Mr. HOBBS. We would appreciate it if you gentlemen would give thought to it.

I see Mr. Spingarn of the Treasury Department wishes to make a

statement.

Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could add one word of clarification in the light of what Mr. Emerson has said. If you wished us to continue this program and to clean up German and Japanese securities, you would have to go so far as to actually continue the war for a limited period.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. SPINGARN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, TREASURY DEPARTMENT

Mr. SPINGARN. Mr. Chairman, the Treasury is in accord with the general statement made by Mr. Snyder. From the Treasury standpoint, I would like to add the following comments pertinent to our Department. Insofar as wartime and emergency revenue laws are concerned and the impact of the terms of the resolutions on them, the matter is under consideration by the Ways and Means Committee, and we did not suppose this committee would wish to enter into that particular field. There is another group of statutes administered by the Treasury Department, emergency and war statutes, in which we have no particular interest, whether or not they are retained or repealed. Other agencies are primarily interested in them and we merely administer them. I cite an example of that: The act of January 27, 1942, which authorizes Canadian vessels to engage in the coastwise trade for the purpose of carrying iron ore between United States ports on the Great Lakes. Ordinarily only domestic vessels could engage in that trade. Well, our customs people administer that statute but it was not a Treasury sponsored statute and actually a proposal to repeal it is pending in Congress with the approval of the agencies involved.

Finally we come to a small group of war statutes in which the Treasury has some primary interest. There are only about a half a dozen of those, and I believe they already are before the subcommittee. Mr. Emerson has placed them in the hands of your counsel, Mr. Long, so I do not propose to mention them unless the subcommittee so desires, with one exception, section 5 (b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, which has already been discussed at length by the representative of the Alien Property Custodian. We are in accord with him in feeling that this important statute should be continued in operative effort. I would like also to mention one other statute which has already been mentioned this morning by Mr. Vest of the Federal Reserve, the act of April 13, 1943, which among other things exempts so-called war loan deposits from the reserve requirements of the Federal Reserve Act. Mr. Vest has indicated that his agency feels that no harm would result if that statute lapsed. Presumably that would not be before the end of the year, at the earliest, even if the termination statute were passed today. It had been the thought of the Treasury Department that the statute should continue somewhat longer than that, until perhaps June 30, 1947. However, before we make any final recommendation on that I would like to have an opportunity to discuss it further with the Treasury, in the light of Mr. Vest's testimony today.

That is all that I have to say, Mr. Chairman, unless there are questions.

Mr. SPRINGER. Would there be any need for its continuance, as you see it?

Mr. SPINGARN. Permanently?

Mr. SPRINGER. No; for a year.

Mr. SPINGARN. It was the thought of the Treasury that the termination of this statute would depend upon the progress of our bond redemption program, and it was not entirely clear as to just what the progress of that would be. It was felt that it would be sometime next spring at least before the statute could be terminated. However, I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss it further in the Treasury before I make any final recommendation.

Mr. SPRINGER. That is merely speculative.

Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir; to some extent it is speculative.
Mr. HOBBS. Thank you so much.

STATEMENT OF J. HENRY NEALE, GENERAL COUNSEL, NAVY
DEPARTMENT

Mr. NEALE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, there are approximately 80 statutes in which the Navy Department feels intimately concerned. With respect to most of those, we submitted a report to Mr. Snyder's office. Some we are ready to give up now and our whole difficulty is in regard to the rate at which we can give them up. There are 15 or 20 more which we feel should be made permanent. Four or five of these have been enacted already, and I think it is pertinent that as to the others we should have the bills introduced and referred to the appropriate committee. There are also a dozen or more or rather important ones that we feel must be continued at the present time for an indefinite period. We hope a short period, but as to those we feel it would be a very great blow if a resolution was enacted at this time terminating the war. Of course, I realize that some of these statutes extend for periods of 6 months, or sometimes a year, beyond the declaration of the ending of hostilities. But in view of the fact that the Congress presumably will adjourn before the close of the summer and you have a very full calendar to handle in that time, there is not much prospect that we could get permanent legislation enacted covering a lot of these situations, which we would need to have covered permanently. We therefore feel that we should ask that these concurrent resolutions be considered very carefully, and we are very much inclined to the approach of Mr. Snyder; namely, to proceed on the basis of repeal of statutes individually when they are found to be no longer of use or importance.

