Full text of "Congressional Record Regarding British-Khazar Zionist World Government and the U.S.A."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Eongressional Hecorfl PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE JO* CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife — Part I REMARKS of HON. J. THORKELSON OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, August 19.1940 Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, In order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Re- public, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point. These articles are entitled "Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife." This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled "Triumphant Democracy." In this he expresses himself in this manner: Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited states — the British-American Union. This statement is clear, and the organizations which Mr. Carnegie endowed have spent millions in order to bring this about. This thing has been made possible by scholarships, exchange professors, subsidies of churches, subsidies of edu- cational institutions; all of them working for the purpose of eliminating Americanism as was taught once in our schools and to gradually exchange this for an English version of our history. These organizations were organized to bring about a British union, a union in which the United States would again be- come a part of the British Empire. However, this has been upset to some extent by the attempt of the internationalists to establish their own government as an International or world union. And there is, therefore, a conflict between the two, for England wants a British union, with America as a colony, and the international money changers want a Jewish controlled union, in order to establish their own world government. It is, therefore, best for us to stay out of both of these, in order to save what is left of this Republic as it was given to us in 1787, by a people who knew more about international intrigue and the real problems that confronted the world, than we know today. These early founders not only under- stood the problems, but in drafting the Constitution they provided an instrument for us to follow, so that we could remain secure from foreign double-dealing and intrigue. 263553-19504 Had we adhered to the Constitution as it was given to us, we would have been secure and safe today. Therefore, it is our duty, in the interest of our people and in the interest of this Republic of the United States, to ponder seriously and to give fullest consideration to solving the problem which now confronts the world. In doing so, I am rather inclined to believe that the real American people will decide without hesitation, to return to those fundamental principles that were set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Let no one tell you that this instrument is not as valuable today as it was in 1787, for the fact is that it is much more valuable today — so much so that complete dis- integration of this Republic cannot be avoided should we fail to return our Government to the principles set forth therein. I shall now quote an article by Andrew Carnegie, which he wrote at the request of the London Express, and which appeared in that paper October 14, 1904, entitled "Drifting Together." DRIFTING TOGETHER— WILL THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA UNITE? (Written by request for the London Express, October 14, 1904, by Andrew Carnegie) Britain and America being now firmly agreed that those who attempted to tax the American Colonies against their protest were wrong, and that in resisting this the colonists vindicated their rights as British citizens and therefore only did their duty, the , question arises: Is a separation forced upon one of the parties, and now deeply regretted by the other, to be permanent? I cannot think so, and crave permission to present some con- siderations in support of my belief that the future is certain to bring reunion of the separated parts, which will probably come about in this way: Those born north and south of an imaginary line between Canada and the United States, being all Americans, must soon merge. It were as great folly to remain divided as for England and Scotland to have done so. It is not to be believed that Americans and Canadians will not be warned by Europe, with its divisions armed, not against foreign foes, but against each other. It is the duty of Canadians and Americans to prevent this, and to secure to their continent in- ternal peace under one government, as it was the duty of English- men and Scotsmen to unite under precisely similar conditions. England has 7 times the population of Scotland; the Republic has 14 times that of Canada. Born Canadians and Americans are a common type, indistinguishable one from the other. Nothing la surer in the near future than that they must unite. It were criminal for them to stand apart. CANADA'S DESTINY It need not be feared that force will ever be used or required to accomplish this union. It will come — must come — in the nat- ural order of things. Political as well as material bodies obey the law of gravitation. Canada's destiny la to annex the Republic, as Scotland did England, and then, taking the hand of the rebellious big brother and that of the mother, place them in each other's grasp, thus reuniting the then happy family that should never have known separation. To accept this view, the people of the United Kingdom have only to recall the bloody wars upon this island for centuries arising from Scotland and England floating separate flags, and contrast the change today under one flag. The Canadians and Americans may be trusted to follow the example of the Motherland and have but one flag embracing one CONGRESSIONAL RECORD whole race in America. Present petty Jealousies melt away as the population north and south become in a greater degree born Amer- icans. Even if this blessed reunion came as early as the end of the next decade, say 16 years hence, Canada and the Republic — the Scotland and England of America — would embrace 115.000,000 of English- speaking people, probably 7,000,000 of these in Canada. By the end of the present decade, 6 years hence, their population will be close to 97.000,000—6,000,000 of these in Canada. The Republic added to her numbers the past 14 years more than the total population of Australasia, or than that of Canada, the immigration having been enormous. One of these years it almost reached a million. CECIL RHODES The peaceful union of Canada and America would lead Britain to a serious view of her position, resulting in the conclusion that Cecil Rhodes reached — it will be remembered that he was at first a strong British Imperialist. Mr. Stead recounts that Mr. Rhodes went to Lord Rothschild and laid that scheme before him, who replied — "This is all very well, If you can get America to join — if not, it amounts to nothing !" This led Mr. Rhodes to a study of the sub- ject, and the result was he saw clearly that Lord Rothschild was right. British federation would leave Britain as a member of the smaller part of her own race, and out of the main channel of progress: instead of sitting (with race imperialism accomplished) enthroned as the mother among hundreds of millions of her own children, composing all but a fraction of English-speaking men. Hence he abandoned the scheme and thereafter favored race federation, and left to America more scholarships than to all other lands. He saw that it was to the Republic, not to British settlements, his coun- try had to look for the coming reunion of his race, with Britain in her rightful place as parent of all. A few figures will leave no room for dispute about this. In the last decade, 1890-1900, Britain, Canada. Australasia, and New Zealand, combined, added to their population 4,500,000— America 13,500,000. Canada only added 508,- 000, the Commonwealth of Australasia only 660,000. In the 4 years since 1900 America added more than the total population of either Canada or Australasia. During the present decade, 1900-1910, at the same rate of Increase to date, she will add more than the pres- ent total white population of Canada, Australasia, New Zealand, and South Africa combined. So fast does the Republic grow, so slowly the Empire. INCREASE OF POPULATION The United Kingdom itself increased last decade more than three times as much as Canada and Australasia combined. It is not to her colonies, therefore, that Britain can look for much increase of popu- lation or of trade. The growth of Australasia, small as it was in the last decade, so far as reported in this decade is even less. Canada is growing faster only in the far northwest, which is separated by a thousand miles of barren land from the English-speaking Province of Ontario. Last decade Ontario Province (English) actually de- clined in British population; Quebec Province (French) slightly increased. The census of 1900 shows fewer British-born residents in all Canada than that of 1890. The wheatfields now reached by rail are being settled by Americans who cross the border, selling their American farms and buying new farms in Canada at one-tenth of the price realized for the old. Except for this influx, about 70,000 so far, the rate of increase in Canada will be about as last decade. When we come to the population of the United Kingdom, we find already in England and Wales 558 to the square mile. What thought- ful man could wish much further increase, even if it were possible? A denser population must cause deterioration. The density of popu- lation in England and Wales is not reached by any European coun- try, except the small state of Belgium. France has only 188, Ger- many 270 (or one-half), Italy 290, Japan has only 296. The authorities agree that England and Wales are fully populated. Ire- land proves that it is so by the small increase. Scotland has in- creased steadily for some decades, but little scope is left for further increase. Substantially, Ireland and Scotland have today all they can maintain in comfort. Mark the contrast. America has only 21 people per square mile, one-sixteenth that of the United Kingdom, one for every 26 in England and Wales. These figures include Alaska, which resembles most of Canada, and is not likely to support many people. Ex- cluding Alaska, the American population is 28 per square mile, one-twentieth that of England and Wales. It is evident that Green was right when he wrote years ago that the home of the English- speaking race was not to be on the Clyde and the Thames, but upon the Hudson, the Delaware, Ohio, Mississippi, and St. Lawrence. There is not room for it in the dear old home, but there is, for- tunately, in the new lands of her children in Canada and America. When we note the development Britain has attained industrially, we are amazed. It is wonderful almost beyond belief: we doubt and investigate to assure ourselves that we have the facts. This little kingdom has today more shipping, and about as many spin- dles turning as all the rest of the world. She is the richest of all nations per capita. She makes more iron and mines more coal per capita than any nation. Marvelous! Nothing comparable to her in history! She positively dwarfs all previous records — a dwarf more powerful than most giants. Who is there, then, who can expect her to do more, what she has accomplished being scarcely credible? PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE It is physically impossible that much further increase can come to Britain, and in addition to this, conditions otherwise are un- favorable to further development. Other nations by the use of her 263553—19504 inventions, are more and more supplying their own wants, and will continue to do so. They will also compete with her more and more, especially in iron and steel, and in cotton manufactures, owing to her lack of the cotton plantations and of needed iron stone. If Britain succeeds in maintaining present production in these fields great will be the credit due to her captains of industry. As with population, therefore, so with industrials — much increase is impossible. This is the age of consolidation, industrially and nationally. Consider the recent consolidation of Italy and