Congressmen McFadden (1932-1934) and Thorkelson (1940) re: Bankers and Federal Reserve

Below are two VERY LONG speeches entered into the Congressional Record by Louis T. McFadden and J Thorkelson warning of the dangers to America by the international bankers and the Federal Reserve, illustrating that corruption and treason for reasons of personal financial gain are not not unique to the 21st century.. Both men had their careers destroyed by the international bankers; and McFadden survived 2 assassination attempts and died as a result of the probable 3rd attempt.

I expect that most people reading this post will NOT read the entirety of these speeches for the same reason that explains the current state of affairs in America – they are simply TOO LAZY !!!!!  Anyone for watching football?????? 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.

In 1933, McFadden introduced House Resolution No. 158, which included articles of impeachment for the Secretary of the Treasury, two assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks

The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has

YET TO BE ACTED ON.

Congressman McFadden

on the Federal Reserve Corporation

Remarks in Congress, 1932-1934

AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSURE 


Congressman Louis McFadden‘s Speech On the Federal Reserve Corporation

Quotations from several speeches made on the Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. Mr. McFadden, due to his having served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years, was the best posted man on these matters in America and was in a position to speak with authority of the vast ramifications of this gigantic private credit monopoly. As Representative of a State which was among the first to declare its freedom from foreign money tyrants it is fitting that Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, be again given the credit for producing a son that was not afraid to hurl defiance in the face of the money-bund. Whereas Mr. McFadden was elected to the high office on both the Democratic and Republican tickets, there can be no accusation of partisanship lodged against him. Because these speeches are set out in full in the Congressional Record, they carry weight that no amount of condemnation on the part of private individuals could hope to carry.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Federal Reserve-A Corrupt Institution

“Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation’s debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

“This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

“Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

“These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. “Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.

“In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.

“We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the “King’s Bank” to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave.

“The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business. It discriminated against our 1-name commercial paper, the finest in the world, and it set up the antiquated 2-name paper, which is the present curse of this Country and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope; it fastened down upon the Country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sough to save us.

PRESIDENT JACKSON’S TIME

“One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson’s time; when the second Bank of the United States, founded on the same false principles of those which are here exemplified in the Fed was hurled out of existence. After that, in 1837, the Country was warned against the dangers that might ensue if the predatory interests after being cast out should come back in disguise and unite themselves to the Executive and through him acquire control of the Government. That is what the predatory interests did when they came back in the livery of hypocrisy and under false pretenses obtained the passage of the Fed.

“The danger that the Country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Fed. Look around you when you leave this Chamber and you will see evidences of it in all sides. This is an era of misery and for the conditions that  caused that misery, the Fed are fully liable. This is an era of financed crime and in the financing of crime the Fed does not play the part of a disinterested spectator.

“It has been said that the draughtsman who was employed to write the text of the Aldrich bill because that had been drawn up by lawyers, by acceptance bankers of European origin in New York. It was a copy, in general a translation of the statues of the Reichsbank and other European central banks. One-half million dollars was spent on the part of the propaganda organized by these bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion and giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand for it and the kind of currency that goes with it, namely, an asset currency based on human debts and obligations. Dr. H. Parker Willis had been employed by Wall Street and propagandists, and when the Aldrich measure failed- he obtained employment with Carter Glass, to assist in drawing the banking bill for the Wilson administration. He appropriated the text of the Aldrich bill. There is no secret about it. The test of the Federal Reserve Act was tainted from the first.

“A few days before the bill came to a vote, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, wrote to Senator John W. Weeks as follows:

New York City

December 17, 1913 

“‘My Dear Senator Weeks:  

“‘Throughout my public life I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of the banking business. This bill puts the Government into the banking business as never before in our history. “‘The powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board seen to me highly dangerous especially where there is political control of the Board. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such dominations. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. “‘I had hoped to support this bill, but I cannot vote for it cause it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity, to stability in business, and to the general welfare of the people of the United States.  

Very Truly Yours, 

Henry Cabot Lodge.'”

“In eighteen years that have passed since Senator Lodge wrote that letter of warning all of his predictions have come true. The Government is in the banking business as never before. Against its will it has been made the backer of horse thieves and card sharps, bootlegger’s smugglers, speculators, and swindlers in all parts of the world. Through the Fed the riffraff of every country is operating on the public credit of the United States Government.

THE GREAT DEPRESSION

“Meanwhile and on account of it, we ourselves are in the midst of the greatest depression we have ever known. From the Atlantic to the Pacific, our Country has been ravaged and laid waste by the evil practices of the Fed and the interests which control them. At no time in our history, has the general welfare of the people been at a lower level or the minds of the people so full of despair.

“Recently in one of our States, 60,000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer in a single day. 71,000 houses and farms in Oakland County, Michigan, were sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed. The people who have thus been driven out are the wastage of the Fed. They are the victims of the Fed. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival of the institution of human slavery.

The Scheme of the Fed

“In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander Lassen made the following statement: “The whole scheme of the Fed with its commercial paper is an impractical, cumbersome machinery- is simply a cover to secure the privilege of issuing money, and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reducing interest rates. It will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits, for when there is a shortage of money people have to borrow to their cost.’ “A few days before the Fed passed, Senator Root denounced the Fed as an outrage on our liberties. He predicted: ‘Long before we wake up from our dream of prosperity through an inflated currency, our gold- which alone could have kept us from catastrophe- will have vanished and no rate of interest will tempt it to return.’

“If ever a prophecy came true, that one did.

“The Fed became law the day before Christmas Eve, in the year 1913, and shortly afterwards, the German International bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Co. sent one of their partners here to run it.

“The Fed Note is essentially unsound. It is the worst currency and the most dangerous that this Country has ever known. When the proponents of the act saw that the Democratic doctrine would not permit them to let the proposed banks issue the new currency as bank notes, they should have stopped at that. They should not have foisted that kind of currency, namely, an asset currency, on the United States Government. They should not have made the Government [liable on the private] debts of individuals and corporations, and, least of all, on the private debts of foreigners. “As Kemerer says: ‘The Fed Notes, therefore, in form, have some of the qualities of Government paper money, but in substance, are almost a pure asset currency possessing a Government guarantee against which contingency the Government has made no provision whatever.’

“Hon. L.J.Hill, a former member of the House, said, and truly: “They are obligations of the Government for which the United States received nothing and for the payment of which at any time, it assumes the responsibility: looking to the Fed to recoup itself.’

“If this United States is to redeem the Fed Notes, when the General Public finds it costs to deliver this paper to the Fed, and if the Government has made no provisions for redeeming them, the first element of unsoundness is not far to seek.

“Before the Banking and Currency Committee, when the bill was under discussion Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati said: ‘The imperial power of elasticity of the public currency is wielded exclusively by the central corporations owned by the banks. This is a life and death power over all local banks and all business. It can be used to create or destroy prosperity, to ward off or cause stringencies and panics. By making money artificially scarce, interest rates throughout the Country can be arbitrarily raised and the bank tax on all business and cost of living increased for the profit of the banks owning these regional central banks, and without the slightest benefit to the people. The 12 Corporations together cover y and monopolize and use for private gain- every dollar of the public currency and all public revenue of the United States. Not a dollar can be put into circulation among the people by their Government, without the consent of and on terms fixed by these 12 private money trusts.’

“In defiance of this and all other warnings, the proponents of the Fed created the 12 private credit corporations and gave them an absolute monopoly of the currency of these United States- not of the Fed Notes alone- but of all other currency! The Fed Act providing ways and means by which the gold and general currency in the hands of the American people could be obtained by the Fed in exchange for Fed Notes- which are not money- but mere promises to pay.

“Since the evil day when this was done, the initial monopoly has been extended by vicious amendments to the Fed and by the unlawful and treasonable practices of the Fed.

Money for the Scottish Distillers

“Mr. Chairman, if a Scottish distiller wishes to send a cargo of Scotch whiskey to these United States, he can draw his bill against the purchasing bootlegger in dollars and after the bootlegger has accepted it by writing his name across the face of it, the Scotch distiller can send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Fed Notes. Thus the Government of these United States pay the Scotch distiller for the whiskey before it is shipped, and if it is lost on the way, or if the Coast Guard seizes it and destroys it, the Fed simply write off the loss and the government never recovers the money that was paid to the Scotch distiller.

“While we are attempting to enforce prohibition here, the Fed are in the distillery business in Europe and paying bootlegger bills with public credit of these United States. “Mr. Chairman, by the same process, they compel our Government to pay the German brewer for his beer. Why should the Fed be permitted to finance the brewing industry in Germany either in this way or as they do by compelling small and fearful United States Banks to take stock in the Isenbeck Brewery and in the German Bank for brewing industries? “Mr. Chairman, if Dynamit Nobel of Germany, wishes to sell dynamite in Japan to use in Manchuria or elsewhere, it can drew its bill against the Japanese customers in dollars and send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City where the Fed will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Fed Notes- while at the same time the Fed will be helping Dynamit Nobel by stuffing its stock into the United States banking system.

“Why should we send our representatives to the disarmament conference at Geneva- while the Fed is making our Government pay Japanese debts to German Munitions makers?

“Mr. Chairman, if a German wishes to raise a crop of beans and sell them to a Japanese customer, he can draw a bill against his prospective Japanese customer in dollars and have it purchased by the Fed and get the money out of this Country at the expense of the American people before he has even planted the beans in the ground. “Mr. Chairman, if a German in Germany wishes to export goods to South America, or any other Country, he can draw his bill against his customers and send it to these United States and get the money out of this Country before he ships, or even manufactures the goods.

“Mr. Chairman, why should the currency of these United States be issued on the strength of German Beer? Why should it be issued on the crop of unplanted beans to be grown in Chili for Japanese consumption? Why should these United States be compelled to issue many billions of dollars every year to pay the debts of one foreigner to another foreigner? “Was it for this that our National Bank depositors had their money taken out of our banks and shipped abroad? Was it for this that they had to lose it? Why should the public credit of these United States and likewise money belonging to our National Bank depositors be used to support foreign brewers, narcotic drug vendors, whiskey distillers, wig makes, human hair merchants, Chilean bean growers, to finance the munition factories of Germany and Soviet Russia?

THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN RANSACKED

“The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been gutted and only the walls are left standing. While being perpetrated, everything the world would rake up to sell us was brought in here at our expense by the Fed until our markets were swamped with unneeded and unwanted imported goods priced far above their value and make to equal the dollar volume of our honest exports, and to kill or reduce our favorite balance of trade. As Agents of the foreign central banks the Fed try by every means in their power to reduce our favorable balance of trade. They act for their foreign principal and they accept fees from foreigners for acting against the best interests of these United States. Naturally there has been great competition among among foreigners for the favors of the Fed.

“What we need to do is to send the reserves of our National Banks home to the people who earned and produced them and who still own them and to the banks which were compelled to surrender them to predatory interests.

“Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Fed pool of confiscated bank deposits in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth in which the foreigners claim rights, equal to or greater than Americans. The Fed are the agents of the foreign central banks. They use our bank depositors’ money for the benefit of their foreign principals. They barter the public credit of the United States Government and hire it our to foreigners at a profit to themselves.

“All this is done at the expense of the United States Government, and at a sickening loss to the American people. Only our great wealth enabled us to stand the drain of it as long as we did.

“We need to destroy the Fed wherein our national reserves are impounded for the benefit of the foreigners. “We need to save America for Americans.

SPURIOUS SECURITIES

“Mr. Chairman, when you hold a $10.00 Fed Note in your hand, you are holding apiece of paper which sooner or later is going to cost the United States Government $10.00 in gold (unless the Government is obliged to go off the gold standard). It is based on limburger cheese (reported to be in foreign warehouses) or in cans purported to contain peas (but may contain salt water instead), or horse meat, illicit drugs, bootleggers fancies, rags and bones from Soviet Russia (of which these United States imported over a million dollars worth last year), on wines whiskey, natural gas, goat and dog fur, garlic on the string, and Bombay ducks.

“If you like to have paper money- which is secured by such commodities- you have it in Fed Note. If you desire to obtain the thing of value upon which this paper currency is based, that is, the limburger cheese, the whiskey, the illicit drugs, or any of the other staples- you will have a very hard time finding them.

“Many of these worshipful commodities are in foreign Countries. Are you going to Germany to inspect her warehouses to see if the specified things of value are there? I think more, I do not think that you would find them there if you did go.

“On April 27, 1932, the Fed outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank depositors in gold to Germany. A week later another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Fed. Almost every week there is a shipment of gold to Germany. These shipments are not made for profit on the exchange since the German marks are blow parity with the dollar.

“Mr. Chairman, I believe that the National Bank depositors of these United States have a right to know what the Fed are doing with their money. There are millions of National Bank depositors in the Country who do not know that a percentage of every dollar they deposit in a Member Bank of the Fed goes automatically to American Agents of the foreign banks and that all their deposits can be paid away to foreigners without their knowledge or consent by the crooked machinery of the Fed and the questionable practices of the Fed.

[Ed. Note- Problem with next paragraph in original] “Mr. Chairman, the American people should be told the truth by their servants in office. In 1930, we had over a half billion dollars outstanding daily to finance foreign goods stored in or shipped between several billion dollars. What goods are these on which the Fed yearly pledge several billions of dollars. In its yearly total, this item amounts to several billions of dollars of the public credit of these United States?

“What goods are those which are hidden in European and Asiatic stores have not been seen by any officer of our Government but which are being financed on the public credit of the United States Government? What goods are those upon which the 17 United States Government is being obligated by the Fed to issue Fed Notes to the extent of several billions of dollars a year?

The Bankers’ Acceptance Racket

“The Fed have been International Banks from the beginning, with these United States as their enforced banker and supplier of currency. But it is none the less extraordinary to see these twelve private credit monopolies, buying the debts of foreigners against foreigners, in all parts of the world and asking the Government of these United States for new issues of Fed notes in exchange for them. “The magnitude of the acceptance racket as it has been developed by the Fed, their foreign correspondents, and the predatory European born bankers, who set up the Fed here and taught your own, by and of pirates, how to loot the people: I say the magnitude of this racket is estimated to be in the neighborhood of 9,000,000,000 per year. In the past ten years it is said to have amounted to $90,000,000,000.00. In my opinion it has amounted to several times that much. coupled to this you have to the extent of billions of dollars, the gambling in the United States securities, which takes place in the same open discount market- a gambling on which the Fed is now spending $100,000,000.00 per week.

“Fed Notes are taken from the U.S. Government in unlimited quantities. Is is strange that the burden of supplying these immense sums of money to the gambling fraternity has at last proved too heavy for the American people to endure? Would it not be a national [calamity to] again bind down this burden on the backs of the American people and by  means of a long rawhide whip of the credit masters, compel them to enter another seventeen years of slavery?

“They are trying to do that now. They are trying to take $100,000,000.00 of the public credit of the United States every week, in addition to all their other seizures and they are sending that money to the nefarious open market in a desperate gamble to reestablish their graft as a going concern.

“They are putting the United States Government in debt to the extent of $100,000,000 a week, and with the money they are buying our Government securities for themselves and their foreign principals. Our people are disgusted with the experiences of the Fed. The Fed is not producing a loaf of bread, a yard of cloth, a bushel of corn, or a pile of cordwood by its check-kiting operations in the money market.

“Mr. Speaker, on the 13th of January of this year I addressed the House on the subject of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In the course of my remarks I made the following statement: In 1928 the member banks of the Fed borrowed $60,598,690,000. from the Fed on their fifteen-day promissory notes. Think of it. Sixty billion dollars payable on demand in gold in the course of one single year. The actual amount of such obligations called for six times as much monetary gold as there is in the world. Such transactions represent a grant in the course of one single years of about $7,000,000 to every member of the Fed.

“Is it any wonder that American labor which ultimately pays the cost of all banking operations of this Country has at last proved unequal to the task of supplying this huge total of cash and credit for the benefit of the stock market manipulators and foreign swindlers? “In 1933 the Fed presented the staggering amount of $60,598,690,000 to its member banks at the expense of the wage earners and tax payers of these United States. In 1929, the year of the stock market crash, the Fed advanced $58,000,000,000 to member banks.

“In 1930 while the speculating banks were getting out of the stock market at the expense of the general public, the Fed advanced them $13,022,782,000. This shows that when the banks were gambling on the public credit of these United States as represented by the Fed currency they were subsidized to any amount they required by the Fed. When the swindle began to fall, the bankers knew it in advance and withdrew from the market. They got out with whole skins- and left the people of these United States to pay the piper. “My friend from Kansas, Mr. McGugin, has stated that he thought the Fed lent money on rediscounting. So they do, but they lend comparatively little that way. The real discounting that they do has been called a mere penny in the slot business. It is too slow for genuine high flyers. They discourage it. They prefer to subsidize their favorite banks by making them $60,000,000,000 advances and they prefer to acquire assistance in the notorious open discount market in New York, where they can use it to control the price of stocks and bonds on the exchanges.

“For every dollar they advanced on discounts in 1928, they lent $33.00 to their favorite banks for whom they do a business of several billion dollars income tax on their profits to these United States.

The John Law Swindle

“This is the John Law swindle over again. The theft of Teapot Dome was trifling compared to it. What King ever robbed his subject to such an extent as the Fed has robbed us? Is it any wonder that there have been lately ninety cases of starvation in one of the New York hospitals? Is there any wonder that the children are being abandoned?

“The government and the people of these United States have been swindled by swindlers deluxe to whom the acquisition of American or a parcel of Fed Notes presented no more difficulty than the drawing up of a worthless acceptance in a Country not subject to the laws of these United States, by sharpers not subject to the jurisdiction of these United States, sharpers with strong banking “fence” on this side of the water, a “fence” acting as a receiver of a worthless paper coming from abroad, endorsing it and getting the currency out of the Fed for it as quickly as possible exchanging that currency for gold and in turn transmitting the gold to its foreign confederates.

Ivar Kreuger, the Match King!

“Such were the exploits of Ivar Krueger, Mr. Hoover’s friend, and his rotten Wall Street bakers. Every dollar of the billions Kreuger and his gang drew out of this Country on acceptances was drawn from the government and the people of the United States through the Fed. The credit of the United States Government was peddled to him by the Fed for their own private gain. That is what the Fed has been doing for many years.

