeled right to worship God,
freedom of speech, sanctity of the home and dignity of the family, open forums,
unrestricted access to information, and above all, impartial administration of
justice and exemption from cruel and inhuman intolerance.
The security of life and property also are seen to be endangered throughout
the world, when they are endangered in so large a part of it, as England and France
and the small Republics of Europe. It would be folly for the Republican Party to
minimize the hazard to our own institutions created by the attack upon similar in¬
stitutions in the rest of the world.
Our duty as a great party seems to be clearly outlined.
First, we should help to maintain the unity now existing in our country upon
the present foreign policy so long as it is applicable;
Second, we should advocate freedom of this government to change its attitude
in the light of changed contingencies according to the interest of America;
Third, we should preserve our traditional right of independence or freedom
from external political control;
Fourth, we should abstain from present attempts to reform the sanctions for
world peace, and concentrate definitely on the specific purpose of keeping the
United States out of war;
Fifth, we should aggressively attack the domestic agencies and instrumentali-
ties of centralization which excite grave concern about Republican liberty.
Our present foreign policy represents a preponderant sentiment of a well in-
formed people ready to respond to the call of duty in the defense of American
security but intent upon not becoming a belligerent in European and Asiatic wars.
As reflected by the Neutrality Act of 1939 our attitude involves a sacrifice
of trade in all things, and of the right to travel, of the freedom of transportation
and communication, and of unrestricted financial undertakings. This sacrifice is
for the purpose of avoiding incidents on the high seas which have heretofore caused
war-like fervor in the United States. How costly these sacrifices may be depends
upon unpredictable events but from our present viewpoint it seems that if they are
reasonably effective the sacrifice is not too great. We do not delude ourselves by
believing that absolute security can be bought.
Between American and belligerent ports and between American and neutral ports
where the transportation must pass through combat areas, nothing American, whether
of a lethal or life-giving nature may be on the high seas because Americans must
part with title thereto before it leaves our shores.
3
This is a significant departure from the doctrine of the "Freedom of the Seas"
"Trade at Your Own Risk", "Caveat Mercator".
We have avoided the assertion of rights which are not fundamental and if
asserted might involve national honor. In the danger zones our nationals are for¬
bidden the choice of profits or risk. In the proscribed areas our government thus
has prevented our merchants from competing with their commercial rivals and exposed
them to the possibility of being swept from the seas and supplanted by their com¬
petitors.
Government has generally honored itself by guarding rights of humanity. From
experience in the World War we know that it is more important for us now as a war
prevention measure that we have avoided incidents which might involve the lives of
our citizens than that we have curtailed trade relationships. We endured for a long
time in the World War loss of property. But when Germany began sinking without
warning vessels with our nationals on them then the attack on human life in defiance
of our assertion of what we called "acknowledged rights", excited emotions of resent¬
ment which unified this country for war.
Again, as following the sinking of the Maine in 1898, patriotic youngsters
gayly marched down Main Street to the stimulating cadence of Sousa's Stars and
Stripes Forever, while the crowd consolidated its position by muttering 'make the
world safe for Democracy."
Knowing ourselves as Americans ready to fight for our national honor we have
by this restriction upon travel attempted to keep our national honor on this side
of the Atlantic and keep it out of the war zones.
The sacrifice we make by withdrawal of American flag vessels, stopping
transportation and communication with belligerents thereby has ramifications into
the interior. For example last year about this time ships of the American Mercan¬
tile Marine were transporting to the belligerents 65,000 barrels of apples per
week. How serious will the dislocation of this commerce be in its effect upon the
orchardists of America?
We have placed a legal ban on loans and credits for the purpose of avoiding
the development of a spirit of partisanship through economic interest. How restric-
tive this embargo upon finance may be in operation we do not know.
To sum up the present situation our purpose of avoiding war and maintaining
peace on this continent is served by the most stringent interference with commerce
over placed by a neutral country on its nationals, save the absolute embargoes and
non-intercourse acts of 1807 which were disastrous economically and politically and
promoted war instead of peace.