the more recent consolidation and rapid growth of the German Empire. Who can imagine that the process has stopped? On the contrary, we are on the eve of further consolidations in Europe of great extent. The successes of the American Republic, 45 States consolidated into one Union, with free trade over all, and that of Germany with its Zallverein, are too significant to pass unheeded. The day of small nations is passing. Their incorporation with larger areas is to be hailed by lovers of progress, provided always that one point be carefully preserved. The national sentiment of the small powers should not only be guarded, but fostered in every way, so that, as in the American Union and in Britain, the Vir- ginian and the Scotsman remain as intensely Virginian or Scotch as ever. Pride in and loyalty to the wider empire do not supplant but supplement love of the part where he was born. He loves the part and is proud of the whole. What will Britain do? The day is coming when Britain will have to decide on one of three courses. First, shall she sink — compara- tively to the giant consolidations — into a third- or fourth-rate power, a Holland or Belgium comparatively? Here note that we do not postulate her actual decline, but the increased growth of other powers. Or, second, shall she consolidate with a European giant? Or, third, shall she grasp the outstretched hand of her children in America and become again as she was before, the mother member of the English-speaking race? Assuming that other powers are to increase their present popula- tion (as Germany and Russia have yet room to do), or by further consolidation, it being evident that there is not room in the 120,000 square miles of the little, crowded United Kingdom for further increase of moment, then the conclusion is inevitable that one of these three courses is the only possible alternative, for Britain has no adjoining territory she can annex. Some have been disposed to regard British federation as a pos- sible fourth alternative, but the figures given, which convinced Rothschild and Rhodes, we submit, compel its exclusion, especially to such as seek for my motherland, as I do, a destiny worthy of her — a future commensurate with her glorious and unparalleled past. Let us rejoice that this is open. Her Canadian and re- publican children across the Atlantic will hail the day she takes her rightful place in the high council of her reunited race — that race whose destiny, I believe with faith unshaken, is to dominate the world for the good of the world. (This article, in pamphlet form, was placed in the New York Public Library on February 27, 1906, by the Honorable Joseph H. Choate.) Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife — Part II REMARKS of HON. J. THORKELSON OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, August 19,1940 Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, we are now dominated and plagued by various pressure groups that care little or nothing about the United States as long as they can involve us in the present European war. Some of these groups are well known, others remain obscure, but nevertheless very powerful and effective in their insidious attempt to convince the people of this Nation that war is impending. These groups are composed of members who are generally classed as the "intelligentsia." I shall not question their intelligence, but if one is to judge them by what they have said and done, their intelligence is not being directed for the greater interest of the United States. Aiding these groups, I believe often in- nocently, are those whom we may take the liberty of calling their tools and servants. We have reached a stage where these anglophiles advance the thought that in order to Qualify as a good American, one must be pro-English and willing to fight and die for England. These England-first groups and hands-across-the-sea organization are made up of many Canadian and Anglo-American societies which CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are located in our larger cities. One of these, and the one to which I shall now refer, is the Pilgrims. THE PILGRIMS When the Pilgrims was organized in 1902, to aid in developing Anglophiles in the United States, the Canadians, being British subjects, were not solicited at first as members of this charitable and exclusive propaganda service to sell America to the British Empire. Like converts, many of these members are more loyal to England than the British themselves. In their fanatical zeal to serve Albion, I am informed by a student, that one of them placed the English crown on the flagstaff of the Columbia University. If this is true, the Columbia alumni should "crown" him who gave orders for the mounting of it, and replace the crown with the eagle, so this noble emblem can rest in its rightful place. The Pilgrim membership may be found in our military organization, in the Government, and particularly among professors, ministers, and authors. In wielding the pen, the aid of these writers is more valuable, for can they not write, as did Carnegie: Give America to England as a hemostat for the bleeding wound of the British Empire, which the surgeons left oozing after their operation in 1776: the operation which amputated the United States from the British Empire, and set America free. These Pilgrims, being unfamiliar with the surgery of 1776, evidently do not realize that Canada joined to the United States will prove an equally efficient hemostat to stop this hemorrhage in the British Empire. The American Pilgrims no doubt fear this most sensible measure, because it might antagonize the noble and wealthy in the English Government and the Bank of England so much that they will pack up and leave for home. Such exodus might also prove inconvenient to our idle, wealthy, and charming ladies and their parents, when in their crusade to obtain a new or slightly used husband to hang on their family tree, they find it necessary to embark for Palestine to satisfy their family ambition. It is this and more that the Americans must fight to counteract the propa- ganda which is now disseminated throughout the country and in our daily press, in order to save America for the Americans. Many of the members of these groups are ignorant of the real purpose of these organizations and their influence in our political life. Some of the members are so blinded by the glamour and the exclusiveness of these clubs that they do not realize that in supporting their activities they betray America. I now quote from the annual meetings of the Pilgrims, held in New York, 1913 and 1934: [The Pilgrims, New York. Addresses delivered at dinner in celebra- tion of the tenth anniversary of the Pilgrims of the United States, New York, Tuesday, the 4th of February, 1913, at the Waldorf- Astoria, 1913] (Hon. Joseph H. Choate, president of the Pilgrims and chairman of the evening, on rising and rapping for order, is roundly cheered and toasted by the members and guests assembled.) Mr. CHOATE. I am going to ask you, in the first place, to rise, as you did just now for a much less worthy object, when I propose the loyal toasts. I ask you to fill your glasses and rise and drink to the President of the United States and his Majesty, the King of England. (The toast was drunk with great enthusiasm, cheering and singing The Star-Spangled Banner and God Save the King.) Before the chairman could resume, a delegation of members, con- sisting of Messrs. F. Cunliffe-Owen, R. A. C. Smith, Herbert Noble, George W. Burleigh, Lawrence L. Gillespie, and George Gray Ward, presented Mr. Choate with a large and beautiful gold and silver salver, richly decorated and suitably inscribed, Mr. Cunliffe-Owen addressing him as follows: "Mr. Choate, your brother Pilgrims making you the offering here- with of the Pilgrim fare, bread and salt — bread signifying long life and prosperity and salt to ward off from you all evil spirits and every kind of harm — and we ask you. our honored president, in the name of all our brother Pilgrims of the United States, to accept this gold and silver salver as a memento of the occasion." Mr. CHOATE. I accept the salver with profound gratitude, and I will eat the fare on some more suitable occasion. It will doubt- less do for me all that you wish and foretell, but never having until this moment heard of this munificent and wholly undeserved gift, I can only now express to you my warm thanks and high appreciation of your kindness. I now read to you a message from the President of the United States: WHITE HOUSE, Washington, D. C, February 4, 1913. Please extend to the Pilgrims of the United States and their guests at their tenth anniversary my hearty greetings and my 263563—19504 best wishes for a delightful reunion. I am unable to be with you, but I cherish the earnest hope that your gathering may emphasize the cordial relations which we know exist between Briton and Canadian and American. WM. H. TAFT. A message from His Majesty the King: LONDON, February 4, 1913. I am commanded to convey to the Pilgrims of the United States, celebrating their tenth anniversary, the expression of His Majesty's gratitude for their kind and friendly sentiments con- tained in your telegram of this evening. PRIVATE SECRETARY. A message from Her Majesty, Queen Alexandra, one of the best friends we ever had on the other side of the water: "I am commanded by Queen Alexandra to ask you to convey to Ex-Ambassador Choate and the members of the Pilgrims of the United States, now celebrating their tenth anniversary under His Excellency's presidency, Her Majesty's sincere thanks for the kind sentiments expressed in the telegram which Her Majesty has just received, sentiments which I am to assure the Pilgrims are much valued by Her Majesty. "DIGHTONPROBYN." Now, gentlemen, it remains for me to say a few words, and a few words only. I think, if I continue in this office many years, I may make longer speeches, but I will begin with something very brief and very pertinent. I am a year younger than I was a year ago when you did me the honor to elect me your president, and if I go on, as I hope to do. and as I hope you will do, I shall be a very young man at last. We are here to celebrate ourselves and our friends on both sides of the water, and among them the best friends that I have ever known — and I knew well their sentiments some years ago, which 1 believe have continued and which I believe are not well repre- sented in the heart of his present Majesty — I will tell you, in the first place, that King Edward VII, and his Queen Alexandra were two of the most constant and devoted friends that the people of the United States ever had. They lost no occasion to manifest their good will to their kindred in America, and his present Majesty King George V was always most cordial, most friendly, and most determined, so far as I could Judge from the sentiments that he expressed — most determined, I say — that the cordial relations be- tween the two countries which have now been transmitted to him by his father should forever continue. We have no difficulty with the royal family. We have no difficulty and never have had that I know of with the people of England. The people of England and the people of the United States are always friendly to each other. Now and then the governments of the two countries come to dif- ferent conclusions for a brief time on some subject of mutual interest. It is 10 years since this organization was founded and they have been 10 years of success and constantly advancing prosperity, and, so far as I can understand, of constantly strengthened good will between the people of the two countries. And what I claim for the Pilgrims is that they have done their fair share on both sides of the water to promote this great interest in the world, the preser- vation of peace between the two countries that combine all the English-speaking people of mankind. It was not my good fortune to be present when this society was founded in America on the 4th day of February 1903, but I had had the good fortune to be present in London, 6 months before, when the Pilgrims of Great Britain held their first dinner, under the presidency of that grand old soldier and royal hero, Field Mar- shal Lord Roberts. He believes in making his nation a great