“They have been peddling the credit of this Government and the [signature of this] Government to the swindlers and speculators of all nations. That is what happens when a Country forsakes its Constitution and gives its sovereignty over the public currency to private interests. Give them the flag and they will sell it.

“The nature of Kreuger’s organized swindle and the bankrupt condition of Kreuger’s combine was known here last June when Hoover sought to exempt Krueger’s loan to Germany of $125,000,000 from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. The bankrupt condition of Krueger’s swindle was known her last summer when $30,000,000 was taken from the American taxpayers by certain bankers in New York for the ostensible purpose of permitting Krueger to make a loan to Colombia. Colombia never saw that money.

“The nature of Krueger’s swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, at the White House. It was known here in March before he went to Paris and committed suicide.

“Mr. Chairman, I think the people of the United States are entitled to know how many billions of dollars were placed at the disposal of Krueger and his gigantic combine by the Fed, and to know how much of our Government currency was issued and lost in the financing of that great swindle in the years during which the Fed took care of Krueger’s requirements.

“A few days ago, the President of the United States with a white face and shaking hands, went before the Senate of behalf of the moneyed interests and asked the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might know that these United States would pay its debt to them.

“Most Americans thought it was the other way around. What does these United States owe foreigners? When and by whom was the debt incurred? It was incurred by the Fed, when they peddled the signature of the Government to foreigners- for a Price. It is what the United States Government has to pay to redeem the obligations of the Fed.

Thieves Go Scot Free

“Are you going to let these thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States Veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?

“The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad is here asking for a large loan from the people, and the wage earners and the taxpayers of these United States. It is begging for a handout from the Government. It is standing, cap in hand, at the door of the R.F.C. where all the jackals have gathered to the feast. It is asking for money that was raised from the people by taxation and wants this money of the poor for the benefit of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., the German International Bankers.

“Is there one law for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and another for the hungry veterans it threw off its freight cars the other day? Is there one law for sleek and prosperous swindlers who call themselves bankers and another law for the soldiers who defended the flag? “The R.F.C. is taking over these worthless securities from the Investment Trusts with United States Treasury money at the expense of the American taxpayer and the wage earner.

“It will take twenty years to redeem our Government. Twenty years of penal servitude to pay off the gambling debts of the traitorous Fed and to vast flood of American wages and savings, bank deposits, and the United States Government credit which the Fed exported out of this country to their foreign principals.

“The Fed lately conducted an anti-hoarding campaign here. They took that extra money which they had persuaded the American people to put into the banks- they sent it to Europe- along with the rest. In the last several months, they have sent $1,300,000,000 in gold to their foreign employers, their foreign masters, and every dollar of that gold belonged to the people of these United States and was unlawfully taken from them.

Fiat Money

“Mr. Chairman, within the limits of the time allowed me, I cannot enter into a particularized discussion of the Fed. I have singled out the Fed currency for a few remarks because there has lately been some talk here of “fiat money”. What kind of money is being pumped into the open discount market and through it into foreign channels and stock exchanges? Mr. Mills of the Treasury has spoken here of his horror of the printing presses and his horror of dishonest money. He has no horror of dishonest money. If he had, he would be no party to the present gambling of the Fed in the nefarious open discount market of New York, a market in which the sellers are represented by 10 discount corporations owned and organized by the very banks which own and control the Fed.

“Fiat money, indeed!

“What Mr. Mills is fighting for is the preservation, whole and entire, of the banker’s monopoly of all the currency of the United States Government.

“Mr. Chairman, last December, I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Fed and all related matters. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation, the people of these United States will obtain information of great value. This is a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Consequently, nothing should be concealed from the people. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to these United States.

“The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals and covers up that crime is an accessory to it. Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurers.

“Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers- but the truth is- the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all of our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.

“No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operated the Fed. What National Government has permitted the Fed to steal from the people should now be restored to the people. The people have a valid claim against the Fed. If that claim is enforced the Americans will not need to stand in the bread line, or to suffer and die of starvation in the streets. Women will be saved, families will be kept together, and American children will not be dispersed and abandoned.

“Here is a Fed Note. Immense numbers of the notes are now held abroad. I am told that they amount to upwards of a billion dollars. They constitute a claim against our Government and likewise a claim against our peoples’ money to the extent of $1,300,000,000 which has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Fed Notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Fed. The greater part of our money stock has been shipped to other lands.

“Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should the Fed be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? Do you know why the tariff was raised? It was raised to shut out the flood of Fed Goods pouring in here from every quarter of the globe- cheap goods, produced by cheaply paid foreign labor, on unlimited supplies of money and credit sent out of this Country by the dishonest and unscrupulous Fed.

“The Fed are spending $100,000,000 a week buying government securities in the open market and are making a great bid for foreign business. They are trying to make rates so attractive that the human hair merchants and the distillers and other business entities in foreign land will come her and hire more of the public credit of the United States Government to pay the Fed outfit for getting it for them.

World Enslavement Planned

“Mr. Chairman, when the Fed was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here which would make the savings of the American school teacher available to a narcotic-drug vendor in Acapulco. They did not perceive that these United States was to be lowered to the position of a coolie country which has nothing but raw material and heart, that Russia was destined to supply the man power and that this country was to supply the financial power to an “international superstate”. A superstate controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure?

“The people of these United States are being greatly wronged. They have been driven from their employments. They have been dispossessed from their homes. They have been evicted from their rented quarters. They have lost their children. They have been left to suffer and die for lack of shelter, food, clothing and medicine.

“The wealth of these United States and the working capital have been taken away from them and has either been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations or exported to foreign countries for the benefit of the foreign customers of these banks and corporations. So far as the people of the United States are concerned, the cupboard is bare.

“It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full, but these are padlocked, and the great banks and corporations hold the keys.

“The sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history.

“Mr. Chairman, a serious situation confronts the House of Representatives today. We are trustees of the people and the rights of the people are being taken away from them. Through the Fed the people are losing the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Their property has been taken from them without due process of law. Mr. Chairman, common decency requires us to examine the public accounts of the Government and see what crimes against the public welfare have been committed.

“What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of these United States.

“The old struggle that was fought out here in Jackson’s time must be fought our over again. The independent United States Treasury should be reestablished and the Government should keep its own money under lock and key in the building the people provided for that purpose.

“Asset currency, the devise of the swindler, should be done away with. The Fed should be abolished and the State boundaries should be respected. Bank reserves should be kept within the boundaries of the States whose people own them, and this reserve money of the people should be protected so that the International Bankers and acceptance bankers and discount dealers cannot draw it away from them.

“The Fed should be repealed, and the Fed Banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. Faithless Government officials who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial.

“Unless this is done by us, I predict, that the American people, outraged, pillaged, insulted and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath, and will sweep the money changers out of the temple.

“Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens. Its chief foreign creditor is Great Britain, and a British bailiff has been at the White House and the British Agents are in the United States Treasury making inventory arranging terms of liquidations!

Great Britain, Partner in Blackmail

“Mr. Chairman, the Fed has offered to collect the British claims in full from the American public by trickery and corruption, if Great Britain will help to conceal its crimes. The British are shielding their agents, the Fed, because they do not wish that system of robbery to be destroyed here. They wish it to continue for their benefit! By means of it, Great Britain has become the financial mistress of the world. She has regained the position she occupied before the World War.

“For several years she has been a silent partner in the business of the Fed. Under threat of blackmail, or by their bribery, or by their native treachery to the people of the United States, the officials in charge of the Fed unwisely gave Great Britain immense gold loans running into hundreds of millions of dollars. They did this against the law! Those gold loans were not single transactions. They gave Great Britain a borrowing power in the United States of billions. She squeezed billions out of this Country by means of her control of the Fed.

“As soon as the Hoover Moratorium was announced, Great Britain moved to consolidate her gains. After the treacherous signing away of American rights at the 7-power conference at London in July, 1931, which put the Fed under the control of the Bank of International Settlements, Great Britain began to tighten the hangman’s noose around the neck of the United States.

“She abandoned the gold standard and embarked on a campaign of buying up the claims of foreigners against the Fed in all parts of the world. She has now sent her bailiff, Ramsey MacDonald, here to get her war debt to this country canceled. But she has a club in her hands! She has title to the gambling debts which the corrupt and dishonest Fed incurred abroad.

“Ramsey MacDonald, the labor party deserter, has come here to compel the President to sign on the dotted line, and that is what Roosevelt is about to do! Roosevelt will endeavor to conceal the nature of his action from the American people. But he will obey the International Bankers and transfer the war debt that Great Britain should pay to the American people, to the shoulders of the American taxpayers.

“Mr. Chairman, the bank holiday in the several States was brought about by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. These institutions manipulated money and credit, and caused the States to order bank holidays.

“These holidays were frame-ups! “They were dress rehearsals for the national bank holiday which Franklin D. Roosevelt promised Sir Ramsey MacDonald that he would declare.

“There was no national emergency here when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office excepting the bankruptcy of the Fed- a bankruptcy which has been going on under cover for several years and which has been concealed from the people so that the people would continue to permit their bank deposits and their bank reserves and their gold and the funds of the United States Treasury to be impounded in these bankrupt institutions.

“Under cover, the predatory International Bankers have been stealthily transferring the burden of the Fed debts to the people’s Treasury and to the people themselves. They the farms and the homes of the United States to pay for their thievery! That is the only national emergency that there has been here since the depression began.

“The week before the bank holiday ws declared in New York State, the deposits in the New York savings banks were greater than the withdrawals. There were no runs on New York Banks. There was no need of a bank holiday in New York, or of a national holiday.

Roosevelt and the International Bankers

“Roosevelt did what the International Bankers ordered him to do!

“Do not deceive yourself, Mr. Chairman, or permit yourself to be deceived by others into the belief that Roosevelt’s dictatorship is in any way intended to benefit the people of the United States: he is preparing to sign on the dotted line! “He is preparing to cancel the war debts by fraud!

“He is preparing to internationalize this Country and to destroy our Constitution itself in order to keep the Fed intact as a money institution for foreigners. “Mr. Chairman, I see no reason why citizens of the United States should be terrorized into surrendering their property to the International Bankers who own and control the Fed. The statement that gold would be taken from its lawful owners if they did not voluntarily surrender it, to private interests, show that there is an anarchist in our Government.

“The statement that it is necessary for the people to give their gold- the only real money- to the banks in order to protect the currency, is a statement of calculated dishonesty!

“By his unlawful usurpation of power on the night of March 5, 1933, and by his proclamation, which in my opinion was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Roosevelt divorced the currency of the United States from gold, and the United States currency is no longer protected by gold. It is therefore sheer dishonesty to say that the people’s gold is needed to protect the currency.

“Roosevelt ordered the people to give their gold to private interests- that is, to banks, and he took control of the banks so that all the gold and gold values in them, or given into them, might be handed over to the predatory International Bankers who own and control the Fed.

“Roosevelt cast his lot with the usurers. “He agreed to save the corrupt and dishonest  at the expense of the people of the United States.

“He took advantage of the people’s confusion and weariness and spread the dragnet over the United States to capture everything of value that was left in it. He made a great haul for the International Bankers.

“The Prime Minister of England came here for money! He came here to collect cash!

“He came here with Fed Currency and other claims against the Fed which England had bought up in all parts of the world. And he has presented them for redemption in gold.

“Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of compelling the Fed to pay their own debts. I see no reason why the general public should be forced to pay the gambling debts of the International Bankers.

Roosevelt Seizes the Gold

“By his action in closing the banks of the United States, Roosevelt seized the gold value of forty billions or more of bank deposits in the United States banks. Those deposits were deposits of gold values. By his action he has rendered them payable to the depositors in paper only, if payable at all, and the paper money he proposes to pay out to bank depositors and to the people generally in lieu of their hard earned gold values in itself, and being based on nothing into which the people can convert it the said paper money is of negligible value altogether.

“It is the money of slaves, not of free men. If the people of the United States permit it to be imposed upon them at the will of their credit masters, the next step in their downward progress will be their acceptance of orders on company stores for what they eat and wear. Their case will be similar to that of starving coal miners. They, too, will be paid with orders on Company stores for food and clothing, both of indifferent quality and be forced to live in Company-owned houses from which they may be evicted at the drop of a hat. More of them will be forced into conscript labor camps under supervision.

“At noon on the 4th of March, 1933, FDR with his hand on the Bible, took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S. At midnight on the 5th of March, 1933, he confiscated the property of American citizens. He took the currency of the United States standard of value. He repudiated the internal debt of the Government to its own citizens. He destroyed the value of the American dollar. He released, or endeavored to release, the Fed from their contractual liability to redeem Fed currency in gold or lawful money on a parity with gold. He depreciated the value of the national currency.

“The people of the U.S. are now using unredeemable paper slips for money. The Treasury cannot redeem that paper in gold or silver. The gold and silver of the Treasury has unlawfully been given to the corrupt and dishonest Fed. And the Administration has since had the effrontery to raid the country for more gold for the private interests by telling our patriotic citizens that their gold is needed to protect the currency.

“It is not being used to protect the currency! It is being used to protect the corrupt and dishonest Fed. “The directors of these institutions have committed criminal offense against the United States Government, including the offense of making false entries on their books, and the still more serious offense of unlawfully abstracting funds from the United States Treasury! “Roosevelt’s gold raid is intended to help them out of the pit they dug for themselves when they gambled away the wealth and savings of the American people.

Dictatorship

“The International Bankers set up a dictatorship here because they wanted a dictator who would protect them. They wanted a dictator who would protect them. They wanted a dictator who would issue a proclamation giving the Fed an absolute and unconditional release from their special currency in gold, or lawful money of any Fed Bank.

“Has Roosevelt relieved any other class of debtors in this country from the necessity of paying their debts? Has he made a proclamation telling the farmers that they need not pay their mortgages? Has he made a proclamation to the effect that mothers of starving children need not pay their milk bills? Has he made a proclamation relieving householders from the necessity of paying rent?

Roosevelt‘s Two Kinds of Laws

“Not he! He has issued one kind of proclamation only, and that is a proclamation to relieve international bankers and the foreign debtors of the United States Government.

“Mr. Chairman, the gold in the banks of this country belongs to the American people who have paper money contracts for it in the form of national currency. If the Fed cannot keep their contracts with United States citizens to redeem their paper money in gold, or lawful money, then the Fed must be taken over by the United States Government and their officers must be put on trial.

“There must be a day of reckoning. If the Fed have looted the Treasury so that the Treasury cannot redeem the United States currency for which it is liable in gold, then the Fed must be driven out of the Treasury.

“Mr. Chairman, a gold certificate is a warehouse receipt for gold in the Treasury, and the man who has a gold certificate is the actual owner of a corresponding amount of gold stacked in the Treasury subject to his order.

“Now comes Roosevelt who seeks to render the money of the United States worthless by unlawfully declaring  that it may No Longer be converted into gold at the will of the holder.

“Roosevelt’s next haul for the International Bankers was the reduction in the pay of all Federal employees.

“Next in order are the veterans of all wars, many of whom are aged and inform, and other sick and disabled. These men had their lives adjusted for them by acts of Congress determining the amounts of the pensions, and, while it is meant that every citizen should sacrifice himself for the good of the United States, I see no reason why those poor people, these aged Civil War Veterans and war widows and half-starved veterans of the World War, should be compelled to give up their pensions for the financial benefit of the International vultures who have looted the Treasury, bankrupted the country and traitorously delivered the United States to a foreign foe.

“There are many ways of raising revenue that are better than that barbaric act of injustice.

“Why not collect from the Fed the amount they owe the U.S. Treasury in interest on all the Fed currency they have taken from the Government? That would put billions of dollars into the U.S. Treasury.

“If FDR is as honest as he pretends to be, he will have that done immediately. And in addition, why not compel the Fed to disclose their profits and to pay the Government its share?

“Until this is done, it is rank dishonesty to talk of maintaining the credit of the U.S. Government.” My own salary as a member of Congress has been reduced, and while I am willing to give my part of it that has been taken away from me to the U.S. Government, I regret that the U.S. has suffered itself to be brought so low by the vultures and crooks who are operating the roulette wheels and faro tables in the Fed, that is now obliged to throw itself on the mercy of its legislators and charwomen, its clerks, and it poor pensioners and to take money out of our pockets to make good the defalcations of the International Bankers who were placed in control of the Treasury and given the monopoly of U.S. Currency by the misbegotten Fed. “I am well aware that the International Bankers who drive up to the door of the United States Treasury in their limousines, look down with scorn upon members of Congress because we work for so little, while they draw millions a year. The difference is that we earn, or try to earn, what we get- and they steal the greater part of their takings.

Enemies of the People They Rob

“I do not like to see vivisections performed on human beings. I do not like to see the American people used for experimental purposes by the credit masters of the United States. They predicted among themselves that they would be able to produce a condition here in which American citizens would be completely humbled and left starving and penniless in the streets.

“The fact that they made that assertion while they were fomenting their conspiracy against the United States that they like to see a human being, especially an American, stumbling from hunger when he walks. “Something should be done about it, they say. Five-cent meals, or something! “But FDR will not permit the House of Representatives to investigate the condition of the Fed. FDR will not do that. He has certain International Bankers to serve. They not look to him as the man Higher Up who will protect them from the just wrath of an outraged people.

“The International Bankers have always hated our pensioners. A man with a small pension is a ward of the Government. He is not dependent upon them for a salary or wages. They cannot control him. They do not like him. It gave them great pleasure, therefore, to slash the veterans.

“But FDR will never do anything to embarrass his financial supporters. He will cover up the crimes of the Fed.

“Before he was elected, Mr. Roosevelt advocated a return to the earlier practices of the Fed, thus admitting its corruptness. The Democratic platform advocated a change in the personnel of the Fed. These were campaign bait. As a prominent Democrat lately remarked to me; “There is no new deal. The same old crowd is in control.”

“The claims of foreign creditors of the Fed have no validity in law. The foreign creditors were the receivers- and the willing receivers- of stolen goods! They have received through their banking fences immense amounts of currency, and that currency was unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the Fed.