I am firmly persuaded that the Republican Party ought to promote belief and
4
confidence in the peaceful purpose of this government, and inculcate the doctrine
of individual, personal self-discipline. The government has disciplined us so far
as it appears wise to do so. This will be adequate only if we cultivate self¬
restraint in the expression of resentments.
Our duty as a great party is to lead in thought to stability in these porten¬
tious days when the whole world seems shaken by contention.
Briefly speaking of our responsibility in the family of nations, our counter¬
part for the maintenance of the balance of power in the European groups has been
the Monroe Doctrine as applied to the western hemisphere. As the balance of power
implied that the members of the European family of nations would view as a cause for
intervention the concentration of such power in any one of its members, as would
enable that state to coerce the others, so the United States employed the doctrine
of intervention to safeguard the institutions of the United States.
The Monroe Doctrine implies that the United States might view as just ground
for intervention any attempt to extend non-American dominance on the American con¬
tinent or to impose non-American powers on the political independence of America.
No guarantees were made, no promises, no threats. Our position has never been in¬
flexible, and it does not commit us to action. The exclusive prerogative of this
government to decide as each case arises what character of international conduct
this government will adopt, is of the essence of the Monroe Doctrine,
Even here in the western hemisphere we have been free to occupy any inter¬
national attitude which American interests dictated. This doctrine has a unique
by-product of assistance to Latin-American Republics, but its objective is preserva¬
tion of this Republic.
We have improved our relations in the western hemisphere by the affirmative
policy of inter-American arbitration and we should carry on what has been well
started by this administration.
Every great disturbance amounting to war, causes us to desire fervently to
contribute something to the cause of World peace. By this we mean the absence of
war. We have never had the courage to face the problem of adjustment, modification,
accommodation and adaptation made important by varying increases in population,
geographican and political boundaries, demand and supply of raw materials. We do
not look beyond that peace which is merely the absence of warfare.
It is true that many brilliant writers, lawyers and statesmen have struggled
individually with these problems and brought forth proposals for international or-
ganization, world federations, unions, and leagues. Indeed many experiments in
international organization have been tried and are still being tried, such as the
5
Treaty of Alliance for the Preservation of the Balance of Power,1814;
Act of Holy Alliance, 1815;
Treaty and Declaration of Paris, 1856;
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes under
which the Permanent Court of Arbitration was Created, 1899;
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
of the Hague, 1907;
Arbitration Convention between United States and Great Britain,1908;
Consular Convention between United States and Sweden, 1910;
Peace Conference at Paris, Covenant of the League of Nations
and Establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice,1919.
I believe that the sixteen years of good experience of the World Court justi-
fies a hopeful reconsideration of our attitude toward that Court.
In 1935 the Senate defeated a resolution approving the Protocol of Accession of
the United States and of revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice. The two-thirds vote necessary for its adoption was lacking
because only 52 votes were cast for, whereas 36 votes were cast against the resolu¬
tion. However, recent world events have so weakened the position of the League of
Nations to which the World Court is connected, that this is an inopportune time to
make the attempt.
The Nine-Power Pact of Washington and the Kellogg-Briand Treaty in which we
participated, have been ineffectual.
Probably any new attempt at international organization short of readjustment
in world relations which would involve sacrifices by the great powers, would now be
difficult and only temporary in effect.
Moreover, essential changes beyond the realm of material interests are re¬
quired to produce a world of peace. Taking our stand on facts which are beyond
controversy and from them looking forward, do we not perceive that there must be
developed in this and kindred governments a foundation for international faith of
a kind that would be new to the world?
The integrity of the spoken and written word must first be established.
Treaties have proved to be ineffectual. Any true unison of purpose to administer
justice, promote good will and maintain peace if realized, must be firmly embedied
in the sentiments and habits of society.