Of course, we recognize the fact that some of the provisions that we think are no longer of use, other agencies may feel are of the utmost importance to them, and it is a very difficult task that your committee has. For our part, we have sometimes thought we had everything decided in regard to some matter and that a particular statute was no longer need by the Navy, and then something would crop up and we would find that it was vitally important to some particular group. So it is a very difficult task in the Navy Department itself, with so many different statutes affecting the Navy passed during the wartime

period to come to any definite conclusion. We have now definite recommendations as to almost 70 out of approximately 80 statuteswhich affect the Navy. We hope to reach a decision on the others in a very short time. We ask that the whole matter be considered on an individual basis, bearing in mind the great number of statutes which are tied in with the wartime period or the continuance of hostilities.

Mr. SPRINGER. Do you have at this time any list?

Mr. NEALE. Yes, sir; but the list we have, Mr. Springer, is a little bit out of date.

Mr. SPRINGER. Is it in this list [indicating]?

Mr. NEALE. No sir; we have additions to that. Unfortunately our list went to Mr. Snyder's office in April and there have been additions and some changes since that time. We have broken down the statutes which affect the Navy into four different categories; first, those which we feel can be allowed to lapse immediately, and we have 24 in that list. Then we have a list as to which we recommend a specific date of expiration. Then we have a list of those which we wish to have made permanent, and finally a list of those to be continued on an emergency basis, for an indefinite period but not to be made per

manent.

Mr. HOBBS. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Treasury, and all other departments will have to be considered. Our idea was to have a general discussion this morning and then take up department after department. -.

Mr. NEALE. We will be very glad to work very closely with Mr. Emerson.

Mr. HOBBS. We have always found you helpful and cooperative. We will now hear from Herbert J. Slaughter, Assistant Solicitor, Department of the Interior.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT J. SLAUGHTER, ESQ., ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, INTERIOR DEPARTMENT

Mr. HOBBS. We are glad to have you with us.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. At the outset I wish to say that the Interior Department fully subscribes to the statement of Mr. Snyder, that the problem before you is a matter that can best be handled by taking up particular statutes one by one.

There are in all about two-score statutes that affect the Interior Department and that come within the group your committee is considering today.

The Department has recently made a recheck of these statutes, and as a result found that there are only three that we consider properly should not be permitted to expire, either at the end of the period specified in the particular statute, or immediately if no such period is provided. I will describe these three measures briefly, because I know that your committee is considering only general matters today.

The first is Public Law 241 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, which provides for a Third Assistant Secretary of the Interior. With a coal strike on, and with a host of major problems requiring secretarial consultation in other fields, there is a real reason for a Third Assistant Secretary of the Interior at this time.

The second is Public Law 826 of the Seventy-seventh Congress, which authorizes the agencies of the Government to pay the Territory of Hawaii toll for the use of Territorial docks. Under the organic act of Hawaii, which was passed in 1900, the Territory was required to allow this Government free use of its public docks. Of course, that use increased tremendously during the war, and Congress passed this legislation permitting reimbursement of the Territory. Since the Government use of the docks is still extensive we think the provision for payment should be continued until the business has gotten down to the normal level.

The third statute is Public Law 429 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, providing for the disposal of certain resources, primarily sand, stone, gravel, and certain kinds of timber located on the public lands. That statute is one which under its terms would expire immediately upon the termination of hostilities and which has no 6-months' waiting period. Legislation is pending before the Public Lands Committee in both Houses of Congress to make it permanent, and we earnestly recommend that the statute be not allowed to expire until the legislative committees have had an opportunity to consider whether they want to make it permanent.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you very much.