“England discovered the irregularities of the Fed quite early in its operations and through fear, apparently, the Fed have for years suffered themselves to be blackmailed and dragooning England to share in the business of the Fed. “The Fed have unlawfully taken many millions of dollars of the public credit of the United States and have given it to foreign sellers on the security of the Debt paper of foreign buyers in purely foreign transactions, and when the foreign buyers refused to meet their obligations and the Fed saw no honest way of getting the stolen goods back into their possession, they decided by control of the executive to make the American people pay their losses!

Conspiracy of War Debts

“They likewise entered into a conspiracy to deprive the people of the U.S. of their title to the war debts and not being able to do that in the way they intended, they are now engaged in an effort to debase the American dollar so that foreign governments will have their debts to this country cut in two, and then by means of other vicious underhanded arrangements, they propose to remit the remainder.

“So far as the U.S. is concerned, the gambling counters have no legal standing. The U.S. Treasury cannot be compelled to make good the gambling ventures of the corrupt and dishonest Fed. Still less should the bank deposits of the U.S. be used for that purpose. Still less should the national currency have been made irredeemable in gold so that the gold which was massed and stored to redeem the currency for American citizens may be used to pay the gambling debts of the Fed for England’s benefit. “The American people should have their gold in their own possession where it cannot be held under secret agreement for any foreign control bank, or world bank, or foreign nation. Our own citizens have the prior claim to it. The paper [money men] have in their possession deserves redemption far more than U.S. currency and credit which was stolen from the U.S. Treasury and bootlegged abroad.

“Why should the foreigners be made preferred creditors of the bankrupt U.S.? Why should the U.S. be treated as bankrupt at all? This Government has immense sums due it from the Fed. The directors of these institutions are men of great wealth. Why should the guilty escape the consequences of their misdeeds? Why should the people of these U.S. surrender the value of their gold bank deposits to pay off the gambling debts of these bankers? Why should Roosevelt promise foreigners that the U.S. will play the part of a good neighbor, ‘meeting its obligations’?

“Let the Fed meet their own obligations.

“Every member of the Fed should be compelled to disgorge, and every acceptance banker and every discount corporation which has made illegal profits by means of public credit unlawfully bootlegged out of the U.S. Treasury and hired out by the crooks and vultures of the Fed should be compelled to disgorge.

Federal Reserve Pays No Taxes

“Gambling debts due to foreign receivers of stolen goods should not be paid by sacrificing our title to our war debts, the assets of the U.S. Treasury- which belong to all the people of the U.S. and which it is our duty to preserve inviolate in the people’s treasury.

“The U.S. Treasury cannot be made liable for them. The Fed currency must be redeemed by the Fed banks or else these Fed banks must be liquidated.

“We know from assertions made here by the Hon. John N. Garner, Vice-President of the U.S. that there is a condition in the [United States such] would cause American citizens, if they knew what it was, to lose all confidence in their government.

“That is a condition that Roosevelt will not have investigated. He has brought with him from Wall Street, James Warburg, the son of Paul M. Warburg. Mr. Warburg, alien born, and the son of an alien who did not become naturalized here until several years after this Warburg’s birth, is a son of a former partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., a grandson of another partner, a nephew of a former partner, and a nephew of a present partner.

“He holds no office in our Government, but I am told that he is in daily attendance at the Treasury, and that he has private quarters there! In other words, Mr. Chairman, Kuhn, Loeb and Company now has control and occupy the U.S. Treasury.

Preferred Treatment for Foreigners

“The text of the Executive order which seems to place an embargo on shipments of gold permits the Secretary of the Treasury, a former director of the corrupt, to issue licenses at his discretion for the export of gold coin, or bullion, earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government or foreign central bank for international settlement. Now, Mr. Chairman, if gold held in trust for those foreign institutions may be sent to them, I see no reason why gold held in trust for American as evidenced by their gold certificates and other currency issued by the U.S. Government should not be paid to them. “I think that American citizens should be entitled to treatment at least as good as that which the person is extending to foreign governments, foreign central banks, and the bank of International Settlements. I think a veteran of the world war, with a $20.00 gold certificate, is at least as much entitled to receive his own gold for it, as any international banker in the city of New York or London.

“By the terms of this executive order, gold may be exported if it is actually required, for the fulfillment of any contract entered into prior to the date of this order by an applicant who, in obedience to the executive order of April 5, 1933, has delivered gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates. “This means that gold may be exported to pay the obligations abroad of the Fed which were incurred prior to the date of the order, namely, April 20, 1933.

“If a European Bank should send 100,000,000 dollars in Fed currency to a bank in this country for redemption, that bank could easily ship gold to Europe in exchange for that currency. Such Fed currency would represent “contracts” entered into prior to the date of the order. If the Bank of International Settlements or any other foreign bank holding any of the present gambling debt paper of the Fed should draw a draft for the settlement of such obligation, gold would be shopped to them because the debt contract would have been entered into prior to the date of order.

Crimes and Criminals


“Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional privilege.

“Whereas, I charge. . .Eugene Meyer, Roy A. Young, Edmund Platt, Eugene B. Black, Adolph Casper Miller, Charles S. Hamlin, George R. James, Andrew W. Mellon, Ogden L. Mills, William H. Woo W. Poole, J.F.T. O’Connor, members of the Federal Reserve Board; F. H. Curtis, J.H. Chane, R.L. Austin, George De Camp, L.B. Williams, W.W. Hoxton, Oscar Newton, E.M. Stevens, J.S. Wood, J.N. Payton, M.L. McClure, C.C. Walsh, Isaac B. Newton, Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S  Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally with having unlawfully created claims against the U.S. Treasury by unlawfully placing U.S. Government credit in specific amounts to the credit of foreign governments and foreign central banks of issue; private interests and commercial and private banks of the U.S. and foreign countries, and branches of foreign banks doing business in the U.S., to the extent of billions of dollars; and with having made unlawful contracts in the name of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Treasury; and with having made false entries on books of account; and

“Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having taken Fed Notes from the U.S. Treasury and with having put Fed Notes into circulation without obeying the mandatory provision of the Fed Act which requires the Fed Board to fix an interest rate on all issues of Fed Notes supplied to Fed Banks, the interest resulting therefrom to be paid by the Fed Banks to the government of the U.S. for the use of the Fed Notes, and I charge them of having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. of billions of dollars by the commission of this crime, and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having sold the said U.S. Government securities back to the people of the U.S. for gold or gold values and with having again purchased U.S. Government securities with U.S. Government credit unlawfully taken and with having again sold the said U.S. Government security for gold or gold values, and I charge them with having defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S. by this rotary process; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully negotiated U.S. Government securities, upon which the Government liability was extinguished, as collateral security for Fed Notes and with having substituted such securities for gold which was being held as collateral security for Fed Notes, and with having by the process defrauded the U.S. Government and the people of the U.S., and I charge them with the theft of all the gold and currency they obtained by this process; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully issued Fed currency on false, worthless and fictitious acceptances and other circulating evidence of debt, and with having made unlawful advances of Fed currency, and with having unlawfully permitted renewals of acceptances and renewals of other circulating evidences of debt, and with having permitted acceptance bankers and discount dealer corporations and other private bankers to violate the banking laws of the U.S.; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to have evidences of debt to the extent of $1,000,000,000 artificially created at the end of February, 1933, and early in March 1933, and with having made unlawful issues and advances of Fed currency on the security of said artificially created evidences of debt for a sinister purpose, and with having assisted in the execution of said sinister purpose; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about the repudiation of the currency obligations of the Fed Banks to the people of the U.S. and with having conspired to obtain a release for the Fed Board and the Fed Banks from their contractual liability to redeem all Fed currency in gold or lawful money at the Fed Bank and with having defrauded the holders of Fed currency, and with having conspired to have the debts and losses of the Fed Board and the Fed Banks unlawfully transferred to the Government and the people of the U.S., and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully substituted Fed currency and other irredeemable paper currency for gold in the hands of the people after the decision to repudiate the Fed currency and the national currency was made known to them, and with thus having obtained money under false pretenses; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having brought about a repudiation of the notes of the U.S. in order that the gold value of the said currency might be given to private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issues, and the Bank of International Settlements, and the people of the U.S. to be left without gold or lawful money and with no currency other that a paper currency irredeemable in gold, and I charge them with having done this for the benefit of private interests, foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, and the bank of International Settlements; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with conniving with the Edge Law banks, and other Edge Law institutions, accepting banks, and discount corporations, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial banks, foreign corporations, and foreign individuals with funds unlawfully taken from the U.S. Treasury; and I charge them with having unlawfully permitted and made possible ‘new financing’ for foreigners at the expense of the U.S. Treasury to the extent of billions of dollars and with having unlawfully permitted and made possible the bringing into the United States of immense quantities of foreign securities, created in foreign countries for export to the U.S. and with having unlawfully permitted the said foreign securities to be imported into the U.S. instead of gold, which was lawfully due to the U.S. on trade balances and otherwise, and with having lawfully permitted and facilitated the sale of the said foreign securities in the U.S., and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having unlawfully exported U.S. coins and currency for a sinister purpose, and with having deprived the people of the U.S. of their lawful  medium of exchange, and I charge them with having arbitrarily and unlawfully reduced the amount of money and currency in circulation in the U.S. to the lowest rate per capita in the history of the Government, so that the great mass of the people have been left without a sufficient medium of exchange, and I charge them with concealment and evasion in refusing to make known the amount of U.S. money in coins and paper currency exported and the amount remaining in the U.S. as a result of which refusal the Congress of the U.S. is unable to ascertain where the U.S. coins and issues of currency are at the present time, and what amount of U.S. currency is now held abroad; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having arbitrarily and unlawfully raised and lowered the rates of money and with having arbitrarily increased and diminished the volume of currency in circulation for the benefit of private interests at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S. and with having unlawfully manipulated money rates, wages, salaries and property values both real and personal, in the U.S. by unlawful operations in the open discount market and by resale and repurchase agreements unsanctioned by law, and

“Whereas I charge them jointly and severally, with having brought about the decline in prices on the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges in October, 1929, by unlawful manipulation of money rates and the volume of U.S. money and currency in circulation: by theft of funds from the U.S. Treasury by gambling in acceptances and U.S. Government securities; by service rendered to foreign and domestic speculators and politicians, and by unlawful sale of U.S. gold reserves abroad, and

“Whereas the unconstitutional inflation law imbedded in the so-called Farm Relief Act by which the Fed Banks are given permission to buy U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and to drew forth currency from the people’s Treasury to the extent of $3,000,000,000 is likely to result in connivance on the part of  said accused with others in the purchase by the Fed of the U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 with U.S. Government’s own credit unlawfully taken, it being obvious that the Fed do no not intend to pay anything of value to the U.S. Government for the said U.S. Government securities no provision for payment in gold or lawful money appearing in the so-called Farm Relief bill- and the U.S. Government will thus be placed in a position of conferring a gift of $3,000,000,000 in the U.S. Government securities on the Fed to enable them to pay more on their bad debts to foreign governments, foreign central banks of issue, private interests, and private and commercial banks, both foreign and domestic, and the Bank of International Settlements, and

“Whereas the U.S. Government will thus go into debt to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and will then have an additional claim of $3,000,000,000 in currency unlawfully created against it and whereas no private interest should be permitted to buy U.S. Government securities with the Government’s own credit unlawfully taken and whereas currency should not be issued for the benefit of said private interest or any interests on U.S. Government securities so acquired, and whereas it has been publicly stated and not denied that the inflation amendment of the Farm Relief Act is the matter of benefit which was secured by Ramsey MacDonald, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, upon the occasion of his latest visit to the U.S. Treasury, and whereas there is grave danger that the accused will employ the provision creating U.S. Government securities to the extent of $3,000,000,000 and three millions in currency to be issuable thereupon for the benefit of themselves and their foreign principals, and that they will convert the currency so obtained to the uses of Great Britain by secret arrangements with the Bank of England of which they are the agents, and for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury, and that they will likewise confer benefits upon the Bank of International Settlements for which they maintain an account and perform services at the expense of the U.S. Treasury; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having concealed the insolvency of the Fed and with having failed to report the insolvency of the Fed to the Congress and with having conspired to have the said insolvent institutions continue in operation, and with having permitted the said insolvent institutions to receive U.S. Government funds and other deposits, and with having permitted them to exercise control over the gold reserves of the U.S. and with having permitted them to transfer upward of $100,000,000,000 of their debts and losses to the general public and the Government of the U.S., and with having permitted foreign debts of the Fed to be paid with the property, the savings, the wages, and the salaries of the people of the U.S. and with the farms and the homes of the American people, and whereas I charge them with forcing the bad debts of the Fed upon the general public covertly and dishonestly and and with taking the general wealth and savings of the people of the U.S. under false pretenses, to pay the debts of the Fed to foreigners; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with violations of the Fed Act and other laws; with maladministration of the h evasions of the Fed Law and other laws; and with having unlawfully failed to report violations of law on the part of the Fed Banks which, if known, would have caused the Fed Banks to lose their charters, and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with failure to protect and maintain the gold reserves and the gold stock and gold coinage of the U.S. and with having sold the gold reserves of the U.S to foreign Governments, foreign central banks of issue, foreign commercial and private banks, and other foreign institutions and individuals at a profit to themselves, and I charge them with having sold gold reserves of the U.S. so that between 1924 and 1928 the U.S. gained no gold on net account but suffered a decline in its percentage of central gold reserves from the 45.9 percent in 1924 to 37.5 percent in 1928 notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. had a favorable balance of trade throughout that period, and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired to concentrate U.S. Government securities and thus the national debt of the U.S. in the hands of foreigners and international money lenders and with having conspired to transfer to foreigners and international money lenders title to and control of the financial resources of the U.S.; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having fictitiously paid installments on the national debt with Government credit unlawfully taken; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the loss of the U.S. Government funds entrusted to their care; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having destroyed independent banks in the U.S. and with having thereby caused losses amounting to billions of dollars to the said banks, and to the general public of the U.S., and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the failure to furnish true reports of the business operations and the true conditions of the Fed to the Congress and the people, and having furnished false and misleading reports to the congress of the U.S., and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having published false and misleading propaganda intended to deceive the American people and to cause the U.S. to lose its independence; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with unlawfully allowing Great Britain to share in the profits of the Fed at the expense of the Government and the people of the U.S.; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having entered into secret agreements and illegal transactions with Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with swindling the U.S. Treasury and the people of the U.S. in pretending to have received payment from Great Britain of the amount due on the British ware debt to the U.S. in December, 1932; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having conspired with their foreign principals and others to defraud the U.S. Government and to prevent the people of the U.S. from receiving payment of the war debts due to the U.S. from foreign nations; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with having robbed the U.S Government and the people of the U.S. by their theft and sale of the gold reserves of the U.S. and other unlawful transactions created a deficit in the U.S. Treasury, which has necessitated to a large extent the destruction of our national defense and the reduction of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy and other branches of the national defense; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, of having reduced the U.S. from a first class power to one that is dependent, and with having reduced the U.S. from a rich and powerful nation to one that is internationally poor; and

“Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonable conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S. and with having treasonable conspired to destroy constitutional Government in the U.S.

“Resolve, That the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized and directed as a whole or by subcommittee, to investigate the official conduct of the Fed agents to determine whether, in the opinion of the said committee, they have been guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor which in the contemplation the Constitution requires the interposition of the Constitutional powers of the House. Such Committee shall report its finding to the House, together with such resolution or resolutions of impeachment or other recommendations as it deems proper.

“For the purpose of this resolution the Committee is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress at such times and places in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed or has adjourned, to hold such clerical, stenographic, and other assistants, to require of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, to take such testimony, to have such printing and binding done, and to make such expenditures as it deems necessary.”

After some discussion and upon the motion of Mr. Byrns, the resolution and charge was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Attacks on McFadden’s Life Reported”

Commenting on Former Congressman Louis T. McFaddens’s “heart-failure sudden-death” on Oct. 3, 1936, after a “dose” of “intestinal flu,” “Pelley’s Weekly” of Oct. 14, 1936 said:

Now that this sterling American patriot has made the Passing, it can be revealed that not long after his public utterance against the encroaching powers of Judah, it became known among his intimates that he had suffered two attacks against his life.

The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.   

“He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the Congressman to emergency treatment.” 