We dare to look forward and hope for national custom and habit of mind and
action which impose restraints without which freedom from international interference
is impossible, and with which spontaneous support for international law and order
would be the natural reaction. Thereupon the world could have peace without the
sanction of force - peace based on moral responsibility.
6
Nevertheless, we are too realistic to attempt such a grand objective now.
I believe the Republican Party would do well to concentrate upon the mainten¬
ance of peace on this continent.
I believe a Republican administration if put into service at the next election,
ought to avoid uninvited and unconstructive meddling in the problem of peace be¬
tween the belligerents of Europe and Asia. This does not mean that a Republican
administration would not be ready to respond to every future call of duty. It
would not shirk from cooperation with other nations provided that it should appear
that such cooperation is both calculated to establish and maintain a just peace
and is in the interest of American security, independence and freedom from external
political control.
We are determined to keep those beacon lights of liberty — The Declaration of
Independence and the Bill of Rights -- aloft for the illumination of our own dawn
of a new day, as well as to roll back the shades darkening the present civilization
of Europe and Asia.
My fifth or concluding proposal of party action affecting foreign relations
deals with domestic legislation which I can but briefly touch upon in the remaining
time.
International independence, respectful consideration by others, defense against
aggression of all kinds, and the maintenance of peace and good order in this hemi¬
sphere require military support. We must have suitable establishments, as Washing
ton said, "on a respectable defensive posture."
This requires adaptation of our armaments to the needs of the present and the
foreseeable future. It does not require matching equipment with all of the rest of
the world. It does not justify disregard for the checks upon spending for military
purposes which taxpayers wrested from tyrants in the long ago and which our fore¬
fathers established for themselves and for their posterity.
The providers ought to earmark the new taxes for the spenders. We ought not
to apply the methods of the New Deal spending program to the development of our
national defense. We have learned by several years of experience the dangers of
uncontrolled spending power. In other campaigns we have observed campaign speakers
for the New Deal basing their request for votes on the quantity of money spent in
the voters' community. This meance to our economy and to the limitation of powers
will require the special attention of Congress and it will need the intelligent
assistance of the people, such assistance as that rendered when the great issue over
the independence of the Judiciary was on trial.
For the duration of war, and while exchange rates are favorable to America,
trade treaties now existing ought not to give us great concern. But future reci¬
procity agreements ought to be limited to specific transaction, in order that
7
advantage may be actually reciprocal and mutual, and that economic causes of inter¬
national resentment may be reduced,
As a fundamental interest of the people in keeping legislative powers under
checks and balances future trade treaties should require ratification by the
Senate.
Moreover, as a practical application of the authority of Congress to regulate
commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, we have heretofore
encouraged a free economy in trade among the states and a regulated economy with
foreign nations. The operation of these principles gave us a higher real income or
standard of living. It was not necessary for us to reverse these policies and
establish virtual free trade abroad and regimented trade at home as we have done
under the New Deal. It was not necessary for us to adopt a new means of government
which involved the concentration of authority over foreign commerce and over
domestic commerce, production, manufacturing and mining in the Executive branch.
These truths are evidenced by the increase in international trade which occurred
before the trade agreements became effective. They are made poignant by our ex¬
perience since the trade agreements went into effect.
In the main these agreements represent concessions, not only to nations with
whom we conclude treaties, but also to the forty-eight nations with whom we have
most-favored-nation treaties. This has resulted in general reduction in protection
against foreign competition.
This has been especially effective because of the accompanying policies of
scarcity of production and manufacture, government monopoly of labor through such
methods as the Guffey Coal Act, pay roll taxes, control of hours and wages and
control of prices in domestic commerce.
Moreover, the injury is accentuated by the administration of the National
Labor Relations Board Act.
The Republican Party should strive for expiration of the powers of the Chief
Executive under the terms of the Tariff Act of 1934.