fight- ing nation, but not to fight against the United States. He would consider it the most barbarous, the most unnatural, the most unthinkable contest that ever could be raised. Let me read to you a dispatch from Field Marshal Lord Roberts, which is much better than anything I can say: "Greatly touched by the Pilgrims' charming and hospitable in- vitation. There is none I would sooner accept, but unfortunately it is quite impossible for me to be with you on February 4. So sin- cerely wish it were otherwise. All prosperity to the American Pilgrims." And from Lord Charles Beresford, who was with us at the founda- tion of the Pilgrims In England: "All good luck to Pilgrims. Congratulations on brilliant success of efforts to bring together two great English-speaking nations." Now. gentleman, that is the object, and the sole object that I know of, that this flourishing society has — the sole reason for its existence; to promote good will, good fellowship, abiding friend- ship and everlasting peace between the United States and Great Britain. And, for one, I have no fear of failure. We are now entering upon the celebration of the one hundredth year of peace between the two nations. In 2 years more that cele- bration will be complete. It is going on all the time, from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month. You will hardly hear so much of anything else for a long time to come. Well, how has it been accomplished? How is it that we have been able to keep the peace, notwithstanding the alarming contro- versies that have arisen from time to time, controversies which between any other two great nations would probably have provoked and resulted in war? Why, it is because, in the long run, in the main, the people of the two countries are one. They are united in sentiments and in the general object they have in view and in their valuation of things that go to make civilization. We might have fought a dozen wars in the last hundred years, but we have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD kept the peace always. And how is it? How has it been done? Why, as I believe, it has been accomplished by the preservation on both sides of absolute good faith in their dealings and in ultimate fidelity to the promises that they have made to each other. I do not mean to say that they have not quarreled. They have quar- reled many times, and sometimes not a little sharply. They have threatened very much on both sides — much more than you will ever hear them do again; but every quarrel has ended in reconciliation, in peace established either by diplomacy or by arbitration — arbitration, the great boast and glory of America. We have a little difference Just now, but I do not look upon it as half as serious as the differences that have arisen in former times, 10. 20, 40, 50, 75, 100 years ago, and there is nothing in it that cannot be readily settled upon the principle of adherence on both sides to the doctrine, to the principle, of good faith and of honest dealing with one another. I had something to do with the negotiation of the treaty which has formed — I won't say a bone of contention, because I haven't heard anything like the gnawing of bones; not at all — but this little difference that has arisen It so happened that that negotiation was carried on in London for several weeks between Lord Pauncefote and myself and approved, as we went along by John Hay and by Lord Lansdowne. Well, if there ever were two men who deserved the gratitude of their respec- tive nations and each of the other's nation, it was those two men, Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote, for their perfectly plain, perfectly honest, perfectly straightforward, method of dealing with one another. Their principle, their rule of action, was to say what they meant and to mean what they said, and their effort was always to express in perfectly plain English what both had equally in his own mind; and when they said, as they did say in that treaty that the ships of all nations shall have free passage on equal terms through the canal without any discrimination whatever, they thought they were using plain English. And I must say, now that both of these great men and diplomatists have passed away — I must say, as the survivor of them both, that they lived and died without believing or sus- pecting that their words were capable of any other than the plain meaning that they bore upon their face. Well, but the wit of man passeth all understanding, and different meanings have been discovered for those very plain and simple words, and thus a difference has arisen as to the interpretation of a treaty. And how are you going to adjust and settle that difference? Well, I should say, as any gentlemen would settle differences that they could not adjust which had arisen between them — refer it to some other gentlemen; and my first proposition would be to refer it to the Pilgrims on both sides of the water. We would not have any difficulty. In the first place, we would take a secret vote, if you please, separately on both sides of the water. We would let our brother Pilgrims of Great Britain answer the question — try their hand at this little puzzle: it is only a puzzle — the question is how to put it together. Let them give their answer first and seal it up, not communicate it to us, and then let these 500 law-abiding, country-loving American Pilgrims answer the question for them- selves by another sealed and secret vote. Now, the people of this country are not going to allow any- body — any Congress, any Government, any President — to break their good faith which they have pledged to the mother country. How are we going to maintain the peace for the next 100 years? These English-speaking people are going to increase on this side of the water in the next hundred years from one hundred millions to four or five hundred millions, and England and her dominions across the seas will increase in like proportion. How are they going to keep the peace. There is only one way. It is by keeping their word, by keeping their good faith, by being always honest in their dealings with one another. So I am not afraid. This little puzzle will be adjusted. I hope that Mr. Bryce will stay here long enough to settle it with Mr. TAFT. We know both are great lovers of peace. If not settled by them, why other men — I won't say equally good; I won't say equally good, although I may think so — other men will arise in their places and settle it, and then we shall have 10 years of balmy and delightful peace, and then some other question will arise and the puzzle solvers on both sides of the At- lantic will put their heads together and it will be settled, and so again and again and again and again, and our great-grandchildren celebrating in 2013 the second centenary of the Pilgrims, will have cause to bless their fathers that they founded this society and kept the world on the right track. Now, gentlemen, I have read to you the various messages that we have received from our very eminent friends across the water and at Washington, and we did hope to have with us tonight His Excellency the British Ambassador, but I suspect that he has eaten as many dinners as he could stand — his secretary nods assent — and no man can stand the public dinner every night. I was never able to do it myself. And so we have the pleasure of welcoming here tonight as the representative of Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador, the counselor — I call him counselor — I do not know whether he exactly likes to be called counselor, for they might think he is a counselor-at-law, instead of, as he is in fact the first secretary of the British Embassy, and I call upon him to give us his message from Mr. Bryce. I have the pleasure of presenting to you Mr. Mitchell Innes, Counselor of the British Embassy at Washington. 263553—19504 Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read the speeches given by the American members of the Pilgrims, for they, like all converts, and more un-American and pro-English than the British themselves. The address of Joseph H. Choate is an example of Anglo- phile, pertinent at this time in view of the conditions that exist today. I shall now requote some of these statements in order to show how deceptive they can be. Mr. Choate states: We have no difficulty and never have had that I know of with the people of England. A statement that is perfectly true, because the people of England have little or nothing to say in the British Govern- ment. Our trouble has been with the British Government, which has never at any time been friendly toward the United States — but the gentleman did not make such statement. Furthermore, it is well to note the servile attitude of the speaker to the Crown of England, and his praise of the rulers, which again is perfectly all right, yet he has failed in his speech as others have in theirs, to say one good word for the Government of the United States. He then goes on to say: The people of England and the people of the United States are always friendly to each other; another statement which no one can criticize, but to which I want to add that the people of all countries — the common people — have always been and are now friendly to each other. If war depended upon them there would be no war. The trouble lies with the rulers of the different governments. It is they who advocate war; war of destruction, not only of property and human life but of Christian civilization itself. So in view of this, let us remember that no country has been at war so much as England and no country has brought about more misfortune and suffering than the British Govern- ment. This should be clear as we review the early history of our own colonies, of India, Ireland, and the 400,000,000 opium addicts in China, all of which may be charged to the greed of the British Government. Mr. Choate, in making his statements, spoke for the people of the United States, when in reality he should have hesitated even to speak for himself. His sole concern appeared to have been our friendliness toward Great Britain, but not their friendliness toward us; and again he placed the United States in the position of a suppliant to the British throne. Mr. Choate then referred to a dispute which arose in regard to the passage of ships through the Panama Canal, and inti- mated that it was the understanding of Hon. John Hay and Lord Landsdowne that the British should have equal rights with us in the use of this Canal; a right which the British have never conceded to the United States in the Suez Canal. We have even been driven out of foreign markets by England for many, many years, and in her wars she has brazenly fur- nished us with a blacklist of firms with which we are not supposed to trade; and we, like fools, comply with her demands. Continuing his discussion on this topic, Mr. Choate ex- pressed himself as being quite willing to leave the decision of the Panama Canal in the hands of the British and American pilgrims, which anyone can readily understand would be a one-sided decision; i. e., all for England and nothing for the United States. Mr. Choate then makes his most extraordinary statement, upon which every Member of Congress and the people of this Nation should ponder — particularly in view of the hap- penings since 1912: Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody — any Congress, any government, any President — to break the good faith which they have pledged to the mother country. In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book entitled, "Triumphant Democracy." I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which we destroyed constitutional government, international se- curity, and paved the road for us to become a colony of the British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under the control and domination of the Bank of England and the international banking groups that are now financing the British-Israel movement in the United States. It was also the year preceding the World War; a war in which we be- came involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what every- one does not know is that we were committed to this war in 1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan's own testimony before the Senate committee investigating the munitions industry. Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British- Israel movement. Let me now quote a message sent by George T. Wilson, chairman of the American Pilgrims, to his brother Pilgrims in London, when they celebrated our entry into the World War. This message states the real hopes and the purpose of the Pilgrims: Sir HARRY E. BRITTAIN, Chairman (London) : I should like to read two cables which have arrived within the last few minutes from New York. The first is from our good friends and fellow members, the Pilgrims of America, and it reads as follows: "At last the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes are nailed to the same staff not to come down until the Job is done. Our boys in khaki are anxious to rub shoulders with yours in France and share your struggle and your triumph in freedom's cause. The Pilgrims' dream of 15 years at length has come to pass. (Signed) George T. Wilson, Chairman." (Loud cheers.] I shall now quote a speech delivered by Nicholas Murray Butler, to a meeting of the Pilgrims to New York, in 1934: ANNUAL PILGRIM MEETING, 1934 President BUTLER. YOU have before you the report of your com- mittee on nominations proposing the names of seven gentlemen for election to the executive committee, their terms to expire in the year 1935. Are there other nominations? Mr. CHARLES H. WARREN. I move that the secretary cast one ballot for the names mentioned in the report of the nominating committee. The motion was seconded. President BUTLER. It has been regularly moved and seconded that the secretary be instructed to cast one ballot for the names men- tioned in the report of the nominating committee. This requires a unanimous vote. So many as are in favor will please say "aye"; contrary-minded, "nay," if any. The vote being unanimous, the secretary is so empowered. Secretary CHURCH. Mr. President, I report I have so cast a ballot. President BUTLER. The secretary reports that he has cast a ballot for the gentlemen named in the report of the nominating commit- tee. Therefore. Mr. Burleigh, Mr. Darrell, Mr. Demorest, Mr Lamont, Mr. Noble, Mr Satterlee, and Mr. Shields are elected to the executive committee, terms to expire in 1935. Fellow pilgrims, let me first recall to mind the fact that Sunday was the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of that distinguished and beloved American, linked with Great Britain, who served so long as our president, Joseph H. Choate. In the presence of that anniversary and in your presence, I salute his memory and bear trib- ute to the service which his years on earth rendered to the great cause which we have so much at heart. There have been happenings in the year 1931 so grave, so far reaching in their importance, and so massive in their historic inter- est that it is no slight task to make choice among them of those of which it is permissible to speak in your presence for a few moments this afternoon. Let me first, however, pay tribute to that splendid spirit of the British people which in time of storm and stress, of national embarrassment and portending danger, enabled them, in accordance with the best ideals of the race, to put aside and behind all partisan differences and all prejudices of party affiliation and to unite in that most impressive demonstration which they gave at the last general election. That spirit was voiced by Mr. Snowden on the floor of the House of Commons in the stirring words which he quoted from Swinburne's famous ode: "Come the world against her, England yet shall stand!" [Applause.] 263553—19504 It was not only a magnificent exhibition of political capacity and political power, but it might well be an example to other peoples on this earth, facing problems such as those which are before mankind today, to forget their superficial and often artificial differences and to unite all their power and all their patriotism to solve their great problems solely in the interests of the nation and of the world. Great Britain has shown that it can be done. I recall that a year ago it occurred to me to say something on this occasion of the movement going on to bring into existence a British commonwealth of nations, a new form of political organ- ization to take the place of the centuries-old organization of the British Empire. I invited your attention to the fact that that movement was going forward, more Anglicana, informally, quietly, illogically, under the pressure of opportunity in events and without any formal or public announcement. During the year, however, without the world paying much attention, and hardly noticed in these United States, that movement, which has been under way for the better part of a generation, came to its climax and has now been formally written into the public law of Great Britain. I hold in my hand the few printed pages which constitute the State of Westminster, 1931 (see appendix 2), beyond question the most important act in public law since the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This statute, covering but three or four printed pages, contains three specific provisions which are its essence and which I should like to emphasize. First, what is to be a dominion? The expression "dominion" is to mean the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland, six dominions in all. What is to be the relation of local self-government in each of those dominions to the British Parliament? The Statute of West- minster reads: "No law and no provision of any law made after the commence- ment of this act by the parliament of a dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of Eng- land, or to the provisions of any existing or future act of Parlia- ment of the United Kingdom or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such act, and the powers of the parliament of the dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such act, order, rule, or regulation insofar as the same is part of the law of the dominion." In other words, absolute legislative self-control is devolved by the Parliament of Great Britain, where that control has rested . for 800 years, upon the parliaments respectively of the six Domin- ions. What certainty and security have these dominions that their local self-government shall be permanent and complete? The Statute of Westminster reads: "No act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is expressly declared in that act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof." Those three brief paragraphs, I repeat, are the most important contribution to the public law of the world made since the rati- fication of the Constitution of the United States. They intro- duce into the government of mankind a new form of federal rela- tionship, not a federal relationship such as exists between our own States and the Federal Government, but a federal relation- ship which consists in loyalty and devotion to a person who is the symbol of unity; but the legislation power is as multiform as the Dominions. The British people consciously, after 25 years of dis- cussion and experimentation, have formulated this great statute, enacted it into law without dissent, and have started this new ship of state out on the sea of human political experience. I sub- mit, my fellow pilgrims, that that is so stupendous a happening and so amazing an achievement that we would do well to pause for a moment to remark upon it. Let me say two things about it in addition, and you will pardon a word of personal reminiscence. In June and July 1921 the Imperial Conference was sitting in London, and the sort of question which underlay this movement was uppermost in the minds of the conferees. There were other delegates to the conference, but the Prime Ministers of the sev- eral Dominions as now defined and the Prime Minister in the Government of Great Britain itself were, of course, the leading personalities. Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister. He did me the honor to ask me to come to Chequers for the week end to meet these gentlemen and to hear them discuss the problem of the possibility of a British Commonwealth of Nations. They spent the whole of Saturday, and Saturday evening, and all of Sunday until luncheon under the trees and in the library at Chequers discussing informally and familiarly and with pro- found knowledge and that grasp which only comes from ex- perience, the problems that were before them. There was the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Meighen. There was General Smuts from the Union of South Africa. There was the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Hughes. There was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Mr. Massey, and there were two representatives from the Government of India, the Maharajah of Cutch and Mr. Srinivasa Sastri of Madras. It was my privilege and good fortune to be questioned by these gentlemen as to the working of our own Federal system. In CONGRESSIONAL RECORD particular, they wished illustrations of what happened when there was conflict of authority and of jurisdiction. They pointed out that we had in our great cities officers of the Federal Government. How did they operate without inducing conflict of authority and feeling with the State and municipal officials? How were these almost invisible lines of administrative power kept from overlap- ping and from friction? What was the function of the courts? What the limit, if any, of their authority? I assure you it was no small pleasure and pride to be able to answer questions to that dis- tinguished and influential group as to how a different form of the federal principle bad been operating for more than a century and a half in the United States. Finally, when the luncheon hour came on Sunday, and these informal discussions were brought to an end, Mr. Lloyd Green turned the conversation into lighter vein and called attention to the fact that it was fortunate indeed that their minds were meeting, that the words British Commonwealth of Nations were beginning to be used by them, and that the day was Sunday. A benediction, as it were, upon their efforts ! "Yes," I said, "Mr. Prime Minister, but if you will pardon an American, there is something more important than that. To- morrow will be the Fourth of July." [Laughter.] By pure accident they had brought their discussion of the re- organization of the British Empire and its Dominions to a con- clusion at the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (laughter), surely an interesting coincidence. One thing more. We do not realize, my fellow Pilgrims, the foresight of our own fathers, how far those nation-builders saw into the future, and what an amazing grasp they had upon the fundamentals of political life and social organization. I sometimes think we are in the habit of taking them too much for granted. There is on exhibition in this city today one of the two existing signed copies (the other being in the Record Office in London) of a document which in American history stands in importance and significance side by side with the Declaration of Independence it- self, and probably not one American in a million has ever heard of its existence. That Is the paper which John Adams called the Olive Branch Petition. (See Appendix.) That petition was pre- sented to King George III in July 1775, over the signatures of 46 Members of the Continental Congress, praying for pre- cisely the relationship which the statute of Westminster has written into public law, the public law of England, for the Do- minions. And who signed it? The first name is the name which stands at the head of the signers of the Declaration of Inde- pendence a year later, John Hancock. Among the 46 names are those of Samuel Adams, John Adams, Roger Sherman, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson. Washington did not sign because he was in command of the troops in Massachusetts, and the Congress was meeting in Philadelphia. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill had been fought. And this very proposal, which 160 years afterward has been worked out in the life of the British peoples, were presented to them by the signers of the Declaration of In- dependence a year before they signed that Declaration as the alternative step. It is one of the most extraordinary things in the history of government, and we pay little or no attention to it. What happened? The Olive Branch Petition was sent to England by the hands of William Penn's grandson. He was to take it to the Government. For weeks he could not be received. Finally he was received, not by his Majesty, but by the Colonial Office, and was then told that inasmuch as the petition had not been received on the throne, no answer would be given. As John Adams had said, "We have the olive branch in one hand and the sword in the other." When the olive branch was rejected, recourse was had to the sword, and these very same men in 12 months signed the Declara- tion of Independence and history took its course. It is one of the most astounding things in the history of government that these men off in this distant series of colonies, economically in their infancy, financially helpless and dependent, had the vision of organization which has come now to all the British peoples, and for which surely every Pilgrim wishes the very greatest possible measure of success. [Applause.] So it is, gentlemen, in the history of our race. Ideas, how slowly they travel, arguments, how slowly they are apprehended; action, how slowly it follows upon conviction ! To be sure, as we look back we can see that these 46 members of the Continental Congress were in advance of the opinion of the world. British opinion could not at that time have accepted that course of action. They could not think in terms of a parliament whose legislative authority ended at the island shores. Therefore, revo- lution, Independence, separate nationhood, were of the essence of the great undertaking, and so they happened. But in the inter- vening years a lesson has been learned by all, by the Motherland and its captains of the mind, by the Dominions and those who speak their voice, and now with great fortune and wisdom they have in the Statute of Westminster written into the public law the principles of the Olive Branch Petition of 1775. [Applause.] Let me only add that this great principle of federation of one kind or another is the principle which is to mark the life of nations in the days that are to come. Those that are of like race and faith, that have similar economic habits and interests, that have a common language, they will tend more and more to group themselves into units as our United States of America have done. The British Commonwealth of Nations will, perhaps, be the only one of its type because Great Britain is the only far-flung empire 263553—19504 which has gone out for 500 years and put its hand on the distant places of the earth for their enrichment, their better- ment, and their increasing civilization. Other proud and powerful and ambitious nations will find ways and means, without losing their independence, their self-control, or limiting their pride, to bring themselves into new economic units for cooperation, en- richment, and the benefit and satisfaction of all their peoples. This principle of International cooperation, in one form or an- other, whether it be our form, whether it be the British form, or whether it be the forms which are slowly coming on the conti- nent of Europe, that is the principle which we may look forward to as guiding and shaping the life of the world for the next century- or more. But as we Pilgrims look particularly at our own field of historic interest and affection, surely we may in the dark year of 1S31 take profound pride and satisfaction in remark- ing the significance, the far-reaching importance, of this Statute of Westminster and the prophecy of it by our own nation- builders in July 1775. The audience arose and applauded. Mr. Speaker, I have included Mr. Butler's address, in order to show how far we have drifted toward this British union. In this speech, you will note he brings out the fact that the olive branch petition has now been adopted by England and extended to her colonies. He further inti- mates that in view of this adoption, it is now in order for us to Join the British Empire. He makes the further state- ment that this movement has gone Anglican, or more English, which is quite true, for we are just about on the verge of capitulating to the forces which are driving us into the British Empire. To show this, let me quote: That petition was presented to King George III in July 1775, over the signatures of 46 members of the Continental Congress, praying for precisely the relationship which the Statute of Westminster has written into public law, the public law of England, for the Dominions. ■ • • I recall that a year ago it occurred to me to say something on this occasion of the movement going on to bring into existence a British Commonwealth of Nations, a new form of political organization to take the place of the centuries-old organization of the British Empire. I invited your attention to the fact that that movement was going forward, more Anglican, informally, quietly, illogically, under the pressure of opportunity in events and without any formal or public announcement. During the year, however, without the world paying much attention, and hardly noticed in these United States, that movement, which has been Under way for the better part of a generation, came to its climax and has now been formally written into the public law of Great Britain. Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife — Part III REMARKS of HON. J. THORKELSON OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, August 20, 1940 PAMPHLET BY JOHN J. WHITEFORD Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the RECORD, I include a pamphlet by John J. Whiteford. This pamphlet should be of interest to every Member of Congress because it deals with a subject that will soon confront us, as it did in 1917: SIR UNCLE SAM, KNIGHT or THE BRITISH EMPIRE (By John J. Whiteford) In these days of national and International confusion and con- flict there is one issue on which the American people are substantially in agreement — We do not want war. This great desire to keep out of war is perfectly logical. We know the cost of war from bitter experience. We are no more responsible for the outbreak of the present hostilities than we were in 1914. We are not an aggressor nation and we have no designs on foreign territory. We have nothing to gain and much to lose if we again take part in foreign wars. We have enough vital problems at home that require all of our attention and efforts. When and if the time should ever arrive, we shall be fully able and willing to defend our shores against foreign invasion. There are, indeed, a thousand-and-one good reasons why we should stay out of foreign wars. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 7 With all the self-evident advantages of peace for America as against the horrors of war in Europe and Asia, and with an over- whelming majority of our people against war, there still remains the ominous fact that there is a definite danger of this country drifting toward war. Even as in 1914, we are again being deluged and directed by foreign propaganda, only to a much larger extent. Again we have no clear understanding of the real issues involved. In our confusion we are again taking sides, mentally so far, but that is a ripe condition for expert foreign propagandists to lead us toward active participation in the present conflicts. I would like to say to every American, "There is only one side we can take, and that is the American side." With this in mind, let us try to find out what are the real facts behind these foreign- made conflicts, what are the basic issues at stake, and what are the forces that are so desperately working to again involve the United States in a world war. Only by facing facts and by clearing our minds from the fog of selfish foreign propaganda can we arrive at the right answer to the question, "What is best for America?" For all our so-called civilization, the impelling force behind the present struggles in Europe and in Asia is still the law of the jungle — the survival of the fittest. Whether we like to admit it or not, that same force guided the early settlers of New England and Virginia when they had to fight for their very existence in a strange and hostile land where they were not invited. In the conquest of this new continent our forefathers proved themselves the strong- est — the fittest — and the original owners, the Indians, lost. Only by the process of applying their superior fitness could our ancestors have built themselves a new home, gained their Independence, and created a rich and powerful nation. We, as their descendants, stand ready to defend our country with all our might if ever the time should come when we are called upon to show our fitness to "have and to hold" what we have gained. The struggle of the building of America is only one example of the struggle of mankind since the beginning. The greatest exam- ple of all time is the building of the greatest empire in history — the British Empire — covering roughly one-fourth of the world's land surface and inhabited by a quarter of the world's population. When we speak of the British Empire we must bear in mind a much larger picture than Just 13,300,000 square miles of land and 600,000,000 people. It is a huge international institution of world production, consumption, and distribution, with all the related activities of commerce, finance, shipping, industry, and so forth. This vast undertaking is not limited to the geographical borders of the Empire. Its influence extends to every part of the globe, from Hong Kong to Durbin, from Gibraltar to Cairo, from Singapore to Aden, from Melbourne to Montreal, from Bombay to Bermuda, from London everywhere. The very vastness of the British Empire and its operations con- stitutes a constant danger to itself and to the peace of the world. Whenever any other nation feels the urge to expand, for whatever reasons and in whatever direction, it automatically comes in con- flict with the broad interests of the British Empire. In the Orient the Sino-Japanese conflict is not only a local matter between China and Japan. It is in reality a threat to British interests in China; to British "concessions" in China; to the huge British investments in China; to British control of Chinese railways and revenues; to British trade and shipping and even to the British port of Hong Kong in China It is a blow to British prestige and power in the Orient, with repercussions throughout the world. It is actually a challenge to the British Empire. It brought from Britain a cry of outraged Justice while at the same time she tried to deposit the Sino-Japanese problem into the lap of the United States When Italy marched into Ethiopia, Britain again became highly indignant. This was not because of a profound love for the Ethio- pians nor because Ethiopia might bring Italy great wealth. If Ethiopia had really been very valuable, that country could have been, and probably would have been, annexed to the British Empire long ago. The real reason for Britain's agitation was the fact that Italy dared challenge British power in the Mediterranean and endanger British control of the vital Suez Canal regions. The Treaty of Versailles was in reality an instrument for the permanent elimination of Germany as a world competitor of Great Britain. For years after its signing the Germany people chafed under this yoke, to the point where, defeated and discouraged, Ger- many became dangerously close to becoming a communist soviet republic. Gradually German leadership took hold and pulled the people out of their spirit of defeatism and, as the pendulum swings, so has Germany again become a menace to Great Britain. The great bear of Russia is also a definite threat to the British Empire, with its communistic paws uncomfortably close to the Balkan and Suez Canal countries, to India and Burma, and already resting heavily upon a large section of China. Today, denuded of all propaganda, there is only one fundamental issue behind all the conflict in Europe and Asia — the survival of the British Empire. That was also the real issue of the World War. It is the old challenge of Napoleon. The most important international question before the people of this country and of the world is whether Great Britain can continue indefinitely to defend