/s/ Robert Edward Edmondson (Publicist-Economist)  

                                                                                   “Pelley’s Weekly” of Oct. 14, 1936

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

President Andrew Jackson stated in reference to the bankers at the state of his administration:

“You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Louis T. McFadden‘s Speech

In the House of Representatives

10 June 1932

Source: http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html

“It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”  — Henry Ford

Mr. Chairman, at the present session of Congress we have been dealing with emergency situations. We have been dealing with the effect of things rather than with the cause of things. In this particular discussion I shall deal with some of the causes that lead up to these proposals. There are underlying principles which are responsible for conditions such as we have at the present time and I shall deal with one of these in particular which is tremendously important in the consideration that you are now giving to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board has cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal Reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian revolution and they placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun the breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children.
It has been said that President Wilson was deceived by the attentions of these bankers and by the philanthropic poses they assumed. It has been said that when he discovered the manner in which he had been misled by Colonel House, he turned against that busybody, that “holy monk” of the financial empire, and showed him the door. He had the grace to do that, and in my opinion he deserves great credit for it.
President Wilson died a victim of deception. When he came to the Presidency, he had certain qualities of mind and heart which entitled him to a high place in the councils of this Nation; but there was one thing he was not and which he never aspired to be; he was not a banker. He said that he knew very little about banking. It was, therefore, on the advice of others that the iniquitous Federal Reserve act, the death warrant of American liberty, became law in his administration.
Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning the banking and currency affairs of this country, and I do not speak with any.
In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, but not the accomplice, of the European-born bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this country and who in 1912 had spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.
The Aldrich bill was condemned in the platform upon which Theodore Roosevelt was nominated in the year 1912, and in that same year, when Woodrow Wilson was nominated, the Democratic platform, as adopted at the Baltimore convention, expressly stated: “We are opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank.” This was plain language. The men who ruled the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the “king’s bank” to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave. The Federal Reserve act destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business; it discriminated against our one-name commercial paper, the finest in the world; it set up the antiquated two-name paper, which is the present curse of this country, and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope; it fastened down upon this country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sought to save us.
One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson’s day, when the Second Bank of the United States, which was founded upon the same false principles as those which are here exemplified in the Federal Reserve act, was hurled out of existence. After the downfall of the Second Bank of the United States in 1837, the country was warned against the dangers that might ensue if the predatory interests, after being cast out, should come back in disguise and unite themselves to the Executive, and through him acquire control of the Government. That is what the predatory interests did when they came back in the livery of hypocrisy and under false pretenses obtained the passage of the Federal Reserve act.
The danger that the country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable. This is an era of financed crime and in the financing of crime, the Federal Reserve Board does not play the part of a disinterested spectator.
It has been said that the draughtsman who was employed to write the text of the Federal Reserve bill used a text of the Aldrich bill for his purpose. It has been said that the language of the Aldrich bill was used because the Aldrich bill had been drawn up by expert lawyers and seemed to be appropriate. It was indeed drawn up by lawyers. The Aldrich bill was created by acceptance bankers of European origin in New York City. It was a copy and in general a translation of the statutes of the Reichsbank and other European central banks.
Half a million dollars was spent one part of the propaganda organized by those same European bankers for the purpose of misleading public opinion in regard to it, and for the purpose of giving Congress the impression that there was an overwhelming popular demand for that kind of banking legislation and the kind of currency that goes with it, namely, an asset currency based on human debts and obligations instead of an honest currency based on gold and silver values. Dr. H. Parker Willis had been employed by the Wall Street bankers and propagandists and when the Aldrich measure came to naught and he obtained employment with Carter Glass to assist in drawing a banking bill for the Wilson administration, he appropriated the text of the Aldrich bill for his purpose. There is no secret about it. The text of the Federal Reserve act was tainted from the beginning.
Not all of the Democratic Members of the Sixty-third Congress voted for this great deception. Some of them remembered the teachings of Jefferson; and, through the years, there had been no criticisms of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks so honest, so out-spoken, and so unsparingly as those which have been voiced here by Democrats. Again, although a number of Republicans voted for the Federal Reserve act, the wisest and most conservative members of the Republican Party would have nothing to do with it and voted against it. A few days before the bill came to a vote, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, wrote to Senator John W. Weeks as follows:

New York City, December 17, 1913

My Dear Senator Weeks:

Throughout my public life I have supported all measures designed to take the Government out of the banking business…. This bill puts the Government into the banking business as never before in our history and makes, as I understand it, all notes Government notes when they should be bank notes.
The powers vested in the Federal Reserve Board seem to me highly dangerous, especially where there is political control of the Board. I should be sorry to hold stock in a bank subject to such domination. The bill as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the currency. There is no necessity of dwelling upon this point after the remarkable and most powerful argument of the senior Senator from New York. I can be content here to follow the example of the English candidate for Parliament who thought it enough “to say ditto to Mr. Burke.” I will merely add that I do not like to think that any law can be passed which will make it possible to submerge the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency.
I had hoped to support this bill, but I can not vote for it as it stands, because it seems to me to contain features and to rest upon principles in the highest degree menacing to our prosperity, to stability in business, and to the general welfare of the people of the United States.

Very sincerely yours,

Henry Cabot Lodge

In eighteen years that have passed since Senator Lodge wrote that letter of warning all of his predictions have come true. The Government is in the banking business as never before. Against its will it has been made the backer of horsethieves and card sharps, bootleggers, smugglers, speculators, and swindlers in all parts of the world. Through the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks the riffraff of every country is operating on the public credit of this United States Government. Meanwhile, and on account of it, we ourselves are in the midst of the greatest depression we have ever known. Thus the menace to our prosperity, so feared by Senator Lodge, has indeed struck home. From the Atlantic to the Pacific our country has been ravaged and laid waste by the evil practices of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and the interests which control them. At no time in our history has the general welfare of the people of the United States been at a lower level or the mind of the people so filled with despair.
Recently in one of our States 60,000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer in a single day. According to the Rev. Father Charles E. Coughlin, who has lately testified before a committee of this House, 71,000 houses and farms in Oakland County, Michigan, have been sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed. Similar occurrences have probably taken place in every county in the United States. The people who have thus been driven out are the wastage of the Federal Reserve act. They are the victims of the dishonest and unscrupulous Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival here of the institution of human slavery.
In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander Lassen made the following statement:

But the whole scheme of the Federal Reserve bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery, is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates. It is a system that, if inaugurated, will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people of the United States. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits; for when there is a lack of real money people have to borrow credit to their cost.

A few days before the Federal Reserve act was passed Senator Elihu Root denounced the Federal Reserve bill as an outrage on our liberties and made the following prediction: “Long before we wake up from our dreams of prosperity through an inflated currency, our gold, which alone could have kept us from catastrophe, will have vanished and no rate of interest will tempt it to return.”
If ever a prophecy came true, that one did. It was impossible, however, for those luminous and instructed thinkers to control the course of events. On December 23, 1913, the Federal Reserve bill became law, and that night Colonel House wrote to his hidden master in Wall Street as follows:

I want to say a word of appreciation to you for the silent but no doubt effective work you have done in the interest of currency legislation and to congratulate you that the measure has finally been enacted into law. We all know that an entirely perfect bill, satisfactory to everybody, would have been an impossibility, and I feel quite certain that unless the President had stood as firm as he did we should likely have had no legislation at all. The bill is a good one in many respects; anyhow good enough to start with and to let experience teach us in what direction it needs perfection, which in due time we shall then get. In any event you have personally good reason to feel gratified with what has been accomplished.

The words “unless the President had stood as firm as he did we should likely have had no legislation at all,” were a gentle reminder that it was Colonel House himself, the “holy monk,” who had kept the President firm.
The foregoing letter affords striking evidence of the manner in which the predatory interests then sought to control the Government of the United States by surrounding the Executive with the personality and the influence of a financial Judas. Left to itself and to the conduct of its own legislative functions without pressure from the Executive, the Congress would not have passed the Federal Reserve act. According to Colonel House, and since this was his report to his master, we may believe it to be true, the Federal Reserve act was passed because Wilson stood firm; in other words because Wilson was under the guidance and control of the most ferocious usurers in New York through their hireling, House. The Federal Reserve act became law the day before Christmas Eve in the year 1913, and shortly afterwards the German international bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Co., sent one of their partners here to run it.
In 1913, when the Federal Reserve bill was submitted to the Democratic caucus, there was a discussion in regard to the form the proposed paper currency should take. The proponents of the Federal Reserve act, in their determination to create a new kind of paper money, had not needed to go outside of the Aldrich bill for a model. By the terms of the Aldrich bill, bank notes were to be issued by the National Reserve Association and were to be secured partly by gold or lawful money and partly by circulating evidences of debt. The first draft of the Federal Reserve bill presented the same general plan, that is, for bank notes as opposed to Government notes, but with certain differences of regulation.
When the provision for the issuance of Federal Reserve notes was placed before President Wilson he approved of it, but other Democrats were more mindful of Democratic principles and a great protest greeted the plan. Foremost amongst those who denounced it was William Jennings Bryan, the Secretary of State. Bryan wished to have the Federal Reserve notes issued as Government obligations. President Wilson had an interview with him and found him adamant. At the conclusion of the interview Bryan left with the understanding that he would resign if the notes were made bank notes. The President then sent for his Secretary and explained the matter to him. Mr. Tumulty went to see Bryan and Bryan took from his library shelves a book containing all the Democratic platforms and read extracts from them bearing on the matter of the public currency. Returning to the President, Mr. Tumulty told him what had happened and ventured the opinion that Mr. Bryan was right and that Mr. Wilson was wrong. The President then asked Mr. Tumulty to show him where the Democratic Party in its national platforms had ever taken the view indicated by Bryan. Mr. Tumulty gave him the book, which he had brought from Bryan’s house, and the President read very carefully plank after plank on the currency. He then said, “I am convinced there is a great deal in what Mr. Bryan says,” and thereupon it was arranged that Mr. Tumulty should see the proponents of the Federal Reserve bill in an effort to bring about an adjustment of the matter.
The remainder of this story may be told in the words of Senator Glass. Concerning Bryan’s opposition to the plan of allowing the proposed Federal Reserve notes to take the form of bank notes and the manner in which President Wilson and the proponents of the Federal Reserve bill yielded to Bryan in return for his support of the measure, Senator Glass makes the following statement:

The only other feature of the currency bill around which a conflict raged at this time was the note-issue provision. Long before I knew it, the President was desperately worried over it. His economic good sense told him the notes should be issued by the banks and not by the Government; but some of his advisers told him Mr. Bryan could not be induced to give his support to any bill that did not provide for a “Government note.” There was in the Senate and House a large Bryan following which, united with a naturally adversary party vote, could prevent legislation. Certain overconfident gentlemen proffered their services in the task of “managing Bryan.” They did not budge him…. When a decision could no longer be postponed the President summoned me to the White House to say he wanted Federal Reserve notes to “be obligations of the United States.” I was for an instant speechless. With all the earnestness of my being I remonstrated, pointing out the unscientific nature of such a thing, as well as the evident inconsistency of it.
“There is not, in truth, any Government obligation here, Mr. President,” I exclaimed. “It would be a pretense on its face. Was there ever a Government note based primarily on the property of banking institutions? Was there ever a Government issue not one dollar of which could be put out except by demand of a bank? The suggested Government obligation is so remote it could never be discerned,” I concluded, out of breath.
“Exactly so, Glass,” earnestly said the President. “Every word you say is true; the Government liability is a mere thought. And so, if we can hold to the substance of the thing and give the other fellow the shadow, why not do it, if thereby we may save our bill?”

Shadow and substance! One can see from this how little President Wilson knew about banking. Unknowingly, he gave the substance to the international banker and the shadow to the common man. Thus was Bryan circumvented in his efforts to uphold the Democratic doctrine of the rights of the people. Thus the “unscientific blur” upon the bill was perpetrated. The “unscientific blur,” however, was not the fact that the United States Government, by the terms of Bryan’s edict, was obliged to assume as an obligation whatever currency was issued. Mr. Bryan was right when he insisted that the United States should preserve its sovereignty over the public currency. The “unscientific blur” was the nature of the currency itself, a nature which makes it unfit to be assumed as an obligation of the United States Government. It is the worst currency and the most dangerous this country has ever known. When the proponents of the act saw that the Democratic doctrine would not permit them to let the proposed banks issue the new currency as bank notes, they should have stopped at that. They should not have foisted that kind of currency, namely, an asset currency, on the United States Government. They should not have made the Government liable on the private debts of individuals and corporations and, least of all, on the private debts of foreigners.
The Federal Reserve note is essentially unsound. As Kemmerer says: “The Federal Reserve notes, therefore, in form have some of the qualities of Government paper money, but, in substance, are almost a pure asset currency possessing a Government guaranty against which contingency the Government has made no provision whatever.” Hon. E.J. Hill, a former Member of the House, said, and truly: “They are obligations of the Government for which the United States has received nothing and for the payment of which at any time it assumes the responsibility looking to the Federal Reserve to recoup itself.”
If the United States Government is to redeem the Federal Reserve notes when the general public finds out what it costs to deliver this flood of paper money to the twelve Federal Reserve banks, and if the Government has made no provision for redeeming them, the first element of unsoundness is not far to seek.
Before the Banking and Currency Committee, when the Federal Reserve bill was under discussion, Mr. Crozier, of Cincinnati, said:

In other words, the imperial power of elasticity of the public currency is wielded exclusively by these central corporations owned by the banks. This is a life and death power over all local banks and all business. It can be used to create or destroy prosperity, to ward off or cause stringencies and panics. By making money artificially scarce, interest rates throughout the country can be arbitrarily raised and the bank tax on all business and cost of living increased for the profit of the banks owning these regional central banks, and without the slightest benefit to the people. These twelve corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private gain every dollar of the public currency and all public revenue of the United States. Not a dollar can be put into circulation among the people by their Government without the consent of and on terms fixed by these twelve private money trusts.

In defiance of this and all other warnings, the proponents of the Federal Reserve act created the twelve private credit corporations and gave them an absolute monopoly of the currency of the United States, not of the Federal Reserve notes alone, but of all the currency, the Federal Reserve act providing ways by means of which the gold and general currency in the hands of the American people could be obtained by the Federal Reserve banks in exchange for Federal Reserve notes, which are not money, but merely promises to pay money. Since the evil day when this was done the initial monopoly has been extended by vicious amendments to the Federal Reserve act and by the unlawful and treasonable practices of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks.
Mr. Chairman, when a Chinese merchant sells human hair to a Paris wigmaker and bills him in dollars, the Federal Reserve banks can buy his bill against the wigmaker and then use that bill as collateral for the Federal Reserve notes. The United States Government thus pays the Chinese merchant the debt of the wigmaker and gets nothing in return except a shady title to the Chinese hair.
Mr. Chairman, if a Scottish distiller wishes to send a cargo of Scotch whiskey to the United States, he can draw his bill against the purchasing bootlegger in dollars; and after the bootlegger has accepted it by writing his name across the face of it, the Scotch distiller can send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City, where the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Federal Reserve notes. Thus the Government of the United States pays the Scotch distiller for the whiskey before it is shipped; and if it is lost on the way, or if the Coast Guard seizes it and destroys it, the Federal Reserve banks simply write off the loss and the Government never recovers the money that was paid to the Scotch distiller. While we are attempting to enforce prohibition here, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are financing the distillery business in Europe and paying bootleggers’ bills with the public credit of the United States Government.
Mr. Chairman, if a German brewer ships beer to this country or anywhere else in the world and draws his bill for it in dollars, the Federal Reserve banks will buy that bill and use it as collateral for Federal Reserve notes. Thus, they compel our Government to pay the German brewer for his beer. Why should the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks be permitted to finance the brewing industry in Germany, either in this way or as they do by compelling small and fearful United States banks to take stock in the Isenbeck brewery and in the German bank for brewing industries?
Mr. Chairman, if Dynamit Nobel of Germany wishes to sell dynamite to Japan to use in Manchuria or elsewhere, it can draw its bill against the Japanese customers in dollars and send that bill to the nefarious open discount market in New York City, where the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks will buy it and use it as collateral for a new issue of Federal Reserve notes, while at the same time the Federal Reserve Board will be helping Dynamit Nobel by stuffing its stock into the United States banking system. Why should we send our representatives to the disarmament conference at Geneva while the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are making our Government pay Japanese debts to German munition makers?
Mr. Chairman, if a bean grower of Chile wishes to raise a crop of beans and sell them to a Japanese customer, he can draw a bill against his prospective Japanese customer in dollars and have it purchased by the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks and get the money out of this country at the expense of the American people before he has even planted the beans in the ground.
Mr. Chairman, if a German in Germany wishes to export goods to South America or anywhere else, he can draw his bill against his customer and send it to the United States and get the money out of this country before he ships or even manufactures the goods.
Mr. Chairman, why should the currency of the United States be issued on the strength of Chinese human hair? Why should it be issued on the trade whims of a wigmaker? Why should it be issued on the strength of German beer? Why should it be issued on the crop of unplanted beans to be grown in Chile for Japanese consumption? Why should the Government of the United States be compelled to issue many billions of dollars every year to pay the debts of one foreigner to another foreigner? Was it for this that our national-bank depositors had their money taken out of our banks and shipped abroad? Was it for this that they had to lose it? Why should the public credit of the United States Government and likewise money belonging to our national-bank depositors be used to support foreign brewers, narcotic drug vendors, whiskey distillers, wigmakers, human-hair merchants, Chilean bean growers, and the like? Why should our national-bank depositors and our Government be forced to finance the munition factories of Germany and Soviet Russia?
Mr. Chairman, if a German in Germany, wishes to sell wheelbarrows to another German, he can draw a bill in dollars and get the money out of the Federal Reserve banks before an American farmer could explain his request for a loan to move his crop to market. In Germany, when credit instruments are being given, the creditors say, “See you, it must be of a kind that I can cash at the reserve.” Other foreigners feel the same way. The reserve to which these gentry refer is our reserve, which, as you know, is entirely made up of money belonging to American bank depositors. I think foreigners should cash their own trade paper and not send it over here to bankers who use it to fish cash out of the pockets of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing like the Federal Reserve pool of confiscated bank deposits in the world. It is a public trough of American wealth in which foreigners claim rights equal to or greater than those of Americans. The Federal Reserve banks are agents of the foreign central banks. They use our bank depositors’ money for the benefit of their foreign principals. They barter the public credit of the United States Government and hire it out to foreigners at a profit to themselves.
All this is done at the expense of the United States Government, and at a sickening loss to the American people. Only our great wealth enabled us to stand the drain of it as long as we did.
I believe that the nations of the world would have settled down after the World War more peacefully if we had not had this standing temptation here — this pool of our bank depositors’ money given to private interests and used by them in connection with illimitable drafts upon the public credit of the United States Government. The Federal Reserve Board invited the world to come in and to carry away cash, credit, goods, and everything else of value that was movable. Values amounting to many billions of dollars have been taken out of this country by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks for the benefit of their foreign principals. The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been gutted and only the walls are left standing. While this crime was being perpetrated everything the world could rake up to sell us was brought in here at our own expense by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks until our markets were swamped with unneeded and unwanted imported goods priced far above their value and made to equal the dollar volume of our honest exports and to kill or reduce our favorable balance of trade. As agents of the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks try by every means within their power to reduce our favorable balance of trade. They act for their foreign principals and they accept fees from foreigners for acting against the best interests of the United States. Naturally there has been great competition among foreigners for the favors of the Federal Reserve Board.
What we need to do is to send the reserves of our national banks home to the people who earned and produced them and who still own them and to the banks which were compelled to surrender them to predatory interests. We need to destroy the Federal Reserve pool, wherein our national-bank reserves are impounded for the benefit of the foreigners. We need to make it very difficult for outlanders to draw money away from us. We need to save America for Americans.
Mr. Chairman, when you hold a $10 Federal Reserve note in your hand you are holding a piece of paper which sooner or later is going to cost the United States Government $10 in gold, unless the Government is obliged to give up the gold standard. It is protected by a reserve of 40 per cent. or $4 in gold. It is based on Limburger cheese, reputed to be in foreign warehouses; or on cans purported to contain peas but which may contain salt water instead; or on horse meat; illicit drugs; bootleggers’ fancies; rags and bones from Soviet Russia of which the United States imported over a million dollars’ worth last year; on wines, whiskey, natural gas, on goat or dog fur, garlic on the string, or Bombay ducks. If you like to have paper money which is secured by such commodities, you have it in the Federal Reserve note. If you desire to obtain the thing of value upon which this paper currency is based — that is, the Limburger cheese, the whiskey, the illicit drugs, or any of the other staples — you will have a very hard time finding them. Many of these worshipful commodities are in foreign countries. Are you going to Germany to inspect her warehouses to see if the specified things of value are there? I think not. And what is more, I do not think you would find them there if you did go.
Immense sums belonging to our national-bank depositors have been given to Germany on no collateral security whatever. The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks have issued United States currency on mere finance drafts drawn by Germans. Billions upon billions of our money has been pumped into Germany and money is still being pumped into Germany by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. Her worthless paper is still being negotiated here and renewed here on the public credit of the United States Government and at the expense of the American people. On April 27, 1932, the Federal Reserve outfit sent $750,000, belonging to American bank depositors, in gold to Germany. A week later, another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany in the same way. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. Almost every week there is a shipment of gold to Germany. These shipments are not made for profit on the exchange since the German marks are below parity with the dollar.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the national-bank depositors of the United States are entitled to know what the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are doing with their money. There are millions of national-bank depositors in this country who do not know that a percentage of every dollar they deposit in a member bank of the Federal Reserve system goes automatically to American agents of the foreign banks and that all their deposits can be paid away to foreigners without their knowledge or consent by the crooked machinery of the Federal Reserve act and the questionable practices of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. Mr. Chairman, the American people should be told the truth by their servants in office.
In 1930 we had over half a billion dollars outstanding daily to finance foreign goods stored in or shipped between countries. In its yearly total, this item amounts to several billion dollars. What goods are those on which the Federal Reserve banks yearly pledge several billions of dollars of the public credit of the United States? What goods are those which are hidden in European and Asiatic storehouses and which have never been seen by any officer of this Government, but which are being financed on the public credit of the United States Government? What goods are those upon which the United States Government is being obligated by the Federal Reserve banks to issue Federal Reserve notes to the extent of several billions of dollars a year?
The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks have been international bankers from the beginning, with the United States Government as their enforced banker and supplier of currency. But it is none the less extraordinary to see those twelve private credit monopolies buying the debts of foreigners against foreigners in all parts of the world and asking the Government of the United States for new issues of Federal Reserve notes in exchange for them.
I see no reason why the American taxpayers should be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the European and Asiatic customers of the Federal Reserve banks. I see no reason why a worthless acceptance drawn by a foreign swindler as a means of getting gold out of this country should receive the lowest and choicest rate from the Federal Reserve Board and be treated as better security than the note of an American farmer living on American land.
The magnitude of the acceptance racket, as it has been developed by the Federal Reserve banks, their foreign correspondents, and the predatory European-born bankers who set up the Federal Reserve institution here and taught our own brand of pirates how to loot the people — I say the magnitude of this racket is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $9,000,000,000 a year. In the past ten years it is said to have amounted to $90,000,000,000. In my opinion, it has amounted to several times as much. Coupled with this you have, to the extent of billions of dollars, the gambling in the United States securities, which takes place in the same open discount market — a gambling upon which the Federal Reserve Board is now spending $100,000,000 per week.
Federal Reserve notes are taken from the United States Government in unlimited quantities. Is it strange that the burden of supplying these immense sums of money to the gambling fraternity has at last proved too heavy for the American people to endure? Would it not be a national calamity if the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks should again bind this burden down on the backs of the American people and, by means of the long rawhide whips of the credit masters, compel them to enter another seventeen years of slavery? They are trying to do that now. They are taking $100,000,000 of the public credit of the United States Government every week in addition to all their other seizures, and they are spending that money in the nefarious open market in New York City in a desperate gamble to reestablish their graft as a going concern.
They are putting the United States Government in debt to the extent of $100,000,000 a week, and with the money they are buying up our Government securities for themselves and their foreign principals. Our people are disgusted with the experiments of the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board is not producing a loaf of bread, a yard of cloth, a bushel of corn, or a pile of cordwood by its check-kiting operations in the money market.
A fortnight or so ago great aid and comfort was given to Japan by the firm of A. Gerli & Sons, of New York, an importing firm, which bought $16,000,000 worth of raw silk from the Japanese Government. Federal Reserve notes will be issued to pay that amount to the Japanese Government, and these notes will be secured by money belonging to our national-bank depositors.
Why should United States currency be issued on this debt? Why should United States currency be issued to pay the debt of Gerli & Sons to the Japanese Government? The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks think more of the silkworms of Japan than they do of American citizens. We do not need $16,000,000 work of silk in this country at the present time, not even to furnish work to dyers and finishers. We need to wear home-grown and American-made clothes and to use our own money for our own goods and staples. We could spend $16,000,000 in the United States of America on American children and that would be a better investment for us than Japanese silk purchased on the public credit of the United States Government.
Mr. Speaker, on the 13th of January of this year I addressed the House on the subject of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. In the course of my remarks I made the following statement:

