OCR Text |
Show 3 L it i General HUGH S. JOHNSON Jour: I Uniud Foam f WSV Svrin Washington, D. C. 'TRANSFER' OF U. S. NAVY The President says that any suggestion sug-gestion that, under the "lease-lend" bill he might transfer part of our navy to another nation is a "cow-jumped-over-the-moon" idea meaning, mean-ing, we may suppose, Mother Goose nonsense or a palpable impossibility. "Hi-diddle-diddle, the cat and the fiddle, the cow jumped over the moon." He also says that he never even considered using the navy to convoy American shipments to Britain. Brit-ain. A great deal of confusion is creeping creep-ing into this debate. There is nothing noth-ing in the "lease-lend" bill about convoying ships. Providing they are not violating the neutrality act and the President's own proclamations thereunder, by entering proclaimed war zones, or otherwise, American ships can still sail the sea. If there is danger of illegal interference with them by another nation while they are in pursuit of their lawful business, the President doesn't need any additional authority to protect them with naval convoys. There- fore the convoy argument is not properly in the debate on the "lease-lend" "lease-lend" bill. But this "cow-over-the-moon" business is something else again. There is no authentic record of any cow jumping over any moon, but there is a very recent and rather startling record of a President transferring trans-ferring a very substantial part of our navy, to wit, 50 destroyers, to a belligerent nation. It was done without with-out any specific authority. There is also a considerable record of diddling did-dling public opinion just before election elec-tion or during the debate on hotly contested legislation by promises that were quickly forgotten for example, ex-ample, the 1932 promise not to violate vio-late the gold covenants in our bonds and money. That was the highest diddle-diddle in all our economic history. his-tory. But there was no remedy. All that happened was that "the little dog laughed to see such sport and the dish ran away with the spoon." If there is no intention to transfer trans-fer any part of our sorely needed armament, why is it necessary to grant unlimited authority to do so? With a little paraphrasing and transposition, trans-position, which does no violence to its intent, the 1776 bill authorizes the President "to sell, transfer, lease, lend or otherwise dispose of . any weapon, munition, aircraft, air-craft, vessel or boat . . . any component com-ponent material ... any other commodity com-modity or article for defense." WAR POWERS There is a lot of argument in favor fa-vor of the "lease-lend" war dictatorship dictator-ship bill based by the so-called constitutional con-stitutional "war - powers" of the President. - Abraham Lincoln, as President, without any previous congressional delegation at all, and under the war powers of the President, simply set aside all the constitutional guarantees guaran-tees and compromises that made this union possible and emancipated the slaves. This is dangerous doctrine. If there is, in our form of government, any hidden power in the President in his own diseretion, without any actual war, simply to set the Constitution Con-stitution aside, and do as he pleases with the peace, prosperity, property and destiny of the United States, we are in a fix. What are the "war powers" of the President under our Constitution? Constitu-tion? In actual war and in the area of combat on enemy territory they are, and they must be as the powers pow-ers of a commanding general in such territory completely dictatorial dictatori-al and practically supreme. But that kind of dictatorship does not flow from his office as the President of the United States. It flows from his specific constitutional office as commander-in-chief of our army and navy. It was under this military power and under no civil office that President Presi-dent Lincoln emancipated the slaves. He-did so only as an act of war, only in enemy territory in actual ac-tual rebellion and his act was later confirmed by congress. He rlid so. and said that he did so, not in his capacity as President but in the execution of his office of commander-in-chief. This is particularly par-ticularly emphasized by the fact that when, under such fierce factional dogmatic urging as is now lashing Mr. Roosevelt, to force this great powerful, peaceful country into war, Lincoln attempted to Hitlerize the civil processes of the United States Constitution and send to concentration concentra-tion camps, or by a star chamber process, whoever opposed his war policies, authority to do so was denied de-nied by the Supreme court. There is no doubt that the "war powers" of congress are almost unlimited. un-limited. They are like the law of self-defense in homicide cases. They go to almost any extent necessary to national safety and are measured meas-ured only by the degree of danger and the express prohibitions of the Constitution. We are facing a very dangerous, question. Because wars are frequently fre-quently not "declared" in this mad modern world, does that mean that the Constitution can be set aside that the government can convert itself it-self into a dictatorship? |