Speech Against Lend-Lease
By former Governor Alf Landon (R-KS)
February 1941

I want to try to piece together the various parts of the pattern of which the so-called Lend-Lease bill is only a part. It must be considered in the light of the president’s message to Congress.

First, as a private citizen, I protest against the organized attempt that is being made to suppress the public thinking and public opinion in this country on this so-called Lend-Lease bill. Every Republican that is opposing this bill is being accused of doing so from partisan or petty factional motives. We are constantly being urged to put our country above our party. The inference being that we are not because we do not accept hook, line, and sinker, the proposal of the president. Objective debate on this bill is being lost sight of, from the flood of propaganda, the mounting tide of confusion and hysteria. Those who are opposed to this bill have only a short time in which they will be able to speak. I think it is necessary that we meet this situation frankly and seriously. I do not think any worse thing can happen in the conquered countries than the destruction of all deliberative procedure in this country by the destruction of an opposition. Even in these troublesome times, the civilization we believe in cracking before our eyes, I think it is all to the good to argue things out. I have always believed that one of the blackest marks on the record of the Republican Party was the attempt to silence Senator Wheeler. I now denounce as equally sinister the systematic attempt of another chief executive to silence his voice and blacken his reputation. We must have deliberation in this Congress and [speed in the factories?] … I have seen no claim that this bill is to be any help in our first job in industrial production for the national defense and aid to Britain. There has been no showing that present executive powers are inadequate to bring defense production to its peak, yet Congress is asked to delegate more power when the president has not exhausted the powers already available.

The Lend and Lease bill is an omnibus bill. I might be pardoned for attempting to discuss it in detail, but even members of the president’s cabinet have been unable to answer the questions of the committees of the House and Senate as to a clear-cut definition of its powers or even the omnibus [?] provision. I’d like to cite in this connection the statement placed in the Congressional Record by Senator Barkley of Kentucky. In that statement, this sentence appears: “It does not, however, authorize the use of American vessels to deliver war materials in combat zones.” This statement may be direct, but the language of section 3, subsection 2, raises a doubt in my own mind as to the complete accuracy of the statement. This section reads: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the president may, from time to time, when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of government, to sell, transfer, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article.”

I find in Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language the following definition of the word transfer: “Transfer: Verb. Transitive. To convey from one place, person, or thing to another; to transport, remove or cause to pass to another place, person, or thing.” Now I’m inclined to believe that Attorney General Jackson, if asked by the president if this language authorizes him to direct that war materials be transported would have to go no further than the primary meaning of the word transfer to rule that it means to transport. And a simple next step would be to hold that, according to the general and very broad purposes of the act, that it would include using American ships to transport the defense articles, “notwithstanding the provisions of any other law.” Then, I think logically, that if this bill gives the authority to direct that defense articles be transported to any other nation, the president, if he directed such transport in American vessels, would be bound to provide those vessels with protection through convoy. In the light of the president’s fireside chat, this bill would seem to me not only to threaten? and which is chiefly emphasized and which most of us are for, but also getting aid to all the people of the world who are struggling for freedom and democracy. This is a horse of a different color. That involves so much that I think Congress and the people should clearly know just where it is going to take us and how. That is just about the biggest order any president has ever given the American people to fill.

I have seen no showing that the powers in this bill are needed to bring industrial production for national defense to a peak. Of course, it is to our advantage for England to win. Our very great advantage. But we should not confuse what is desirable with what is necessary. As I understand the testimony of Secretary of Treasury Morgenthau, as reported in the press, this legislation is necessary because England has exhausted, or soon will have exhausted, her dollar exchange with which to obtain materials from this country. If that is the case, it would seem desirable under our commitments and in our own interest to provide the necessary exchange, as I pointed out last December. But the fact does not in my mind make it necessary that Congress abdicate its powers under the Constitution and grant those powers to one man, even though he be the president. As I stated before, the people in the November election did not vote to give unlimited aid to Britain, to say nothing of unlimited power to the president. I say that this bill, as a whole, taken in conjunction with the president’s latest fireside chat, and in conjunction with the statements in his latest message to Congress, raises some serious questions that ought to be answered before such far-reaching legislation is even recommended to the Senate for passage.

Is it the intention of Congress--remembering that the campaign speeches and declarations stressed aid for England short of war--is it the intention that Congress guarantee the present boundaries of the British Empire forever? Is it the intention of Congress to give to the president power to supply money, ships, and planes and ultimately--and it seems to me inevitably--men? Until the French government is restored and the former and future [?] boundaries of French Empire are guaranteed? Is it the intention of Congress to give to the president the disposal of all the resources, political, economic, spiritual, and material, of the United States until he has restored or recaptured all lands overrun by Hitler? Until Finland and Poland have returned to them the territories taken by Russia? Does this Congress seriously propose to place at the disposal of one man all the resources of this nation to restore the territories to Holland to the Dutch Empire? Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, and Luxembourg? Remember, once one man has set in motion the forces that inevitably lead to war, Congress has no choice but to support the program. The nation will be committed to carry on until the bitter end. Does Congress propose to give to one man the resources of the nation to be used until Japan has been driven out of China, until the communists have been run out of China, until Russia has been back to her old border? Until Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, are restored to democracy? You say the bill does not give these powers. I ask you, who is supporting this bill that states what powers it does give? if  words have any meaning, the words in the bill, words in the fireside chat, words in the State of the Union, I say the powers are there.

I have heard it stated that it is preposterous to suggest that the president would use those powers. May I suggest it is equally preposterous to suggest that the Congress grant these powers? I would draw your attention to some passages from the president’s latest message to Congress. I believe it is only fair to lay the provisions of the bill against the background of the messages which immediately preceded the introduction of the bill. In that message, the president [?] words have meaning beyond their field[?] set forth his objectives of a new world order “a world founded upon four essential freedoms. The first is freedom of speech, everywhere in the world. Second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, again, everywhere in the world. Third is freedom from want, everywhere in the world. Fourth is freedom from fear. This time, anywhere in the world.” When that message was delivered to the world, it was commented in London that the words were noble. And they are. But they will have to be followed by actions to make them effective. This bill, I presume, is at least a step toward making the words effective. To make them effective, the United States must, by force if necessary, carry these four freedoms “everywhere in the world.” In other words, we undertake the job of policing the world.

And what about the words of the fireside chat [?] Not as binding perhaps as a message to Congress, but the words were spoken by the president of the United States. “We are committed to the propositions and principles of morality considerations of our security will ever permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers.”  What is he going to do about that if it happens?  No one can be sure. I repeat, we shouldn’t confuse what is desirable with what is necessary. If it is necessary, if it is essential to our security that England wins this war, then let’s stop fooling around with this Lend-Lease bill. If we intend to tell England the Yanks are coming, the sooner we let England know it, the sooner we can coordinate our activities with theirs. If the Yanks are not coming, the English are entitled to know that. If an English victory is not essential to our security, then the only fair and decent thing to say is Britain, we will help you with money and materials only and it is your job to get them.
A simple appropriation is all that is needed and that is its only purpose and we agree to practically unanimously?
Let’s get this nation prepared for national defense now. And then long and seriously consider the wisdom of a ? be damned policy ? And that’s what I think this bill is.