In 1928 the member banks of the Federal Reserve system borrowed $60,598,690,000 from the Federal Reserve banks on their fifteen-day promissory notes. Think of it! Sixty billion dollars payable upon demand in gold in the course of one single year. The actual payment of such obligations calls for six times as much monetary gold as there is in the entire world. Such transactions represent a grant in the course of one single year of about $7,000,000 to every member bank of the Federal Reserve system. Is it any wonder that there is a depression in this country? Is it any wonder that American labor, which ultimately pays the cost of all banking operations of this country, has at last proved unequal to the task of supplying this huge total of cash and credit for the benefit of the stock-market manipulators and foreign swindlers?

Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues have asked for more specific information concerning this stupendous graft, this frightful burden which has been placed on the wage earners and taxpayers of the United States for the benefit of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. They were surprised to learn that member banks of the Federal Reserve system had received the enormous sum of $60,598,690,000 from the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks on their promissory notes in the course of one single year, namely, 1928. Another Member of this House, Mr. Beedy, the honorable gentleman from Maine, has questioned the accuracy of my statement and has informed me that the Federal Reserve Board denies absolutely that these figures are correct. This Member has said to me that the thing is unthinkable, that it can not be, that it is beyond all reason to think that the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks should have so subsidized and endowed their favorite banks of the Federal Reserve system. This Member is horrified at the thought of a graft so great, a bounty so detrimental to the public welfare as sixty and a half billion dollars a year and more shoveled out to favored banks of the Federal Reserve system.
In 1930, while the speculating banks were getting out of the stock market at the expense of the general public, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks advanced them $13,022,782,000. This shows that when the banks were gambling on the public credit of the United States Government as represented by the Federal Reserve currency, they were subsidized to any amount they required by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. When the swindle began to fall, the bankers knew it in advance and withdrew from the market. They got out with whole skins and left the people of the United States to pay the piper.
On November 2, 1931, I addressed a letter to the Federal Reserve Board asking for the aggregate total of member bank borrowing in the years 1928, 1929, 1930. In due course, I received a reply from the Federal Reserve Board, dated November 9, 1931, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

My Dear Congressman:

In reply to your letter of November 2, you are advised that the aggregate amount of fifteen-day promissory notes of member banks during each of the past three calender years has been as follows:

1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . $60,598,690,000

 1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,046,697,000

 1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,022,782,000

This will show the gentleman from Maine the accuracy of my statement. As for the denial of these facts made to him by the Federal Reserve Board, I can only say that it must have been prompted by fright, since hanging is too good for a Government board which permitted such a misuse of Government funds and credit.
My friend from Kansas, Mr. McGugin, has stated that he thought the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks lent money by rediscounting. So they do, but they lend comparatively little that way. The real rediscounting that they do has been called a mere penny in the slot business. It is too slow for genuine high flyers. They discourage it. They prefer to subsidize their favorite banks by making these $60,000,000,000 advances, and they prefer to acquire acceptances in the notorious open discount market in New York, where they can use them to control the prices of stocks and bonds on the exchanges. For every dollar they advanced on rediscounts in 1928 they lent $33 to their favorite banks for gambling purposes. In other words, their rediscounts in 1928 amounted to $1,814,271,000, while their loans to member banks amounted to $60,598,690,000. As for their open-market operations, these are on a stupendous scale, and no tax is paid on the acceptances they handle; and their foreign principals, for whom they do a business of several billion dollars every year, pay no income tax on their profits to the United States Government.
This is the John Law swindle all over again. The theft of Teapot Dome was trifling compared to it. What king ever robbed his subjects to such an extent as the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks have robbed us? Is it any wonder that there have lately been ninety cases of starvation in one of the New York hospitals? Is there any wonder that the children of this country are being dispersed and abandoned?
The Government and the people of the United States have been swindled by swindlers deluxe to whom the acquisition of American gold or a parcel of Federal Reserve notes presented no more difficulty than the drawing up of a worthless acceptance in a country not subject to the laws of the United States, by sharpers not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States courts, sharpers with a strong banking “fence” on this side of the water — a “fence” acting as a receiver of the worthless paper coming from abroad, endorsing it and getting the currency out of the Federal Reserve banks for it as quickly as possible, exchanging that currency for gold, and in turn transmitting the gold to its foreign confederates.
Such were the exploits of Ivar Kreuger, Mr. Hoover’s friend, and his hidden Wall Street backers. Every dollar of the billions Kreuger and his gang drew out of this country on acceptances was drawn from the Government and the people of the United States through the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The credit of the United States Government was peddled to him by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks for their own private gain. That is what the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks have been doing for many years. They have been peddling the credit of this Government and the signature of this Government to the swindlers and speculators of all nations. That is what happens when a country forsakes its Constitution and gives its sovereignty over the public currency to private interests. Give them the flag and they will sell it.
The nature of Kreuger’s organized swindle and the bankrupt condition of Kreuger’s combine was known here last June when Hoover sought to exempt Kreuger’s loan to Germany of $125,000,000 from the operation of the Hoover moratorium. The bankrupt condition of Kreuger’s swindle was known here last summer when $30,000,000 was taken from the American taxpayers by certain bankers in New York for the ostensible purpose of permitting Kreuger to make a loan to Colombia. Colombia never saw that money. The nature of Kreuger’s swindle and the bankrupt condition of Kreuger was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, at the White House. It was known here in March before he went to Paris and committed suicide there.
Mr. Chairman, I think the people of the United States are entitled to know how many billions of dollars were placed at the disposal of Kreuger and his gigantic combine by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and to know how much of our Government currency was issued and lost in the financing of that great swindle in the years during which the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks took care of Kreuger’s requirements.
Mr. Chairman, I believe there should be a congressional investigation of the operations of Kreuger and Toll in the United States and that Swedish Match, International Match, the Swedish-American Investment Corporation, and all related enterprises, including the subsidiary companies of Kreuger and Toll, should be investigated and that the issuance of United States currency in connection with those enterprises and the use of our national-bank depositors’ money for Kreuger’s benefit should be made known to the general public. I am referring, not only to the securities which were floated and sold in this country, but also to the commercial loans to Kreuger’s enterprises and the mass financing of Kreuger’s companies by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and the predatory institutions which the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks shield and harbor.
A few days ago, the President of the United States, with a white face and shaking hands, went before the Senate on behalf of the moneyed interests and asked the Senate to levy a tax on the people so that foreigners might know that the United States would pay its debt to them. Most Americans thought it was the other way around. What do the United States owe to foreigners? When and by whom was the debt incurred? It was incurred by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks when they peddled the signature of this Government to foreigners for a price. It is what the United States Government has to pay to redeem the obligations of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. Are you going to let those thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?
The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad is here asking for a large loan from the people and the wage earners and the taxpayers of the United States. It is begging for a hand-out from the Government. It is standing, cap in hand, at the door of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, where all the other jackals have gathered to the feast. It is asking for money that was raised from the people by taxation, and wants this money of the poor for the benefit of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., the German international bankers. Is there one law for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and another for the needy veterans it threw off its freight cars the other day? Is there one law for sleek and prosperous swindlers who call themselves bankers and another law for the soldiers who defended the United States flag?
Mr. Chairman, some people are horrified because the collateral behind Kreuger and Toll debentures was removed and worthless collateral substituted for it. What is this but what is being done daily by the Federal Reserve banks? When the Federal Reserve act was passed, the Federal Reserve banks were allowed to substitute “other like collateral” for collateral behind Federal Reserve notes but by an amendment obtained at the request of the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board, the act was changed so that the word “like” was stricken out. All that immense trouble was taken here in Congress so that the law would permit the Federal Reserve banks to switch collateral. At the present time behind the scenes in the Federal Reserve banks there is a night-and-day movement of collateral. A visiting Englishman, leaving the United States a few weeks ago, said that things would look better here after “they cleaned up the mess at Washington.” Cleaning up the mess consists in fooling the people and making them pay a second time for the bad foreign investments of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. It consists in moving that heavy load of dubious and worthless foreign paper — the bills of wigmakers, brewers, distillers, narcotic-drug vendors, munition makers, illegal finance drafts, and worthless foreign securities, out of the banks and putting it on the back of American labor. That is what the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is doing now. They talk about loans to banks and railroads but they say very little about that other business of theirs which consists in relieving the swindlers who promoted investment trusts in this country and dumped worthless foreign securities into them and then resold that mess of pottage to American investors under cover of their own corporate titles. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation is taking over those worthless securities from those investment trusts with United States Treasury money at the expense of the American taxpayer and the wage earner.
It will take us twenty years to redeem our Government. Twenty years of penal servitude to pay off the gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and to earn again that vast flood of American wages and savings, bank deposits, and United States Government credit which the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks exported out of this country to their foreign principals.
The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks lately conducted an anti-hoarding campaign here. Then they took that extra money which they had persuaded the American people to put into the banks and they sent it to Europe along with the rest. In the last several months, they have sent $1,300,000,000 in gold to their foreign employers, their foreign masters, and every dollar of that gold belonged to the people of the United States and was unlawfully taken from them.
Is not it high time that we had an audit of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and an examination of all our Government bonds and securities and public moneys instead of allowing the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks to speculate with those securities and this cash in the notorious open discount market of New York City?
Mr. Chairman, within the limits of the time allowed me, I can not enter into a particularized discussion of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. I have singled out the Federal Reserve currency for a few remarks because there has lately been some talk here of “fiat money.” What kind of money is being pumped into the open discount market and through it into foreign channels and stock exchanges? Mr. Mills of the Treasury has spoken here of his horror of the printing presses and his horror of dishonest money. He has no horror of dishonest money. If he had, he would be no party to the present gambling of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks in the nefarious open discount market of New York, a market in which the sellers are represented by ten great discount dealer corporations owned and organized by the very banks which own and control the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. Fiat money, indeed!
After the several raids on the Treasury Mr. Mills borrows the speech of those who protested against those raids and speaks now with pretended horror of a raid on the Treasury. Where was Mr. Mills last October when the United States Treasury needed $598,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money which was supposed to be in the safe-keeping of Andrew W. Mellon in the designated depositories of Treasury funds, and which was not in those depositories when the Treasury needed it? Mr. Mills was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury then, and he was at Washington throughout October, with the exception of a very significant week he spent at White Sulphur Springs closeted with international bankers, while the Italian minister, Signor Grandi, was being entertained — and bargained with — at Washington.
What Mr. Mills is fighting for is the preservation whole and entire of the banker’s monopoly of all the currency of the United States Government. What Mr. Patman proposes is that the Government shall exercise its sovereignty to the extent of issuing some currency for itself. This conflict of opinion between Mr. Mills as the spokesman of the bankers and Mr. Patman as the spokesman of the people brings the currency situation here into the open. Mr. Patman and the veterans are confronted by a stone wall — the wall that fences in the bankers with their special privileges. Thus, the issue is joined between the host of democracy, of which the veterans are a part, and the men of the king’s bank, the would-be aristocrats, who deflated American agriculture and robbed this country for the benefit of their foreign principals.
Mr. Chairman, last December, I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and all related matters. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation, the people of the United States will obtain information of great value. This is a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Consequently, nothing should be concealed from the people. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to the United States. The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals or covers up that crime is an accessory to it. Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great Nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous Government board acting in secret concert with international usurers. Every effort has been made by the Federal Reserve Board to conceal its power but the truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will. No man and no body of men is more entrenched in power than the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. These evil-doers have robbed this country of more than enough money to pay the national debt. What the National Government has permitted the Federal Reserve Board to steal from the people should now be restored to the people. The people have a valid claim against the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. If that claim is enforced, Americans will not need to stand in the breadlines or to suffer and die of starvation in the streets. Homes will be saved, families will be kept together, and American children will not be dispersed and abandoned. The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks owe the United States Government an immense sum of money. We ought to find out the exact amount of the people’s claim. We should know the amount of the indebtedness of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks to the people and we should investigate this treacherous and disloyal conduct of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks.
Here is a Federal Reserve note. Immense numbers of these notes are now held abroad. I am told that they amount to upwards of a billion dollars. They constitute a claim against our Government and likewise a claim against the money our people have deposited in the member banks of the Federal Reserve system. Our people’s money to the extent of $1,300,000,000 which has within the last few months been shipped abroad to redeem Federal Reserve notes and to pay other gambling debts of the traitorous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The greater part of our monetary stock has been shipped to foreigners. Why should we promise to pay the debts of foreigners to foreigners? Why should our Government be put into the position of supplying money to foreigners? Why should the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks be permitted to finance our competitors in all parts of the world? Do you know why the tariff was raised? It was raised to shut out the flood of Federal Reserve goods pouring in here from every quarter of the globe — cheap goods, produced by cheaply paid foreign labor on unlimited supplies of money and credit sent out of this country by the dishonest and unscrupulous Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. Go out in Washington to buy an electric light bulb and you will probably be offered one that was made in Japan on American money. Go out to buy a pair of fabric gloves and inconspicuously written on the inside of the gloves that will be offered to you will be found the words “made in Germany” and that means “made on the public credit of the United States Government paid to German firms in American gold taken from the confiscated bank deposits of the American people.”
The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are spending $100,000,000 a week buying Government securities in the open market and are making a great bid for foreign business. They are trying to make rates so attractive that the human-hair merchants and distillers and other business entities in foreign lands will come here and hire more of the public credit of the United States Government and pay the Federal Reserve outfit for getting it for them.
Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here which would make the savings of an American school-teacher available to a narcotic-drug vendor in Macao. They did not perceive that the United States were to be lowered to the position of a coolie country which has nothing but raw materials and heavy goods for export; that Russia was destined to supply the man power and that this country was to supply financial power to an international superstate — a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.
The people of the United States are being greatly wronged. If they are not, then I do not know what “wronging the people” means. They have been driven from their employments. They have been dispossessed of their homes. They have been evicted from their rented quarters. They have lost their children. They have been left to suffer and to die for lack of shelter, food, clothing, and medicine.
The wealth of the United States and the working capital of the United States has been taken away from them and has either been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations or exported to foreign countries for the benefit of the foreign customers of those banks and corporations. So far as the people of the United States are concerned, the cupboard is bare. It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full, but the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are padlocked and the great banks and corporations hold the keys. The sack of the United States by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks is the greatest crime in history.
Mr. Chairman, a serious situation confronts the House of Representatives to-day. We are trustees of the people and the rights of the people are being taken away from them. Through the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks, the people are losing the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Their property has been taken from them without due process of law. Mr. Chairman, common decency requires us to examine the public accounts of the Government and see what crimes against the public welfare have and are being committed.
What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of the United States. We need to have a complete divorce of Bank and State. The old struggle that was fought out here in Jackson’s day must be fought over again. The independent United States Treasury should be re-established and the Government should keep its own money under lock and key in the building the people provided for that purpose. Asset currency, the device of the swindler, should be done away with. The Government should buy gold and issue United States currency on it. The business of the independent bankers should be restored to them. The State banking systems should be freed from coercion The Federal Reserve districts should be abolished and the State boundaries should be respected. Bank reserves should be kept within the borders of the States whose people own them, and this reserve money of the people should be protected so that the international bankers and acceptance bankers and discount dealers can not draw it away from them. The exchanges should be closed while we are putting our financial affairs in order. The Federal Reserve act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. Faithless Government officers who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial. Unless this is done by us, I predict that the American people, outraged, robbed, pillaged, insulted, and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath and send a President here who will sweep the money changers out of the temple.