It should seek recapture of legislative control and in the exercise thereof
limit the application of concessions made to one country for compensating conces¬
sions, and should not give general application thereof to other countries without
compensation. Reciprocity and most-favored-nation treatment should be defined so
that they cannot be made to mean one thing with one country and another thing with
another country. The reciprocal principle is vitiated when a country having a
trade agreement with the United States permits as it does in some cases, uncontrolled
entry from a third country of goods which have been subsidized in any form to a
degree prejudicial to our ability to compete. While we continue our generosity to
8
other nations let us try to prevent injury to our form of government and hinderance
to our economic recovery.
We should stop purchasing unneeded gold and silver at exorbitant prices. Such
gifts are unnecessary and improvident. They cast a shadow of grave future deflation
upon the welfare of our people.
In 1933 the Treasury and Federal Reserve Banks possessed $4,200,000,000 of
gold.
By the exercise of powers delegated to the President by the Gold Reserve Act
of 1934, which I regarded as unconstitutional, the price of gold was jumped almost
seventy per cent, as a result of which our gold stock was inflated to the value of
87,438,000,000. In about six years since then it has increased to $17,000,000,000.
This is a greater amount than is possessed by all other governments, central banks
and stabilization funds of the world. It is equivalent to three-fifths of the world's
stock.
The menace of inflation therefrom is sterilized for the time being by with-
drawing and storing away many billions of it.
This impounded stock is a loafer — it toils not, neither does it spin. It
produces nothing to add to the wealth and happiness of the people.
The cost to our farmers of the current purchases of gold is indicated by the
fact that in 1932 it required the equivalent of 24 bushels of apples to buy an
ounce of gold, whereas today it requires 50 bushels. It formerly took 40 bushels
of wheat, whereas today, notwithstanding an 80 per cent increase in the price of
wheat, it requires 38 bushels to buy an ounce of gold.
In 1932, 313 pounds of cotton was of sufficient value to buy an ounce of gold.
Today, notwithstanding the increase in the price of cotton, it requires 380 pounds
thereof for the same purpose.
Only one country, namely, Belgium, makes its currency freely interchangeable
with gold at a fixed rate.
Our own capacity to produce the products of consumption is such that we cannot
wisely exchange this gold with foreign countries for such commodities because of
the adverse effect upon our industry and agriculture.
We cannot presently determine what ought to be done with the existing unneeded
surplus of billions of dollars of gold. However, we can prevent the growth of
this fantastic monster by ceasing to buy the imported metal.
The New Deal gold policy has been in the interest of the foreigner, and opposed
to the interest of the American.
The American taxpayer is paying taxes to meet the annual interest on bonds
issued by his government with which to obtain the money to buy this gold at an
9
arbitrary price almost double the world price. While the American taxpayer pays
the interest, the foreigner pockets the profit on the transaction. Against this
practice the Republican Party should take a determined stand.
A monetary commission of non-political and scientific character responsible
to the Congress, ought to be created to assist the Congress in arriving at a sound
decision regarding the wisdom and expediency of repeal or revision of the coinage
and currency laws.
The power to coin money and fix the value thereof was delegated to the Presi¬
dent. The duty to coin money and fix the value thereof was laid exclusively upon
Congress by the people. This is a primary power and duty. It affects our foreign
relations at all times. Upon the exercise of it might depend sovereignty itself.
A primary power may not lawfully be delegated. Here we took our stand in 1934
and here we ought to fight it out in 1940.
Establishment of a monetary standard and practice adapted to domestic and
foreign trade and calculated to rectify disparities in the prices of the products
of farm and factory would be an economic blessing to this country, and a measure
of national defense.
Such a monetary commission should study and report facts essential to the
attainment of so important an objective.
For similar reasons as those set forth as to gold, we should repeal the Silver
Purchase Act, and terminate executive control of subsidies to foreign countries.
The question whether it is wise or desirable to extend subsidies or loans to
foreign countries through the purchase of foreign silver at prices fixed above the
world price therefor should be submitted to Congress where, under the Constitution,
the duty lies to do the legislating for our people.