herself and her empire against all comers, singly or in combination, and prove her fitness to ' have and to hold" her dominant world position. Therein also lies the key to the problem whether America may or may not again be drawn into a world war. 263553-19504 It seems to me that the answer to the above question is defi- nite and indisputable — Britain cannot win a major war in Europe and Asia without the active assistance of the most powerful of all nations, the United States. In their own interest the people of this country will have to make up their minds, soon and soberly and without being influenced by undue sentiment, whether America shall continue to gamble with her youth and her treasure to help defend the British Empire in every new crisis, or whether there are saner and better ways of insuring the peace of the world. Today the greatest single menace to the peace of the United States is the same as in 1914. It can be summed up in one word — propaganda. Even as today, this country was neutral at the beginning of the World War and managed to stay out of It from 1914 until 1917. But during that time the foreign propaganda machines were working overtime to get us involved in a war that was decidedly not of our making. Finally, on April 6, 1917, Amer- ica declared war on Germany and so became an active ally of Britain. In addition to the United States, the other allies were Belgium, Brazil, China, Cuba, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama, Portugal, Ru- mania, Russia, Serbia, and Slam. It is true that some of the Allies, like the United States, were active only during part of the war period while others were little more than benevolent bystanders. But against this powerful combination the group or Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria held out for more than 4 years, from August 1914 until November 1918. and the German group might have won the war but for the entrance of America into the conflict. In the present crisis the only active allies of Britain are, so far, the British Empire units and France. If the conflict should spread into another world war Britain cannot again count on her former combination of allies; in fact, it is more than likely that some of these countries will be lined up against her. Therefore, the most powerful ally of all, the United States, must be kept in line by Britain against eventualities. That can only be accom- plished through propaganda. And the British are past masters in the art of making gullible Americans swallow the bait of persuasive propaganda. Few Americans realize the magnitude of British influence in this country. When I write frankly on this subject I fully understand that I lay myself open to the accusation of favoring Britain's enemies. That is not at all the case. I am only following the single track of being pro-American, and I would be grateful to any critics if they would Join me on that straight road. I clearly see the menace of all subversive movements, as well as the great necessity of combating all these un-American activities. The point is that, in our Justified agitation over communism, nazi-ism, and fascism, we are overlooking another subversive movement that has actually proven to be more destructive to our peace and welfare. In the past it has been largely responsible for drawing this country into the World War at a cost of thousands of our young men and billions of dollars and a long period of depression. It does not work openly and it is not generally recognized by the public. It does not yell from soap boxes in Union Square, call strikes, picket, or hold parades. It operates from the top down and so it reaches into every stratum of American life. It is the far-reaching power of British propaganda to make this country subservient to the inter- ests of Great Britain and the British Empire. The scene is a banquet held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, October 25, 1939. This banquet was given by the Pilgrim Society of America in honor of the Marquess of Lothian, British Ambassador to the United States. It is an old custom of the American Pilgrims to extend this honor to every newly appointed British Ambassador, the same as the British Pilgrims invite every new American Am- bassador to their midst at a banquet in London. There are several curious things about these Pilgrim functions. In the first place there is present at these dinners an array of nota- bles such as it would be difficult to bring together under one roof for any other purpose and by any other society. The Lothian din- ner was no exception. Presiding over this affair was Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, and chairman of the American Pilgrim Society. Among the guests were John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont and other mem- bers of the House of Morgan, Frank L. Polk, Jeremiah Milbank, James W. Gerard (former American ambassador to Germany), the French Ambassador to the United States, Lt. Gen. Hugh A. Drum, U. S. A., Maj. Gen. John G. Harbord (chairman of the Radio Cor- poration of America), the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Mor- genthau, and many other leading figures in government, diplo- macy, politics, finance, banking, shipping, law, industry, Insurance, and education. These men had come especially to honor Lord Lothian and to hear him speak. Before this important audience Lord Lothian's speech could not merely be a light after-dinner talk of clever stories and witticisms. It was an important speech and as such it was carried by the New York Times as front-page news. As a highly experienced publicist, Lord Lothian opened his remarks with the naive statement that his country has no propaganda in America; that he would merely explain his country's position. The "explanation of his country's position" developed into the same old theme of most British statesmen, writers, lecturers, publicists, and other trumpeters for Anglo-American unity. It can be summed up in one stereotyped formula: "For your own good and for the good of the world, these two great democracies, the British Empire and the United States, must stick together." What this plea to America 8 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD really amounts to is this: "We have the largest empire in the world. Never mind how we got it. The trouble is that we may not be able to hang on to it much longer. America is rich and powerful and wants no more additional territory. You should help us out when- ever we get into trouble so that we can continue to enjoy what we have." Lord Lothian practically confirmed that message when he wrote in Foreign Affairs, 1936: 'The situation of the last century cannot be re-created by Great Britain alone. She is not strong enough. But the United States, the South American republics, and the nations of the modern Brit- ish Commonwealth could together re-create it. * * * They also are both democratic and territorially satisfied * * *." And the morning after the Pilgrim dinner a front-page headline in the New York Times read: "Lothian asks unity in democratic aims." There is something magnetic about the word "democratic." It is very dear to Americans and it means much to them. Once they even went to war . • • "to make the world safe for democ- racy." They may again be fooled by an appeal to democracy. Knowing this, it has become a valuable vehicle for foreign propa- gandists, and its real meaning is lost sight of in the confusion. The Communist Party of America, for instance, has officially adopted democracy in its constitution, in its literature, in speeches, and generally as an appealing propaganda attraction in selling their un-American Ideology to the American people. * * * All dem- ocratic workers must stick together. It is a favorate theme with the radical labor wing. And now we witness the weird spectacle of titled British visitors, from ambassadors to platform lecturers, using the same tactics in selling their story. * * * We great democracies must stand together. What kind of democracy are we asked to adopt and to defend? The un-American brand of Marx, of Engels, of Lenin, of Stalin, of the Communist International. * * * Or the democracy of imperialistic Britain, of India, of Ceylon, of Burma, or Hong Kong, of Africa? * * * j^e democracy of the soap-box orators of Union Square, or the democracy of the Pilgrim banquets at the best hotels of London and New York? Or shall we stand by our own conception of democracy, safe under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which still give us far more genuine personal liberty and opportunity than any other people in I any other country of the world? If so, let us not forget that today, more than ever, the price of our liberty is eternal vigilance. We must keep the bright spotlight of public opinion on all un- der-cover and un-American activities so that we may learn the truth and act accordingly. And we are entitled to know what the Pilgrim Society is, what it stands for, and who these powerful Pilgrims are that can call out the great to hear a British Ambassador expound to Americans the virtues of a united democratic front. The Pilgrim Society originated in London, July 11, 1902, as an Anglo-American club of important Englishmen and Americans. An American branch was formed January 13, 1903. at the old Waldorf- Astoria Hotel, New York. Both societies are commonly known as The Pilgrims. An extract of the Pilgrim constitution reads: "The object of the society shall be the promotion of the sentiment of brotherhood among the nations, and especially the cultivation of good fellowship between citizens of the United States and its dependencies and subjects of the British Empire. "The members shall be citizens of the United States or its de- pendencies or subjects of the British Empire, and others prominent for their sympathy with the objects of the society, who shall be elected by the executive committee, and membership in the London Pilgrims shall ipso facto constitute membership in the New York society and vice versa, without additional dues. The membership shall be limited to 900. The number may be altered by the executive committee." Nothing is more needed in the world than a "sentiment of brotherhood among the nations." Nowhere is the promotion of that sentiment more urgently and desperately needed than in Europe and in Asia. This was so even in 1902. But the group of eminent men who formed the Pilgrim Society in London did not step across the English Channel to hold out the hand of brotherhood to the weary nations of nearby Europe. Instead they preferred to reach out across the Atlantic for the special purpose of cultivating "good fellowship" between leading British and Amer- ican citizens. This beautiful sentiment rose to a climax in 1917, when thousands of American good fellows crossed the Atlantic to fight other people's battles, and when the United States Treasury opened wide its purse to the Allies and lent them whatever they wanted. Then, indeed, Uncle Sam became the good knight of the British Empire. But when the battle was over — over there — and when the same Uncle Sam timidly suggested repayment of some of the billions of dollars of war debts, he was immediately dubbed "Uncle Shylock" by these same Allies. "Good fellowship" is difficult to define, like friendship, but whatever the definition is it should work both ways. Who are these good fellows that are so deeply interested in British-American friendship and in "united democracy"? They are none other than the 900 of British-American aristocracy. They represent, as a body, the most powerful combination of men of wealth and influence on both sides of the Atlantic. They, the Pilgrims' membership in America and Great Britain, have included and still include men in the highest position in government, in 263553—19504 diplomacy, in finance, in banking, in education, in the church, in literature, in publishing, incommerce,in industry, in shipping, and in practically all other important fields of national and inter- national activities. The president of the British Pilgrims is His Royal Highness, the Duke of Connaught, great uncle of the present King. As vice presi- dents are listed: The Most Reverend His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: the Right Honorable