Facsimile of the Congressional Record, 1932, pages 12595 and 12596

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF SPEECH ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

CONGRESSMAN J. THORKELSON

OF MONTANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1940

 

“Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife.”

 

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

Congressional Record

263553—19504

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 Republic,

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 educational

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 become

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 understood

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 disintegration

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 considerations

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 internal

peace under one government, as it was the duty of Englishmen

and Scotsmen to unite under precisely similar conditions.

England has 7 times the population of Scotland; the Republic

has 14 times t h a t 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 natural

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

2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

whole race in America. Present petty Jealousies melt away as the

population north and south become in a greater degree born Americans.

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 Englishspeaking

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 t h a n 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 t h a t 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 subject,

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 country

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 present

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, t h a t Britain can look for much increase of population

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 declined

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 thoughtful

man could wish much further increase, even if it were possible?

A denser population must cause deterioration. The density of population

in England and Wales is not reached by any European country,

except the small state of Belgium. France has only 188, Germany

270 (or one-half), Italy 290, Japan has only 296. The

authorities agree t h a t England and Wales are fully populated. Ireland

proves that it is so by the small increase. Scotland has increased

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. Excluding

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 Englishspeaking

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, fortunately,

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 spindles

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 unfavorable

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

t h a t 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 Virginian

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—comparatively

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 population

(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 possible

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 republican

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 innocently,

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 3

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 propaganda

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 celebration

of the t e n th 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 t he

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, consisting

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 herewith

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 doubtless

do for me all t h a t 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 contained

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.

“DIGHTON P R O B Y N . ”

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 represented

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 t h a t 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 between

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 different

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 preservation

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 Marshal

Lord Roberts. He believes in making his nation a great fighting

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 invitation.

There is none I would sooner accept, but unfortunately

it is quite impossible for me to be with you on February 4. So sincerely

wish it were otherwise. All prosperity to the American

Pilgrims.”

And from Lord Charles Beresford, who was with us at the foundation

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 friendship

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 celebration

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 controversies

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

4 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 quarreled

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 t h a t 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 respective

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 t h a t 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 suspecting

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 t h a t difference?

Well, I should say, as any gentlemen would settle differences t h at

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 themselves

by another sealed and secret vote.

Now, the people of this country are not going to allow anybody—

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 Atlantic

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 Anglophile,

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 Government.

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 Government.

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 intimated

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 furnished

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 expressed

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 happenings

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 5

from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which

we destroyed constitutional government, international security,

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 became

involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone

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 committee

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 t h a t 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 mentioned

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 t h a t he has cast a ballot

for the gentlemen named in the report of the nominating committee.

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 t h e 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 t h at

anniversary and in your presence, I salute his memory and bear t r i b 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 interest

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 t h e m , 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 t h a t 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 w e l l 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 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 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 Westminster

reads:

“No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement

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 England,

or to the provisions of any existing or future act of Parliament

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 Dominions.

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 ratification

of the Constitution of the United States. They introduce

into the government of mankind a new form of federal relationship,

not a federal relationship such as exists between our

own States and the Federal Government, but a federal relationship

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 discussion

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 submit,

my fellow pilgrims, that t h a t 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 several

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 profound

knowledge and that grasp which only comes from experience,

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

6 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 overlapping

and from friction? What was the function of the courts?

What the limit, if a n y , of their authority? I assure you it was no

small pleasure and pride to be able to answer questions to that distinguished

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 t h e 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. Tomorrow

will be the Fourth of July.” [Laughter.]

By pure accident they had brought their discussion of the reorganization

of the British Empire and its Dominions to a conclusion

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 itself,

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 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.

And who signed it? The first name is the name which

stands at the head of the signers of the Declaration of Independence

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 Independence

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 Declaration

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, revolution,

Independence, separate nationhood, were of the essence of

the great undertaking, and so they happened. But in the intervening

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 betterment,

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, enrichment,

and the benefit and satisfaction of all their peoples.

This principle of International cooperation, in one form or another,

whether it be our form, whether it be the British form,

or whether it be the forms which are slowly coming on the continent

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 remarking

the significance, the far-reaching importance, of this Statute

of Westminster and the prophecy of it by our own nationbuilders

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 intimates

that in view of this adoption, it is now in order for

us to Join the British Empire. He makes the further statement

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 conflict

there is one issue on which t h e 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 overwhelming

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 foreignmade

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 strongest—

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 example

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 constitutes

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 conflict

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 Ethiopians

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 t h e point where, defeated and discouraged, Germany

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.

It seems to me that the answer to the above question is definite

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, America

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, Rumania,

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

of 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 accomplished

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 interests

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 Ambassador

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 notables

such as it would be difficult to bring together under one roof

for any other purpose and by any other society. The Lothian dinner

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 members

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 Corporation

of America), the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau,

and many other leading figures in government, diplomacy,

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

263553—19504

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 whenever

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 British

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 democracy.”

They may again be fooled by an appeal to democracy.

Knowing this, it has become a valuable vehicle for foreign propagandists,

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 democratic

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? * * * The 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

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 under-

cover and un-American activities so that we may learn the t r u th

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 dependencies

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 American

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, in commerce, in industry, in shipping,

and in practically all other important fields of national and international

activities.

The president of the British Pilgrims is His Royal Highness, the

Duke of Connaught, great uncle of the present King. As vice presidents

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 important

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; editors,

publishers, and owners of America’s leading newspapers; experts

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 maintaining

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 another

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 American

people, three telegrams were received and read to the celebrating

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 9

The message from King George V was read by Sir Austin Chamberlain:

“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 g r e a t countries is one on which the future happiness of the

world in a great measure depends. Ever since I have been president

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 platform

lecturer * * * friendship * * * two great countries

* * * common object. Here democracy was not mentioned,

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 interest

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 t h a t 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 Excellency,

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 t h e ‘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 Pilgrim

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 London

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

t h a t 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 organization.

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 Englishspeaking

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 originated

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 headquarters

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. appointed

exclusive purchasing agents for the British Government in

America during the World War. Another director of the English10

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,

Ill.; 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 e n 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 “bloodbrotherhood”

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), addresses

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 immortal

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 leaders

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 conflict.

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 ourselves.

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 network

of British propaganda: we cannot again allow our statesmen,

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 Senators

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, S r . , addressed the President

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 t i m e ; i t may be misled,

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. s i r , 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?

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 following

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 enterprise;

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 those I should like Britons to consider what the proposed

reunion means. Not the most sanguine advocate of “Imperial

federation” dares to intimate that the federation that he dreams of

would free the markets of all its members to each other. This question

cannot even be discussed when imperial conferences meet; if it

be introduced, it is judiciously shelved. But an Anglo-American reunion

brings free entry here of all British productions as a matter

of course. The richest market in the world is opened to Britain

free of all duty by a stroke of the pen. No tax revenue, although

under free trade such taxes might still exist. What would not

trade with the Republic, duty free, mean to the linen, woolen, iron,

and steel industries of Scotland, to the tin-plate manufacturers of

England. It would mean prosperity to every industry in the United

Kingdom, and thus in turn would mean renewed prosperity to the

agricultural Interests, now so sorely depressed.”

Another quotation:

“In the event of reunion, the American manufacturers would

supply the interior of the country, but the great population skirting

the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific coast would receive their

manufactured a r t i c l e s chiefly from Great Britain.”

And still another quotation:

“Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble

dreams, but it shall never shake my belief that the wound caused

by the wholly unlooked-for and undesired separation of the mother

from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will,

therefore, I say, t h a t as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone

upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise,

shine upon, and greet again the reunited state, the British-American

Union.”

1914: Andrew Carnegie took over the controlling group of the

Federal Council of Churches by subsidizing what is known as the

Church Peace Union with (2,000,000, and the Church Peace Union

or the board of trustees has always exercised a dominating influence

263553-19504

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 11

in the Federal Council. This endowment has provided sufficient

annual income to run the budget of the Federal Council and its

cooperating organizations Among the associated groups are the

World’s Alliance of International Friendship Through the Churches,

Commission on International Friendship and Good Will, National

Council for Prevention of War. and American Civil Liberties Union.

(Bee Pastors, Pacifists, and Politicians, pp. 5 and 6, published by the

Constructive Educational Publishing Co . Chicago.)

1917-18: Witnessed the promise of England to give Palestine to

the Zionist Jews, if they would throw America into the war on her

side. This was reported in the New York Times March 8, 1930. Sunday

editorial. It was this that caused Otto Kahn to come to

America and become an American citizen. (See New York Sun,

June 19, 1936—Pledged Jews National Home—p. 19.)

1917: At the annual meeting of the trustees for the Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace, held at the Headquarters Building,

No. 2. Jackson Place, Washington, D. C, on April 20, 1917, the

following resolutions were adopted by the board:

“PEACE THROUGH TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRACY

“Resolved, That the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, assembled for their annual meeting, declare

hereby their belief that the most effectual means of promoting

durable International peace is to prosecute the war against the

Imperial Government of Germany to final victory for democracy,

in accordance with the policy declared by the President of the

United States.

“SERVICES TENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT

“Resolved, That the endowment offers to the Government the

services of its division of international law. its personnel and equipment,

for dealing with the pressure of International business incident

to the war.” (See pp. 181-183 of the C. E. for I. P. Year

Book, 1917.)

In connection with the adoption of this resolution, the following

quotation from a letter written to Hon. Robert Lansing, Secretary

of State, dated April 21, 1917, by the secretary of the board, Dr.

James Brown Scott:

“Of course, a general offer to the Government should be Interpreted

as an offer to the particular department of the Government

to which the division of international law may be of more appropriate

service, and, since the nature of the work of the division is

in line with, and many of its officers and employees are former

officers and employees of the Department of State, I feel that the

services and equipment of the division should be offered to that

Department, which offer I hereby convey as the representative of

the endowment in carrying out the above resolution of the board of

trustees.”

In June 1918: Woodrow Wilson sent two men to England: Mr.

Charles Moore, of Detroit. Mich., and Prof. Andrew McLaughlin, of

Chicago University, and an agreement was made to leave the carrying

trade of the Atlantic to Great Britain, which was embodied in

our version of the peace treaty, as written by Col. Edward M.

House, at Beverly Farms, Mass.

1918: Witnessed the American Historical Association, Carnegie

endowed, meeting in London, and the agreement was made to

rewrite American history to please England. (See American Historical

Year Book, 1918.)

1919: When Lord Northcliffe had completed his propaganda organization

in this country during the recent World War, and was

returning home it was announced that he was leaving behind him

$ 150.000,000 (our own money, of course) and 10,000 trained agents

to carry on the work. His own London Times in the issue of July

4, 1919. rendered account of the “efficient propaganda” which he

had inaugurated here and was being carried out by those trained

in the arts of creating public good will and of swaying public

opinion toward a definite purpose. (See Report on Investigation

of American History, City of New York. May 25, 1923.)

Among the methods, stated by the London Times, to be then in

operation or in prospect in this country were:

“Efficiently organized propaganda to mobilize the press, the

church, the stage, and the cinema, to press into active service the

whole educational system, the universities, public and high schools

and primary schools. Histories and textbooks on literature should

be revised. New books should be added, particularly in the primary

school. Hundreds of exchange university scholarships should

be provided. Local societies should be formed In every center to

foster British-American good will, in close cooperation with an

administrative committee.” (See Report on Investigation of American

History, City of New York, May 25. 1923.)

This same Fourth of July issue of the London Times contained

a signed article by Owen Wister, American born, in which we

said: “A movement to correct the schoolbooks of the United States

has been started and it will go on.” (See p. 62 of Report on

Investigation of American History, city of New York, May 25. 1923.)

1919: Witnessed the rewriting of American history to please England.

Protests were made by the Sons of the American Revolution

and other patriotic societies. (See Report on Pro-British Histories,

held at City Hall. May 25. 1923.)

1919: Mr. Edward Filene, of Boston, an internationalist, set up

the Twentieth Century Fund. Inc., and by interlocking directorates

has control over 124 trust funds, together totaling nearly a billion

dollars. Included in this control are the Carnegie, Rockefeller, the

Duke and Russell Sage Foundations from which funds go subsidies

to subversive communistic, socialistic, and all peace movements, as

well as the cooperative movements. Among activities of Twentieth

263553—19504

Century Fund, Inc., are the following: N. R. A., S. E. C, Wagner

Labor Act. International Labor Office (affiliated with League of

Nations), Foreign Policy Association, credit unions, cooperatives,

League of Women Voters. (See Red Network, published by Elizabeth

Dilling. 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Ill., for communistic

activities of these groups. Also see Year Books and American

Foundations and Their Fields, published by Twentieth Century

Fund, Inc., 330 West Forty-second Street, New York.)

1920: From the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

Year Book, 1920—Division of International Law—report of the

director, James Brown Scott, page 111.

THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

“The director believes that the road to progress runs from the

Hague Conferences to a distant and ever receding horizon. He

believes that nations are only willing to try on an international

scale those things which have been tried within national lines and

which have been successful. He believes in an infinite series of

little steps, not in any one leap, however attractive the prospect

may be.”

“During the Conference of Paris, the director dally passed

through the Place de la Concorde in going to and from the Hotel

de Crillon to the Quai d’Orsay. He has often stood before the

obelisk marking the site where the head of Louis XVI fell, and with

it the old regime. The men of that day dreamed of a newer and

better future. All that has been was wrong and the wrong must

be righted. They abolished the old calendar based upon the

birth of the Man of Nazareth, and brushing it aside, they began

their new era with the year 1. But it all ended with the final

entry of Louis XVIII, the brother of Louis XVI, into the Tuileries

in the year of Our Lord 1815.

“The statesmen of the future, if not of the present day, are

bound to recur to the past, and in International organization, the

past is, in the opinion of the director, the Hague Peace

Conferences.”

RECOMMENDATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

(Quotations from p. 110, Year Book 1920)

“It Is not necessary for a workable program of International

organization that the world should be federated; it is, however,

essential that the nations of the civilized world should cooperate.”

1921-25: Witnessed the battle for the suppression of the Star-

Spangled Banner and the desire to replace it with America the

Beautiful. Nine years were consumed in getting the bill out of

the pigeonhole of the Judiciary, legalizing the national anthem

against such attacks. In spite of this, the official national anthem

is rarely heard.

Mrs. Augusta Stetson put paid advertisements in newspapers

around the country, including the New York Times (August 5,

1925), and admitted under oath when subpenaed to city hall,

March 5, 1924, for an investigation that she had spent $169,000

in one fund and $17,000 in another to destroy and delete the

Star-Spangled Banner because it was not pleasing to England.

Franklin Ford, her secretary, in 1931, admitted at his office that

he was financed by the English-Speaking Union and the British

Commonwealth Club. Inc. (Refer to hearing before Deputy Commissioner

Lowden, March 5, 1924, New York City.)

1925: A March issue of Saturday Evening Post carries an article

by Owen D. Young, the originator of the Young plan bonds for

the reparation of Germany, in which he stated that American

labor would have to be reduced to the status of European labor.

1929: Witnessed the visit of Ramsay MacDonald with Hoover on

the Rapidan. (See World-Telegram, October 10, 1929.) “The result

of those representations, both Washington and London will hold

to be of vital significance to the future of organized society.”

See also New York Times, October 10, 1929, Ramsay MacDonald

said: “I have achieved more than I hoped.”

1929: Witnessed the stock-market crash. See National Message,

official organ British-Israel World Federation, New York Public

Library, October 12, 1935, page 679:

“It was told to me by a heavyweight American financier before

the crash came that the crash was coming, that it would be permitted

to run to the danger point, and that when the danger

point was passed it would be reversed by measures carefully prepared

in advance to meet the situation. I carefully noted what

he said and left it for events to prove the value of his statement.”