Moreover as a practical reason for terminating the acquisition and retirement
of great quantities of silver from abroad we are advised that this practice tends
to destroy ultimately the domestic silver industry.
The waste involved is indicated to some extent by recognizing that in July
last (the latest date of which I have specific information) in addition to silver
in actual monetary use and in use by proxy, we were holding an idle stock of
1,135,000,000 ounces of silver. Senator Townsend of Delaware has characterized
this quantity as "large enough to make more than two dozen sterling silver teaspoons
for every man, woman and child in the forty-eight states."
The process of buying foreign silver and sterilizing it involves a huge
national loss every week.
A grave danger to our free institutions lurks in legislation now pending, the
effect of which would be to force loans under the pretext of promoting peace.
One
of these bills is called the Lee Bill which was referred to the Committee on
10
Military Affairs because it was entitled "A Bill to Promote Peace and the National
Defense Through a More Equal Distribution of the Burdens of War by Drafting the Use
of Money According to Ability to Lend to the Government." So far as the Republicans
on that committee who signed the Minority Report could represent what the Republican
Party stands for, they have placed the party in opposition to it.
I have felt limited to little more than mention of some of the outstanding
internal legislation which affects or is associated with our foreign relations. The
all comprehending objective of peace in America depends substantially upon a sound
economy insuring stability and vigor of society and of our government. We are con¬
fronted with the stupendous task of turning to the right so moderately and wisely
as not to shock and upset the tenor of our life. This involves careful reduction
of government costs. Our recovery legislation should not involve abrupt termina¬
tion but should involve gradual termination of New Deal spending.
Taking a lesson from the failure of the well intended efforts at reform and
recovery made by the New Deal we should aim at supplanting public spending for the
support of consumption stimulus to new private investment. Probably the best con¬
tribution we could make to recovery would be to cause confidence in government to
be spread over the continent by abstaining from extravagant promises and by efforts
at a sound adjustment. We ought to remove the implication of a totalitarian state
We ought to promote legislation decentralizing the bureaucratic control of the
nation's business. We ought to terminate radical encroachment on state's rights and
respect the constitutional limitations of Federal power.
Above all, I believe that we should abolish the control of spending by the
Chief Executive and restore the purse strings to the Congress operating through its
Comptroller General. The road to the right is difficult and any administration
which sets out upon it will need the support of the spirit of sacrifice and practi¬
cal patriotism. Republicans are convinced that it is the only road to recovery.
If in 1940 this country should be blessed with an administration that is fair
and just toward business, an administration that promotes the development of a car
italistic system fair to labor and with the profit incentive as fuel for the fire
of genius, an administration that helps agriculture to gain security and relative
prosperity, a administration that does not excite class prejudice and does not
develope hatred for investors and employers, confidence would be restored and recov-
ery would be possible.
Government ought not to intervene directly in business beyond that minimum de-
gree of regulation which tends to secure the maximum of competition.
With the efforts of government there must be cooperation by citizens; every
business man in this country should face the fact that, if upon recovery depends the
safety of the Republic, the objective is important enough to excite the assumption
of risks and the making of sacrifices. Political responsibility is founded in part
on the spiritual basis of willingness to work and to give for the general welfare.
Several distinguished Republicans have assented to requests of their people that
they run for the nomination for President in the Republican National Convention.
my opinion every one of these candidates is qualified for the office. No candidate
will be infallible. The infallible man never has been and never will be found.
believe that it is necessary for the preservation of the Republic that we elect for
President a man known to be not a New Dealer. Our control over the first step in
decentralization and re-establishment of limitation of powers depends upon unity in
our ranks.
I am moved by disturbing statements to me by some workers in the Republican
Party to conclude this address with a fervent appeal to all Republicans to keey
their poise, notwithstanding the emotional elements of these war-riven times and to
loyally pull together and vigorously support whoever may be chosen by the Republican
National Convention to lead the defenders of the Republic to VICTORY.