Viscount Hallsham, P. C; the Lord Desbrough, K. G., G. C. V. O.; Sir Harry B. Brlttain, K. C, L. L. B., O. O. C. The membership of the British Pilgrims reads like an Index to British leadership. The president of the Americans Pilgrims is Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University. Dr. Butler has worked long and faithfully with the British. A United Press dispatch from London, December 6, 1939, stated: "In the 1940 edition of the British Who's Who, appearing today, the longest biography is that of Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, who occupies more than a column and a half of small print — the equivalent of the combined biographies of Mussolini, Hitler, Prime Minister Chamberlain, and President Roosevelt." Vice presidents of the New York Pilgrims are: Herbert L. Satterlee (brother-in-law of J. P. Morgan), James W. Gerard.. G. C. B. (former American Ambassador to Germany), the Right Reverend James DeWolf Perry, Ellhu Root (deceased). The executive committee of the New York Pilgrims consists of: Thomas W. Lamont, Franklin Q. Brown. George W. Burleigh, John H. Finley. Frederic R. Coudert. Edward F. Darrell, James G. Harbord, K. C. M. G., D. S. M., Theodore Hetzler, the Right Reverend William T. Manning, Gates W. McGarrah, Bryce Metcalf, Frank L. Polk. William Shields, Myron C. Taylor, Harry Edwin Ward, Charles S. Whitman, Owen D. Young. As honorary members of the New York Pilgrims are listed: H. R. H. the Prince of Wales, K. G.. H. R. H., the Duke of York, K. G., the British Ambassador to the United States, His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State of the United States, the British Consul General in New York City. A few prominent Pilgrim members, past and present, are listed below: J. P. Morgan, Russel Leffingwell, Henry P. Davison, John W. Davis, John D. Rockefeller. Percy Rockefeller, Ogden Mills Reid, Henry Morgenthau. Otto Kahn, Robert Fulton Cutting, James B. Clews, John B. Trevor. William Fellowes Morgan, Henry W. Taft, Adolph Ochs, James Speyer, Charles H. Sabin, Sir Ashley Sparks, George F. Trowbridge. Philip Rhinelander, Andrew W. Mellon. Albert H. Wiggin. J. W. Hill, John F. O'Ryan, Frank L. Polk, George R. Goethals, Julius Ochs Adler, Alfred L. Aiken, Herbert L. Aldrich, John Whitney, W. B. Whitney. Cornelius Vanderbilt. Vincent Astor, Julius S. Bache, Robert Low Bacon, Ancell H. Ball. David H. Biddle, Robert W. Bigelow, Irving T. Bush, Newcomb Carlton, Joseph H. Choate, William M. Chadbourne, Walter P. Chrysler, Thomas W. Lamont. George F. Baker, John Bassett Moore, Dwight W. Morrow, George W. Wickersham, John George Milburn, Mortimer L. Schiff, Paul M. Warburg. Paul Outerbridge, Ivy Lee, Chauncey Depew, Charles M. Schwab, Frederic R. Coudert, Marshall Field, Paul D. Cravath, Edward S. Harkness, Oliver Harriman, Edward L. Dodge, Frederick H. Ecker, Harry Harkness Flagler, George L. Genung, Walter S. Gifford, Cass Gilbert, Edwin H. Gould, Duncan William Fraser, Robert Erskine Ely, Harry Alanzo Cushing, Frederick W. Budd, Henry Holt, J. G. White, Henry Johnson Fisher, Edward Herrick Childs, and William Phelps Ely. The present membership in the American Pilgrims, and those who have passed away, represent the leadership of America in many im- portant fields. We find among these a candidate for President of the United States, a Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Attorney General, Ambassadors, Solicitor General, Senators, and Congressmen; presidents of the largest banks and financial institutions; presidents and directors of the United States Steel Corporation, and many other large industrial corporations; of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co.; of the Radio Corporation of America; of Insurance and shipping companies. Here are also to be found the members of the leading law firms serving these banks and Industries, as well as the interpreters of International law; edi- tors, publishers, and owners of America's leading newspapers; ex- perts in publicity; social and financial leaders and generally the group of men whose influence is capable of exerting great pressure on government and public opinion. At the outbreak of the present hostilities in Europe, President Roosevelt expressed himself strongly on the necessity for maintain- ing our neutrality and he promised to do all within his power to keep this country out of war. That is also the great hope and desire of the American people. The Pilgrims and Dr. Butler disagree with this. At a dinner in New York, at the Biltmore Hotel, February 9, 1928, in celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Pilgrims, Dr. Butler said in a speech: "Among other things the Great War has proved conclusively that in a contest of those colossal proportions there were no neutrals * * * if the world should ever again become engulfed in an- other titanic struggle there would be and there could be no neutrals." At this particular dinner, during which Dr. Butler expressed these sentiments so contrary to the real hopes and wishes of the Ameri- can people, three telegrams were received and read to the celebrat- ing American Pilgrims. One came from the King of England, one from the uncle of the King, and one from the Prince of Wales, the future King, now the Duke of Windsor. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The message from King George V was read by Sir Austin Cham- berlain: "The King has pleasure in congratulating the Pilgrims of the United States on the occasion of their twenty-fifth anniversary, and His Majesty takes this opportunity of conveying to them his good wishes for the future." The future, according to the Pilgrims, does not include neutrality. The message from the King's uncle, the Duke of Connaught, read: "* * * The cause of promoting cordial friendship between our two great countries is one on which the future happiness of the world in a great measure depends. Ever since I have been presi- dent of the British Pilgrims I have realized to the full the success of the work carried on by the two societies with this common object in view." Here again we have the same old story, whether it comes from an uncle of the King, from a British Ambassador, or from a plat- form lecturer * * * friendship * * * two great coun- tries * * * common object. Here democracy was not men- tioned, nor the promotion of brotherhood among the nations. The message from the Prince of Wales read: "As a Pilgrim of nearly 9 years' standing, I am very glad to send my brother Pilgrims in New York my warmest congratulations on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the club's inception in the United States. There have been many changes in the world during the past quarter of a century but ties which unite the Pilgrims on each side of the Atlantic remain firm as ever * * *." (Signed) EDWARD. The British royal family certainly showed an extraordinary inter- est in a group of American citizens dining in New York. Since that time tremendous changes have occurred to Edward personally, as well as to the world, but he was right in his prediction that the Pilgrim ties "remain firm as ever." Since we are dining so exaltedly, let us go to London and look at a dinner at the Savoy Hotel, April 12, 1917, of the Pilgrims of London "on the occasion of the entry of the United States Into the Great War of Freedom." The guest of honor was His Ex- cellency, the American Ambassador, Walter Hines Page. The speeches at that dinner gave a clear expression of the "ties that bind" the American Pilgrims to London and confirmed Dr. Butler's conviction that "there were no neutrals" in the World War. Sir Harry E. Brittain, chairman: "I should like to read two cables which have arrived within the last few minutes from New York. The first is from our good friends and fellow members, the Pilgrims of America, and it reads as follows: "At last the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes are nailed to the same staff not to come down until the job is done. Our boys in khaki are anxious to rub shoulders with yours in France and share your struggle and your triumph in Freedom's cause. The Pilgrims' dream of 15 years at length has come to pass. (Signed) George T. Wilson, chairman." [Loud cheers.] "The other message is from one who has been frequently and deservedly called the 'Allies' best friend in America,' that very excellent Pilgrim, James M. Beck. His cable reads: "Joyous felicitations to the British Pilgrims now assembled to celebrate unity in blood brotherhood of English-speaking races. The day which Prussia did not want has come, when the flags of Great Britain, France, and the United States float together in defense of civilization. All hail the greater Entente which opens a new and more resplendent chapter in the history of our common race. To all who welcomed me so kindly last summer a cordial greeting at this great hour. (Signed) James M. Beck." (Loud and prolonged cheers] (James M. Beck, prominent attorney, born in Philadelphia; United States attorney for eastern district Pennsylvania; Assistant Attorney General of the United States, 1900-1903; Solicitor General of the United States, 1921-25; Member of Congress, 1937.) Good fellows, these American Pilgrims, or shall we say British colonials? The Pilgrims' dream of 15 years turned into a nightmare for our boys in khaki, but the unity in blood brotherhood is still the goal of this one-way friendship between British and American aristocracy. Viscount Bryce, former British Ambassador to the United States, spoke as chairman of the London Pilgrims. May we never have such a speech again. He said, in part: "When the United States of America, renouncing the isolation which it had cherished since the days of Washington, obeyed the supreme call of duty and set herself in arms beside the free nations of the world in order to save the future of humanity, she took a step of full solemn significance for all the ages to come. "And now, gentlemen, what is America going to do in this war? She is already doing what those who know her best expected from her. She waited long enough to be quite satisfied that honor and duty called her to arms. After long forbearance, when she was satisfied that the German Government was resolved to persevere with its barbarous and insulting policy, and that the whole feeling of the Nation had been aroused and concentrated as to be virtually unanimous, then America stepped to the front; then she bared her strong arm; then she began to throw all her resources, all her energy, all her inventive versatility, into the development of every possible means for the vigorous prosecution of the war. "Gentlemen, America is in the war now for all she is worth [hear, hear] and how much that means those best know who 263553—19504 2 know America best. [Cheers.] She will persevere to the end, for she knows what a successful end means to the future welfare of the world." No one knew better than Lord Bryce how much America was worth as an ally of Great Britain. With enormous British hypocrisy he made it appear that America bared her strong arm to save the future of humanity and the welfare of the world, when in reality America came to the assistance of only one-quarter of the world., the British Empire. Lord Robert Cecil was less diplomatic. Considering that the Pil- grim meetings in London have almost the status of official functions, owing to the important attendance. Lord Cecil overstepped the limits of diplomatic decency when he said at this dinner in honor of the American Ambassador: "May I add one word about the staff of the American Embassy? [Hear, hear.] Many of us have had personal relations of a very friendly kind with several members of that staff, and they have always preserved the most accurate and correct neutrality in talking with us [laughter] but, somehow or another, after a conversation with an you them, we went away feeling as one does, after having received a hearty grasp of the hand from a friend and an earnest and heartfelt wish of Godspeed to our cause. [Cheers.] "Well, gentlemen, neutrality is no longer necessary [hear, hear], and we all say thank God for that." [Hear, hear.] Dr. Butler was right; there was no neutrality, not even in the American Embassy, before this country went into war. It was a Joke to Lord Cecil and the