1934: John L. Lewis, organizer of the Committee for industrial

Organization, attended the June conference of the International

Labor Organization. (See New York Times, October 11, 1934.)

1935: See CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, August 26, page 15051, Mr. Huey

Long: “A newspaperman whom I know to be reliable telephoned

me tonight and said: ‘I have found out for you that the Secretary

of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, has given out a statement in confidence

* * * that this 9-cent plan was devised by Mr. Oscar

Johnson, of Mississippi.’ I said, ‘If it is the Oscar Johnson, of

Mississippi, that I know about, he was the manager of a chain of

British plantations.’ The newspaperman said, ‘That Is the same

man.’ I knew this idea could not have been given birth in the

brain of an American cotton owner nor an American cotton planter,

nor any American who understood the situation. I knew that the

idea had foreign parentage; and, lo and behold, the gentleman who

was formerly a manager of a number of British plantations, and

has lately returned from London, has given birth to this plan, and

his brain child has become the adopted child of the A. A. A. of the

12 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

good old United States. * * * And he thought the cotton

farmer was doing well if he made $100 a year.”

1935: September 25, New York Sun, Food From Overseas:

“Twenty-two million pounds of butter came into this country from

foreign countries. In the first 8 months of 1934 imported oats, for

example, totaled scarcely 200,000 bushels, but this year in the same

period imports exceeded 10,000,000 bushels. Imports of corn in

the same period of this year exceeded 31,800,000 bushels compared

with 371,700 in 1934. American wheat exports dropped from 16.-

600,000 bushels in the first 8 months of 1934 to 142,000 in 1935.”

(While crops to this country were being burned and ploughed

under.)

1935: Witnessed a secret national peace conference financed by a.

grant from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, see New York

American. December 19, 1935: “Meeting behind closed doors at the

Westchester Country Club at Harrison, N. Y., the conference, composed

of 29 organizations, adopted the following six-point program:

1. A Nation-wide radio campaign to commit the United States

to a policy of internationalism.

2. Crippling of the Army and Navy billion-dollar appropriation

bill by attaching a billion-dollar housing project clause as a rider.

3. Abolition of the Army and Navy sedition bill, which would

punish anyone attempting to incite enlisted men to insubordination

or mutiny.

4. Abolition of the R. O. T. C. in colleges.

5. A vigorous campaign against those who oppose this country’s

entrance into the League of Nations and to prevent the United

States from obstructing the League in applying sanctions.

6. Adoption of the drastic neutrality bill.

Andrew Carnegie left hundreds of millions of dollars to carry

out his plan.

1935-36: American Association for Adult Education, 60 East

Forty-second Street, New York City, Carnegie endowed, lists the

following activities that are financed by the Carnegie Corporation,

and the Rockefeller General Education Board: Forum Experimentation

(public forums), Federal Emergency Program (cooperates with

U. S. Office of Education), C. C. C. camps, community organization,

workers’ education, International relations, commonwealth

college. (See p. 5701, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, April 14, 1936, also

see Annual Report of the Directors, above address).

1936: Witnesses Nicholas Murray Butler sailing on the Queen

Mary June 5, for the most important Carnegie Endowment for Peace

Conference in London, England, that has ever been held. It is at

this meeting that the question of gold being used on an International

basis is to be discussed.

1936—Herald Tribune, June 19, 1936, page 22: “Supply Held

Adequate for World Gold Basis.” There even may be too much,

Brookings Institution says. Brookings Institution (Carnegieendowed)

study of the adequacy of the gold supply, written by

Dr. Charles O’Hardy, held that no existing or prospective deficiency

in the world gold supply stood in the way of restoration

of an international gold standard, whenever such a step was

considered advantageous. * * * Two officials of the Federal

Reserve System: Dr. E. A. Goldenweiser, chief economist, and

Adolph C. Miller, former governor and special member, recently

made speeches heralding return to the gold standard in modified

form. Henry Mongenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, has said

that the United States will cooperate in such a movement as

soon as the rest of the world is ready.

NOTE: What guaranty have the people of the United States

that the currency which they would hold would be redeemable

in gold?

1936: Witnesses the United States Government largely influenced

or controlled by organized financial interests cooperating

with or under the control of the 20th Century Fund, Inc., or

American Foundations and their Fields. Some of these with their

officers and trustees are listed herein:

OFFICERS AND TRUSTEES

Carnegie Corporation, New York, Andrew Carnegie, donor; Elihu

Root, Robertson D. Ward, Fred P. Keppel, Robert M. Lester, John

M. Russel, Samuel S. Hall, Jr., Barent Lefferts, Ernest A. Farintosh.

Thomas S. Arbuthnot, Newton D. Baker, Nicholas Murray

Butler, Samuel Harden Church, Lotus D. Coffman, Henry James,

Walter A. Jessup, Nicholas Kelley, Russell Leffingwell, John C.

Merriam, Margaret Carnegie Miller, Fred Osborn, Arthur W. Page,

Carnegie Corporation, Washington, D. C: John C. Merriam,

Elihu Root, Henry S. Pritchett, Fred A. Delano, Thomas Barbour,

W W. Campbell. Homer L. Ferguson, W. Cameron Forbes, Walter

S. Gifford, Fred H. Gillett, Herbert Hoover, Frank B. Jewett, Alfred

L. Loomis, Andrew W. Mellon, Roswell Miller, Andrew J. Montague,

Stewart Paton, John J. Pershing, William Benson Storey,

Richard P. Strong, James W. Wadsworth, Fred C. Walcott, George

W. Wickerson.

Church Peace Union: Donor: Andrew Carnegie, William P. Merrill,

George A. Plimpton, Henry A. Atkinson, Linley V. Gordon, G. S.

Barker, Rev. Arthur Judson Brown, Bishop James Cannon. Jr., Rev.

Francis J. Haas, Rev. Frank Oliver Hall, Prof. Hamilton Holt, Hon.

Morton D. Hull. Prof. William I. Hull, Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, Dr.

James R. Joy, Rev. Miles H. Krumbine, Dr. Henry Goddard Leach.

Bishop Francis J. McConnell. Rev. Charles S. MacFarland, Rabbi

Louis L. Mann, Dean Shaller Mathews. Rev. William Pierson Merrill,

Hon. Henry Morgenthau, Dr. John R. Mott. Rev. Roger T, Noon. Rev.

Howard C. Robbins Monsignor John A. Ryan, Rt. Rev. Henry K.

Sherrill, Dr. Robert E Speer. Charles P. Taft II, Rev. Charles D.

Trexler. Dr. James J. Walsh.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D. C:

Nicholas Murray Butler, Andrew J. Montague, James Brown Scott,

263553—19504

George A. Finch, Frederic A. Delano (uncle of F. D. R.), Charles 8.

Hamlin, Wallace McK. Alexander, David P. Barrows, William Marshall

Bullitt, Daniel K. Catlin, John W. Davis, Norman H. Davis,

Autsen G. Fox, Robert A. Franks, Francis Pendleton Gaines, Charles

Hamlin, Howard Heinz, Alanson B. Houghton, Frank O. Lowden,

Peter Molyneaux. Roland S. Morris, Henry S. Pritchett, Elihu Root,

Edward L. Ryerson, James R. Sheffield, Maurice S. Sherman, James T.

Shotwell, Silas H. Strawn, Robert A. Taft. Thomas J. Watson.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New

York City: Walter A. Jessup, Henry S. Pritchett. Robert A. Franks,

Howard J. Savage, William S. Learned, Alfred Z. Reed, Samuel S.

Hall, Jr., Raymond L. Mattocks, Walter C. Murray, Thomas William,

Lamont, Fred. Carlos Ferry, Frank Aydelotte, William Lowe

Bryan, Nicholas M. Butler, Lotus Dolta Coffman, James Bryant

Conant, George Hutcheson Denny, Albert Bledsoe Dinwiddle, Edward

Charles Elliott, Livingston Farrand. Frank Porter Graham. Albert

Ross Hill, James Hampton Kirkland, Ernest Hiram Lindley, William

Allan Neilson, George Norlin, Josiah Harmar Penniman, Rush

Rhees, Kenneth Charles Morton Sills, Frank Arthur Vanderlip,

Henry Merritt Wriston.

General Education Board, New York City: Donor: John D.

Rockefeller, Raymond B. Fosdick, Trevor Arnett, David H. .Stevens,

Wm. W. Brierly, Lefferts M. Dashiell, Edward Robinson, George A.

Beal, Arthur G. Askey, James R. Angell, Trevor Arnett. Harry W.

Chase, Jerome D. Greene, Ernest M. Hopkins, Max Mason, Edwin

Mims, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., John D. Rockefeller, 3d, Walter

W. Stewart, Harold H. Swift, Ray Lyman Wilbur, Arthur Woods,

Owen D- Young.

Twentieth Century Fund, New York City: Donor: Edward A.

Filene, Evans Clark, Edward A. Filene, Oswald W. Knauth, Newton

D. Baker, A. A. Berle, Jr., Bruce Bliven, Henry Dennison, John

H. Fahey, Morris E. Leeds, James G. McDonald, Roscoe Pound.

Religious Education Foundation, New York City: O. H. Cheney,

Hugh S. Magill, Russell Colgate, Paul D. Eddy. Newton D. Baker,

S. B. Chapin, Robert Garrett, James C. Penney, Charles H. Tuttle,

Thomas J. Watson.

Spelman Fund of New York: Donor: Laura S. Rockefeller, Arthur

Woods, Guy Moffett, L. M. Dashiell, Edward Robinson, Kenneth

Chorley, Cleveland Dodge, Raymond B. Fosdick, Thomas W. Lamont,

John D. Rockefeller 3d, Beardsley Ruml.

Textile Foundation. Washington, D. C: Franklin W. Hobbs,

Stuart W. Cramer, Frank D. Cheney, Daniel C. Roper, Henry A.

Wallace.

(The above-mentioned organizations and the men connected

with them are from American Foundations and Their Fields, published

by the Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., 330 West 42d Street,

New York City.)

The Carnegie Fund Joined with the (Rockefeller Fund) General

Education Board because they found themselves doing the same

work. Above quotation from the Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace Year Book, 1934.

The Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Twentieth Century Funds have

through subsidies control over our press, churches, schools, the

stage, cinema, colleges, and our Government, and America has not

had a President entirely free from this control, particularly since

the war.

1776: Hark ye to the warnings of the men of the “horse and

buggy days”!

In his Farewell Address, George Washington bequeathed to the

American people, as he said the “counsels of an old and affectionate

friend.” And he did so in the hope that his advice and

admonition would, in the years to come, serve the following useful

purpose:

1. “Moderate the fury of party spirit.”

2. “Warn against the mischiefs of foreign Intrigue.” (This includes

Britain.)

3. “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

George Washington also said:

“I never have heard, and I hope I never shall hear any serious

mention of a paper emission in this State; yet such a thing may be

in agitation. Ignorance and design are productive of much mischief.

The former (ignorance) is the tool of the latter (design),

and is often set at work suddenly and unexpectedly.”

Daniel Webster warned you, in 1832, while in Congress:

“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind,

none have been more effectual than that which deludes them

with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize

t h e rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary

tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation—these bear lightly on

the happiness of the mass of the community, compared with fraudulent

currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper.

Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more

than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the

intolerable oppression, on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded

paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced

by government.” (See CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. January 24,

1934. Speech by Hon. Louis T. McFadden. of Pennsylvania.)

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D. C.

New York, N. Y., trustees: Arthur A. Ballantine, New York; David

P. Barrows, California: James F. Bell, Minnesota; William Marshall

Bullitt, Kentucky; Nicholas Murray Butler, New York: Daniel

K. Catlin, Missouri; William Wallace Chapin, California; John W.

Davis, New York; Norman H. Davis. New York; Frederic A. Delano,

District of Columbia; Leon Fraser. New York; Douglas S.

Freeman, Virginia; Francis P. Gaines, Virginia; Howard Heinz,

Pennsylvania; Alanson B. Houghton, New York: Philip C. Jessup,

Connecticut; Frank O. Lowden, Illinois; Peter Molyneaux, Texas;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 13

Roland S. Morris. Pennsylvania; Edward Lamed Ryerson, Jr.,

Illinois; James Brown Scott. District of Columbia; Maurice 8.

Sherman, Connecticut; James T. Shotwell, New York; Harper Sibley.

New York; Silas H. Strawn, Illinois; Eliot Wadsworth. Massachusetts;

Thomas John Watson, New York.

Division of Intercourse and Education: Director, Nicholas Murray

Butler, office, 405 West One Hundred and Seventeenth Street,

New York, N. Y. Telephone, University 4-1850—Cable, Interpax,

New York.

Le Centre Europeen: Directeur-Adjoint. Malcolm W. Davis. Bureau,

173. Boulevard 8te-Germaln, Paris, France. Telephone, Littre

88.60. Adresse Telegraphique, Interpax, Paris.

Advisory Council in Great Britain: Sir Alan Anderson, Ernest

Barker, Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, William P. Crozier, Mrs. Mary

Agnes Hamilton, Sir Frank Heath, Francis W. Hirst, Herbert S.

Morrison, Gilbert Murray, J. A. Spender; Honorary Secretary, Mrs.

Neville Lawrence.

London Office: Representative in the United Kingdom, Hubert J.

Howard; address. 336 Abbey House, Victoria Street, SW. 1. Telephone,

Abbey 7228; cable, Carintpax, London.

Mr. Speaker, the information contained in this booklet is

important at this time, particularly in view of the fact that

the pro-English groups in the United States are now working

in close cooperation with world internationalist organizations.

Before 1917, foreign influence came mainly from Anglo-

American groups. Since the World War, these groups have

been fortified by the international financiers and the internationalists,

or the so-called minority group. The pressure

is therefore more than double, for combined, these groups

control all avenues of communication and are now using

them to further their plan of British domination to establish

a world federation of states.

Let me call your attention to the fact that on the reverse

of the great seal of the United States, which appears on our

dollar bills, you will find the exact symbol of the British-

Israel world federation movement. This symbol is also carried

on literature of other organizations promoting a world

government and a world religion. At the bottom of the

circle surrounding the pyramid, you will find the wording:

“Novus Ordo Seclorum.” It was this new order that was

advocated by Clinton Roosevelt several hundred years ago;

recently in Philip Dru, and now followed by the Executive.

Do you not think, as good American people, that the administration

has gone far from constitutional government, when

there is inscribed a symbol on the reverse of our great seal,

that advocates a new order? Yes, an order which means the

destruction of our Republic as formulated in the Constitution

of the United States.

It may also interest you to know that this contemplated

“Union Now,” as advocated by Clarence Streit, will be under

the control of Great Britain, and is a movement to return the

United States as a colony in the British Empire. Should we

become a part of this union, our traditional rights and liberties

will be lost, and we will have no greater status than an

English possession. This was the dream of Cecil Rhodes and

Andrew Carnegie, when the latter wrote his book, Triumphant

Democracy, in 1893.

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and

Internal Strife—Part V

REMARKS

of

HON. J. THORKELSON

OF MONTANA

I N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, August 20,1940

ARTICLE ISSUED BY THE IMPERIAL FASCIST UNION OF

LONDON. ENGLAND

Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend

my own remarks in the RECORD, I include an article issued

by the Imperial Fascist Union, of London, England.

I shall not comment on this article except to say that the

reference to Masonry, no doubt, refers to the. Grand Orient

263553—19504

Masonry and not to the English-American Masons as we

know them in the United States.

INTRODUCTION

THE BASIC FACTOR IN POLITICS IS RACE

Those Britons who stand amazed at the defeatist trend of their

country’s politics; who begin to ask themselves whether our civilization

is worth while; and who are puzzled as to how this state

of things should ever have come about, will find explained in this

pamphlet the cause of it all—the race itself is changing.

The great Persian, Greek, and Roman civilizations died out from

this same cause. The dominant Aryan race responsible for their

development became too weak by intermarriage with lesser races,

until the product could no longer maintain Aryan standards.

Colonel Lindbergh, in 1936, left the United States of America for

exactly these reasons; although individual Americans will continue

to pull their weight in pioneering for humanity, yet the people of

the United States can no longer, in the mass, maintain a decent

enough standard of public conduct to protect him from unprovoked

annoyance.

This pamphlet demonstrates the Jewish contamination among

the titled families of Britain. It has been difficult to “dig out” the

information; perhaps the most encouraging aspect in a depressing

research has been the obvious desire on the part of most of the

affected families to hide their J e w i s h n e s s ; only when it is discovered

and dragged forward into the limelight do these families

sometimes begin to assert that “they are proud of their Jewish

blood !”

A similar phenomenon was observed by the Jewish compilers of

the Who’s Who in American Jewry (1926), who state in their

introduction to the volume: “Some persons preferred to be omitted

rather than associate their names with those of their racial colleagues.

A few even rejected with indignation the proposal of

being included in a volume where their Jewish identity would

become a matter of public knowledge.”

How completely the Jewish masonic teaching of racial equality

has conquered Aryan thought in this country is perhaps best indicated

by the absence hitherto of any literature dealing with the

race change.

Although this booklet deals only with the titled aristocracy, a

similar state of affairs could easily be demonstrated among the

official, commercial, and professional communities. Possibly the

least affected and most Aryan community is the agricultural one.

That, incidentally, is one of the reasons why, in a Jew-owned land,

it comprises only about 5 percent of the nation’s workers.

Our case can be presented best, we think, by a consideration, first,

of the examples of Spain and Portugal, where the process of Aryan

racial degeneration has taken place not far away from us either

in distance or in time, whilst a sufficient period of the latter has

elapsed to prove that nations that have gone down from racial

causes cannot rise again by their own unaided efforts.

THE NECESSITY FOR AN ARISTOCRACY TO SUPERVISE THE NATION’S POLITICS

IS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF THE FASCIST CREED

In publishing this pamphlet we have no idea of attacking the

aristocratic principle; we simply present evidence that, for racial

reasons, our “aristocracy” has ceased to function in its duty as a

protector of the people, and that the racial change taking place in

it is symptomatic of a racial change affecting other parts of the

community, a change which will destroy the British Empire unless

it is rendered impotent to injure us.