We will now hear from Colonel Thompson of the War Department. STATEMENT OF COL. ROBERT H. THOMPSON, LEGISLATIVE OFFICE, GENERAL STAFF, WAR DEPARTMENT

Colonel THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the War Department concurs entirely with the views stated by Mr. Snyder and contained in his written statement. The primary point that I should like to make, sir, is that the termination of hostilities affects very seriously the question as to whether the War Department, the Army, can procure, maintain, and carry on matters which are now before it; and that the termination of the war, controls the length of time during which those men now serving in places to which they may be required to be sent and stationed can be kept there. The passage of a law calling for the termination of hostilities at this time, of course, would completely remove the Selective Training and Service Act as it now stands, and a declaration of the end of the war would immediately start running the period of the limitation of 6 months during which, in the first instance, men can be required to serve in the armed forces, other than in the Regular Army, and it would start the limitation running on the territorial assignment of our troops.

Mr. HOBBS. Have you given enough thought to express yourself categorically on the suggestion that the date of termination should be some prior date?

Colonel THOMPSON. Retroactively I think it would have a very unfortunate effect on the whole situation. It is very hard to visualize what the results would be by a retroactive termination of hostilities, which undoubtedly would involve a retroactive termination of the Selective Training and Service Act. Since September 2, of course, many men have been inducted.

Mr. SPRINGER. If there is any termination at all at this time do you believe it should be at the present or at some future date?

Colonel THOMPSON. At present or prospectively; yes, sir. The War Department concurs entirely in Mr. Snyder's statement, that insofar as the Department is concerned it desires to retain no authority longer than necessary. We have worked with Mr. Snyder's office and will continue to work with his office and will be willing to cooperate with the committee and counsel in every way to furnish lists and compilations of the statutes which in our opinion may be immediately repealed and those which we think would be necessary for us to retain.

I would like to say that I have noted the various examples set out in Mr. Snyder's written statement pertain to the War Department with perhaps one exception, and that relates to veterans and soldiers on active duty. We have gone into the problem very thoroughly and will cooperate and do whatever we can.

Mr. HOBBS. Thank you very much. And your organization contemplates that we will take up the War Department separately? Colonel THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOBBS. And the Navy Department and various other Federal agencies understand that we will take them up separately. The meeting this morning was just to get a general picture of the whole problem. I do not think it is the committee's thought that it would be wise to take all of the groups together and keep you waiting here while we go into these individual matters.

I believe that insofar as we have been advised the witnesses who have testified thus far are the only ones who have asked to testify except Mrs. Agnes Waters.

Are there any others who wish to speak? If not, we will hear from Mrs. Waters now before we adjourn.

STATEMENT OF MRS. AGNES WATERS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mrs. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am the legislative representative of the National Blue Star Mothers of America. I represent millions of mothers of boys who were in World War II. I support every one of these resolutions to officially terminate the war. We feel that it is a great injustice to our sons to keep them in service after hostilities have ceased and we oppose the language "6 months after hostilities ceased." We want the war officially terminated as of VJ-day or August 15, 1945.

Now you hear propagandists and Communists over the radio, they tell us that this war is not ending and that there is still "unfinished business," and we mothers are very much alarmed about the situation. We want it terminated. We also demand that you repeal S. 1580, a bill to give the United Nations the power to declare war, which is utterly unconstitutional and against the rights of the American people. They are a body of foreigners who have no interest in our sons and daughters or the welfare of this Nation. We also want the United Nations Charter repealed. The Charter has already almost involved us in several wars, ever since these meetings started. We are not at all interested in these secret commitments made at Yalta, Potsdam, and all over the world without authority of the Congress of the United States and they were not passed upon by treaty by the Senate, or ever considered by the House.