Pilgrims. The guest of honor, Walter Hines Page, spoke before this Lon- don group of British-American notables in his capacity as United States Ambassador to Great Britain, representing the American Government and the American people. He said, In part: "As for the particular aspects of this great subject with which this club has from its beginning had to do — the closer sympathy of the two branches of the great English-speaking peoples — next to the removal of the great menace to free government, which is the prime purpose of the war, this closer sympathy will be to us the most important result of the victory. It will be important not only to us on each side of the Atlantic, but also to all other free nations." And then Mr. Page made one of the strangest admissions that any diplomat could make under the circumstances. It is taken from the Pilgrim records as are all these quotations. "Seven years ago an admiral of our Navy, Rear Admiral Sims, who sits now at this table, declared in the Guildhall that if ever the English race were pressed hard for ships, every ship that the United States had would come to the rescue. A great prophet as well as a great seaman, he has not been rebuked for that on this side of the water. [Cheers.] "For my part I am stirred to the depths of my nature by this American companionship in arms with the British and their Allies, not only for the quicker ending of the war, but. I hope, for a moral union which will bring a new era in International relations. "My lords and gentlemen, your generous and great compliment to me by making this large gathering in my honor is your way of expressing appreciation of the action of the Government and people that I represent and of the President at whose high command I have the honor to be among you in these historic and immortal days. I thank you with deep emotion." It would have been more appropriate for the British to thank Mr. Page, with or without emotion, and to show their appreciation of America's participation in the great war of freedom in a more substantial manner than by getting together an imposing array of British notables for a Pilgrim dinner. It is interesting to note that among those who accepted the invitation of the Pilgrims so to honor Mr. Page were none other than Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill who are now leading another war of freedom, while the British Ambassador to Washington is leading another campaign in this country for unity of democracies. In the nature of their exclusive membership and activities, the Pilgrims may be termed the wholesale agency for promoting the interests of Britain in this country. It is strictly a Tory organiza- tion. The retail outlet is the more widely known English-Speaking Union, which has for Its avowed purpose: "To draw together in the bond of comradeship the English- speaking people of the United States and of the British Empire by (a) disseminating knowledge of each to the other and (b) inspiring reverence for their common institutions." It is interesting to note that the English-Speaking Union origi- nated in London in the fateful year of 1917, when America bared her strong arm in defense of democracy. Like the Pilgrims, the English-Speaking Union has a British organization with headquar- ters in London and an American branch with central offices in New York. The purposes of the two organizations are virtually the same and there is an interlocking directorate and membership. The patron of the English-Speaking Union (London) is His Majesty the King. The honorary president of the American English- Speaking Union is the prominent Pilgrim, John W. Davis, successor to the late Walter Hines Page as America's wartime Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Presidential candidate in 1924, and member of J. P. Morgan & Co. As treasurer of the American English- Speaking Union is listed Harry P. Davison, also a Morgan partner, whose father was instrumental in having J. P. Morgan & Co. ap- pointed exclusive purchasing agents for the British Government in America during the World War. Another director of the English- 10 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Speaking Union is Maj. Gen. James G.. Harbord, chairman of the Radio Corporation of America, and also a member of the executive committee of the Pilgrims. As a valuable retail outlet for British propaganda, the English- Speaking Union of the United States covers this country with branches and correspondents in the following cities: Baltimore, Md.; Boston. Mass.: Buffalo. N. Y.; Chautauqua, N. Y.; Chicago, 111.; Cincinnati, Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus. Ohio; Dallas, Tex.; Denver. Colo.; Des Moines. Iowa; Detroit. Mich.; Grinnell, Iowa: Indianapolis, Ind.; Lake Placid, N. Y.; Lincoln, Nebr.; Los Angeles. Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; Milwaukee, Wis.; New York, N. Y.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Now Orleans, La.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Princeton, N. J.; Providence. R. I.; Richmond. Va.; St. Louis, Mo.; Salt Lake City, Utah; San Diego, Calif.; Ban Francisco, Calif.; Santa Barbara, Calif.; Savannah, Ga.; Seattle, Wash.;. Sewanee, T en n .; Spokane, Wash.; Tacoma, Wash.; Washington, D. C. The English-Speaking Union seeks to "draw together in the bond of comradeship" the people of this country and the British Empire. But let us not forget that in 1917 the Pilgrims spoke of "blood- brotherhood" and "comrades in arms." And now, when Britain is again at war. Sir Evelyn Wrench, C. M. G., LL. D.. chairman of the English-speaking Union of London (also a Pilgrim member), ad- dresses his fellow members of the union in The English-Speaking World. October 1939. with the warning call: "The English-Speaking Union was born 21 years ago during the Great War and it has an even greater function to play in the present crisis. We know we can count on your support." The founders of the Republic speak to us today through the im- mortal words of George Washington: "Against the wiles of foreign influence * * * the Jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since experience and history prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." And yet. such are the times and such are the forces a century and a half after Valley Forge that many Americans, including many lead- ers of America, are advocating policies and ideologies foreign and contrary to the very fundamentals on which this Nation was founded. There is needed a new Declaration of Independence and a rededication of the proven principles of our form of government In our position as a rich and powerful nation we can no longer avoid the responsibility of leadership in a wilderness of foreign con- flict. President Roosevelt, in his message to Congress. January 2, 1940. said that "in almost every nation of the world today there is a true belief that the United States has been, and will continue to be a potent and active factor in seeking the reestablishment of peace." If we are to accept and to act the role of peacemaker, the first requisite should be to stand before the world with clean hands and a cool head, fair and impartial to all, and free from any taint of favoritism and prejudice. Without this we would hold out false hopes to a war-weary world; we would not be entitled to the respect and cooperation of the embattled nations; the sincerity of our motives would be Justifiably questioned, and we would fail, to the detriment of all concerned, including our- selves. As a "potent and active' factor for world peace we cannot in the meantime accept the one-sided doctrine of "unity between the United States and the British Empire": we cannot honestly and decently pose as an impartial apostle of world peace and at the same time act as the guardian angel of the British Empire; we cannot look fairly at the world through the meshes of the net- work of British propaganda: we cannot again allow our states- men, our ambassadors, our leading bankers, lawyers, industrialists, churchmen, educators, and publishers to sway the sentiment of our Government and our people in favor of one side, a foreign side. Inherently and basically non-American. We have before us a costly lesson from the past to the present as a guide to the future. Let us remember 1914. and not forget in 1940 that a rising tide of war hysteria completely engulfed our Government and our people. The climax came on April 6, 1917, with an American declaration of war, approved by an overwhelming majority of a Joint session of Congress. Only 56 out of 618 Sena- tors and Representatives voted against war. Of the Members of the Senate only 6 dared cast their votes against the tides of war. One of these few, Senator Robert La Follette, Sr., addressed the Presi- dent from the floor of the Senate with words that might well be repeated today: "There is always lodged, and always will be,, thank the God above us, power in the people supreme. Sometimes it sleeps, sometimes it seems the sleep of death: but, sir, the sovereign power of the people never dies. It may be suppressed for a time;it may be mis- led, be fooled, silenced. I think, Mr. President, that it is being denied expression now. I think there will come a day when it will have expression. "The poor, sir, who are the ones called upon to rot in the trenches, have no organized power, have no press to voice their will on this question of peace or war; but oh, Mr. President, at some time they will be heard — there will come an awakening; they will have their day and they will be heard. It will be as certain and as inevitable as the return of the tides, and as resistless, too." Today, with a warm heart full of sympathy for all the suffering in the world, we must firmly maintain our Independence of thought and action, free from all foreign influence and entanglements so that we may think and speak and act as unimpaired Americans. Only then can we give the best answer to the question, What is best for America? 263553-19504 Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife — Part IV REMARKS of HON. J. THORKELSON OF MONTANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, August 19, 1940 Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the RECORD, I include a short article entitled, "Undermining America." UNDERMINING AMERICA The beginning of the undermining of America was brought by Cecil Rhodes, who, in 1877. left money to establish scholarships at Oxford for the purpose of training diplomats to foster the reunion of Britain and America. In the first draft of his will, which is quoted in the book Cecil Rhodes, by Basil Williams, or the book Cecil Rhodes, by Sarah Gertrude Millen, he stated: "Directed that a secret society should be endowed with the fol- lowing objects: 'The extension of British rule throughout the world; the colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor, and enter- prise; and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire,' " "The foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity." A new will was made: "He substituted English-speaking peoples for actual Britons; he came to realize his limitations and reduced his scheme to a mere beginning of it, the scholarships; but yet the thought behind each successive will remained the same — the world for England, England for the world." See page 145, Cecil Rhodes, by Sarah Gertrude Millen Other quotations: Page 377: "But the essence of the will, as the world knows, is the Scholarship Foundation. In the end all that Rhodes can do toward extending British rule throughout the world and restoring Anglo- Saxon unity and founding a guardian power for the whole of humanity is to arrange for a number of young men from the United States, the British colonies, and Germany to go to Oxford. . . • There are, accordingly, rather more Rhodes scholars from America than from all the British Dominions put together." Page 378: "If the Union of South Africa could be made under the shadow of Table Mountain, why not an Anglo-Saxon Union under the spires of Oxford?" In 1893 Andrew Carnegie wrote his book, Triumphant Democracy, the last chapter of which is "The Reunion of Britain and America." (The 1931 edition of this book is devoid of this last chapter.) The following is a quotation from the original book: "Regarding