FOUL BROOD—THE RACIAL TRANSFORMATION OF A NATION—ENFORCED

MASONIC UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD

There is a disease of bees called foul brood, which, when it

affects a hive, corrupts it irredeemably. An analagous malady is

t h a t which has destroyed the greatness of Spain and Portugal,

and which has secured for itself a strong footing in Britain,

where the symptoms are obvious enough, although puzzling to

all who do not appreciate their racial cause.

Spain and Portugal bore the brunt of the early Jewish invasion

into western European territory. The poison Insinuated itself the

more easily because racial differences were obscured by religious

ones, so that it was comparatively simple for the Jew to accept

Christianity outwardly, whilst remaining at heart a Jew and practicing

Jewish rites in the privacy of his home; thus arose the

Marrano community, or Crypto-Jecs, who at first avoided to some

extent the extreme consequences of the hostility of those of the

dominant faith.

In the fifteenth century, the Marranos or Secret Jews dominated

Spanish life, occupying high positions not only in the administration,

the universities, the forces, and the Judiciary, but also in

t h e church itself. Their outward conformity to the Catholic

church, together with their accumulation of wealth, enabled them

to penetrate by marriage to such an extent into the most exalted

families in the land t h a t it became difficult to find an aristocratic

family in Aragon or in Castile which was not contaminated with

the foul stream of Jewish blood.

The worm turned at last, and not only were all professing Jews

expelled from Spain, or forcibly converted and later expelled from

Portugal, but the inquisition attacked the Marrano community,

the position of which was ever afterward insecure and hopeless.

The greatest period of Spanish history followed the expulsion;

and Portugal built up her great colonial Empire subsequent to

the riddance of the professing Jew. But in both cases, the curse

descended upon the colonial possessions of these two nations; in

Peru, the Jew held the commerce of the country in his hands,

14 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

and it was impossible for a Castilian to succeed in business

without a Jewish partner; the Jews purchased the cargoes of

great fleets with fictitious credits which they divided amongst

themselves, rendering large capital unnecessary. When the struggle

between Portugal and Holland for the possession of Brazil took

place, the Marranos worked for the Dutch enemy.

At home, the Spanish and Portuguese had, however, made the

supreme mistake of imagining that any Marrano could be a substitute

for a European. Absolute discrimination between white

European Christians and the “new Christians” as the Marranos

were called, was only insisted on by the best informed of the

aristocracy, who kept a record of the new Christians so that intermarriage

with them might cease. The racial quality of the

people degenerated rapidly as the Jewish contagion spread by

intermarriage.

Then, at last, the assault was deliberately made on the last

citadel of racial purity. On St. John’s Day. 1744, Frederick, Prince

of Wales, grand master of English Masons, admitted the Portuguese

Ambassador, Dom Sebastio de Carvalho e Mello to a London

lodge; this gentleman, better known as Pombal, revived Masonry

in Portugal on his return to that country.

On May 2, 1768, Pombal ordered the destruction of all registers of

Marrano families, and ordered all the heads of the exclusive and

race-conscious Portuguese families to arrange that any daughter

of marriageable age must be engaged within 4 months to marry a

member of one of the hitherto excluded Jew-contaminated families.

This horrible Masonic outrage made an end of the Portuguese

as a great nation.

In Spain, discrimination between the Aryan and the non-Aryan

gradually declined under similar influences, although the Corps

of Cadets insisted upon an unsullied racial origin as a qualification

for entry up to 1860, whilst in some parish churches, even in the

nineteenth century, notices were still displayed warning the old

Christians against intermarrying with the new.

To some extent, of course, in Spain the Moorish occupation

had been responsible for a dilution of the Aryan and Mediterranean

blood of the people, but this Moorish corruption was never

subtle, and its power of penetration was therefore weak. On the

other hand, the Portuguese, through their custom of intermarrying

with colored people in their colonies and through the return of

the resultant half-breeds to the home country, has suffered great

contamination from non-Jewish races of color.

Both Spain and Portugal went down because their native peoples

have sullied their blood with that of lower races to a toxic

degree: “foul brood” has corrupted them beyond hope. Damage

of this sort is permanent.

That being so. let our readers consider what is going on in these

islands, and ask themselves how Britain can regain her proper

place in the world without first recovering her race-consciousness,

and how she can do that without accepting the remedy of the

Imperial Fascist League?

OUR JEWISH ARISTOCRACY

It has long been one of the Jewish methods in the attainment

of world domination to penetrate into privileged circles where

political power is greatest; Edward the First, by expelling the

Jews in 1290, saved us from too early an application of this

process in Britain, but other countries were less fortunate and

suffered the extinction of their nobility by Jewish women marrying

into the Gentile aristocratic families.

In Britain a few “damped” (baptized Christian) Jews remained

i the country when their synagogue-going brothers had been

expelled. Some of these attained knighthood, for instance, Sir

Edward Brampton, who became Governor of Guernsey. The first

serious attempt, however, to penetrate the ranks of the hereditary

titleholders of England seems to have been an attack upon

royalty itself by that notorious character, Perkin Warbeck, who

was a servant of the Jewish knight mentioned above. With characteristic

Jewish effrontery, this man claimed the English throne.

Francis Bacon wrote in his Life and Reign of King Henry VII:

“There was a townsman of Tourney that had born office in that

town, whose name was John Osbeck, a convert Jew, married to

Catherine de Faro; whose business drew him to live for a time

with his wife at London, in King Edward IV’s days. During which

time he had a son by her; and being known in court, the King

either out of a religious nobleness, because he was a convert, or

upon some private acquaintance, did him the honor as to be

godfather to his child, and named him Peter. But afterwards

proving a dainty and effeminate youth, he was commonly called

by the diminutive of bis name, Peterkin or Perkin. For, as for

the name of Warbecke, it was given him when they did but guess

at it, before examinations had been taken.”

How many of us at school realized that Perkin Warbeck was a

figure in the Jewish world plot against Aryan sovereignty?

As everyone knows. Cromwell allowed the Jews to return and

they flocked over here toward the latter part of the seventeenth

century, the largest wave of rich Jews coming over with William III

from Holland.

In 1718 the Attorney General. Sir R. Raymond, hammered another

nail into his country’s coffin. by deciding that Jews could

hold land in England. Walpole had previously allowed the Jew

Gideon to hold estates by a special act in his favor; this Jew

had lent his “credit” to the government (!) which seems not to

have realized that it had a lot of its own, and falsely posing as a

Christian, for he never ceased his payments to the synagogue and

263553—19504

died a Jew, he married a Gentile, his son being created a baronet

and later Baron Eardley, a title now fortunately extinct. The first

synagogue Jew baronets were Sir I. L. Goldsmid (1841). Sir Moses

Monteflore, and Sir Anthony de Rothschild; these seem to have

qualified for the British aristocracy by using their ill-gotten wealth

in buying privileges for the Jews in this and other countries.

It was Sir Issac L. Goldsmid who led the movement for the

admission of the Jews to our legislature. Once the barrier was

down, the rest was easy. In 1858 legislation enabled the foreign

“Baron” Lionel de Rothschild to take his oath in the House of

Commons as a Jew. His son was raised to the peerage in 1885.

The “damped” Jew Disraeli had of course obtained earlier honors,

dying as the Earl of Beaconsfield.

Among the earlier Synagogue baronet creations were those of

Sir George Jessel, Sir David Salomans, and Sir John Simon (no

relation to the living Sir John Simon, who claims not to be

Jewish).

Aryan peers sometimes made matters worse by marrying Jewesses,

one of the most disastrous cases being that of the second Viscount

Galway, who married as early as 1747 a Jewess called Villa Real,

as a result of which countless fine old British families have had

this Asiatic strain instilled into them. It was a Rothschild plan

to marry superfluous daughters into the families of influential

Gentiles; in the case of the Rothschild unions with Baron Battersea

and the son of the fourth Earl of Hardwicke, the marriages

were sterile, but a daughter of Mayer Amschel Rothschild married

the fifth Earl of Rosebery, so that there is Rothschild blood in the

present earl, one of whose sisters married the present Marquess of

Crewe, himself with Villa Real blood; thus after many days, the

blood of the Villa Real Jewess mingles with that of the Rothschild

in the issue of this marriage of “British aristocrats.”

The custom of mating with Jewesses has now become a common

one; the instinct of the Aryan has been broken down by continued

propaganda, and H. Belloc in his book on The Jews

writes of the Jewish penetration of our great aristocratic families:

“With the opening of the twentieth century, those of the great

territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood

were the exception. In nearly all of them, the strain was more

or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the

name was still an English name and the traditions those of a

purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character

had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family

were taken for Jews whenever they traveled in countries where

the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed this mixture.”

A study of the “society” photographs in any copy of The

Bystander will convince anyone that Mr. Belloc does not exaggerate.

To those of us who believe that Aryanization is civilization

it is incomprehensible that aristocrats of our race could

succumb to the cunning Masonic and educational Jewish propaganda

designed to cause them to forget their race. Nevertheless,

the opposition to Jewish penetration into the great families

has not been expressed in any decided way; Masonry is no doubt

responsible for this. Queen Victoria herself had qualms about

the granting of titles to Jews, because we know that when it

was recommended to her that Sir Lionel Rothschild should be

promoted to the peerage, she wrote as follows in a letter dated

November 1, 1869, to Mr. Gladstone: “It is not only the feeling, of

which she cannot divest herself, against making a person of the

Jewish religion a peer, but she cannot think that one who owes

his great wealth to contracts with foreign governments for

loans, or to successful speculation on the stock exchange can

fairly claim a British peerage. However high Sir L. Rothschild

may stand personally in public estimation, this seems to her not

the less a species of gambling because it is on a gigantic scale

and far removed from that legitimate trading which she delights

to honor, in which men have raised themselves by patient industry

and unswerving probity to positions of wealth and influence.”

Her sound instincts, or “prejudices” as they would be called

nowadays in our Judaized press, were, however, broken down by

Disraeli and we have how reached such a pitch that in 1932 the

Jews were seriously planning to get the chief rabbi into the

House of Lords, ex-officio. In 1915 a daughter of the fourth

Baron Sheffield married the Jew Edwin Montagu, the disturber of

Indian “pathetic contentment,” and actually “embraced Judaism”

also in a religious sense. There was more excuse for Lord

George Gordon of the 1780 anti-Popery campaign, who adopted

the Jewish religion, but died insane.

In the following review of our titled aristocracy, there are many

errors of omission; working chiefly with Burke’s Peerage, we find

a reticence on the subject of Jewish “relativity” to our nobility;

in other words, the volume seems designed to baffle the investigator

as much as possible. For that reason, and also because

the time at our disposal for this research is strictly limited, the

review is far from complete, but it is sufficiently terrible to a

racist as it is.

Every effort has been made to avoid errors of commission; we do

not desire to hurt the feelings of anyone, but the British people

have a right to know the truth; wherever we have insufficient

evidence in suspicious cases, the benefit of the doubt has been

given; we hope, in many future editions, to be able to make our

lists more complete. The excellent library of the Society of

Genealogists could not produce a single volume which was of

direct help in collecting the material for this pamphlet, which we

hope, therefore, will find a place on its shelves; but we think s o m e –

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 15

thing will prevent it getting there. It may be of interest to mention

that Debrett’s Peerage is published by the same Jew firm,

Odhams Press, Ltd., which runs the Dally Herald. Sir Sydney Lee

(Jew) edited the Dictionary of National Biography, so we get little

help from those. And the Jew, M. Epstein, edits the Annual

Register.

We have omitted from our list certain cases where Jewesses have

married into noble families in which the titles are now extinct or

from which marriages there was no issue.

In our investigations we found that the statement made by

J. M. Macdlarmid in The Deer Forests that the Leveson-Gower

family was descended from “a London Jew money lender” is false;

the name “Leveson” in this case has no Jewish application. Also,

the statement made in the Jewish Daily Post, June 17, 1935, that

the present Duchess of Norfolk has Jewish blood, is untrue; she is

the second wife of the last duke and mother of the present duke;

and it was the first wife of the last duke, who left no heir, who had

Jewish blood. The Universe is in error in stating (Feb. 4, 1937)

that the Marquess of Bute is descended from the Jew Treves.

Many Jewish titles, sometimes camouflaged, like those of Barons

Wandsworth (real name, Stern) and Pirbright (real name, De

Worms), are fortunately extinct. Extinct, also, is the baronetcy of

Sir Edgar Speyer, which was revoked by a notice in the Times of

December 14, 1921, on account of his unlawful communication and

trading with the enemy during the war.

The effect, of even a slight mixture of Jewish blood in an Aryan

family is often very great. It alters the political outlook of the

individual because it alters the instincts themselves.

“One Chink or Negro or even Jew ancestor a long way back

will undo your Anglo-Saxon composition, of which you may claim

an unbroken line of purely Essex stock, more thoroughly than if

all your ancestors, from your parents back, had been Dutch, German,

Swede, Dane, French, Russian, Portuguese, Italian, or any

other easily assimilated Aryan race.” W. Gerhardi in Memoirs

of a Polyglot, 1931.

When a large number of individuals in commanding social or

political positions are rendered partly Asiatic in instinct, the

nation itself becomes the victim of these destructive instincts.

Referring to Colonel Lane’s book, The Allen Menace, the National

Review confirms this in the following words:

“English men and women are constantly asking themselves how

it comes about that a twist is so frequently given to British policy

that is clearly not in accordance with British interests. There is

usually somebody in a position, at the psychological moment, to

deflect our government, whatever party be in power, into some

line of action that is unintelligible at the time and is fraught

with disastrous consequences. * * * It is as though some

hostile influence were steadily throwing grit into the machine.

In every international financial arrangement we fare badly, and

the whole story of reparations and war debts is humiliating in the

extreme and calculated to make us the world’s laughing stock as

well as the world’s milk cow. It is in this connection that such a

book as Colonel Lane has written • « • throws a timely

searchlight. It is in the higher ranks of society that the alien

menace is formidable through the influence exercised in government

departments, in Downing Street, and high finance by gentry

of unmistakable foreign origin.”

The repulsive physical appearance of the Hither Asiatic or

Armenold race is often passed on over many generations of a

Jew-contaminated Aryan family.

Throughout this pamphlet, the word “Jew” is employed in its

racial sense, implying Armenold, Mongoloid, or Oriental blood.

The appointments mentioned in connection with any individual

are either past or present ones. The lists given below are of

present titleholders only.

HEREDITARY TITLEHOLDERS OF JEWISH BLOOD

(12th) Duke of St. Albans, whose grandfather was the Jew,

R. Bernal Osborne, M. P. The Duke married the daughter of

the fifth Marquess of Lansdowne, and is the hereditary grand

falconer.

(8th) Duke of Richmond is son of a Ricardo of Jewish blood.

(1st) Marquess of Crewe, Is descended from the second Viscount

Galway, who married the Jewess, Villa Real; his second wife was

the daughter of the fifth Earl of Rosebery and his wife, who was

Hanna Rothschild. The family name is Crewe-Milnes. The

marquess is a privy councilor, has occupied Cabinet positions, and

was His Majesty’s Ambassador at Paris, 1922-28.

(2d) Marquess of Reading. He is the son of the late Rufus

Isaacs, who was a privy councilor, and who was Lord Warden of

the Cinque Ports, a position once held by the present King when

Prince of Wales; was also Viceroy of India, and was chiefly responsible

for the “white paper” surrender of that vast empire,

won to us by British valor and retained by straight dealing; was

made Lord Chief Justice of England 3 months after having admitted

publicly his “mistake of judgment” in connection with the

Marconi scandal. Rufus Isaacs’ brother was the power behind

the British Broadcasting Co., and appointed its chief, Sir John

Reith. The present Marquess married the daughter of the late

Lord Melchett, the Jew, Mond.

(6th) Earl of Rosebery, the son of the fifth earl and a Rothschild

mother, one of whose daughters married the present Marquess

of Crewe. The earl is a great landowner.

(20th) Earl of Suffolk, whose mother was the daughter of the

Jew, L. Z. Letter; he is also distantly descended from John Moses.

263553—19504

(6th) Earl of Craven is great-grandson of t h e Jew Bradley Martin.

(17th) Earl of Devon is son of a Jewish Silva.

Countess Loudoun (in her own right) is descended from the Jew

Treves.

(6th) Earl of Mexborough is son of a Raphael. The last earl

was his half-brother and a Buddhist.

(6th) Earl of Romney is descended from the Jew Treves.

(2d) Viscount Bearstead is a Samuel, and owns 150,000 acres;

he is chairman of Shell Transport and a director of Lloyds Bank.

Viscount Castlerosse says he has Jewish blood, but we know no

details. He is son of the fifth earl of Kenmare.

(9th) Viscount Chetwynd is a descendant of the Jew Gideon.

(3d) Viscount Esher is of Jewish blood; we do not know whether

the source was of one or of two generations back, or both, but his

sister admitted it in the Sunday Dispatch of August 11, 1935, saying

she was proud of it. He married a Jewish Hecksher.

(8th) Viscount Galway, descended from the second viscount who

married the Jewess Villa Real in 1747; the viscount is stated to be

proud of his Jewish blood.

(2d) Viscount Goschen, banker. (“Goschen was a Jew,” Lord

Riddell in More Pages From My Diary, 1908-14, 1934, p. 7.)

(6th) Baron Auckland is descended from the Jew Gideon.

(5th) Baron Brabourne’s mother was a Jewish Von Flesch-Brunningen.

(3d) Baron Burnham, whose original name. Levy, was altered to

Lawson. Members of this family have married into gentile-titled

families as follows: The Hulse baronetcy, the present baronet being

free from this Levy blood; the family of the late Sir H. de Bathe.

Bart., with issue; and the present baron’s niece married the son of

the second Earl of Leicester.

(2d) Baron Cranworth is distantly descended from the Jew, Samuel

Du Pass, through his mother.

(1st) Baron Duveen, trustee of many art galleries.

(1st) Baron Southwood, lately J. S. Elias, chairman of Odhams

Press, Ltd., and controller of a large section of the dally and weekly

newspapers, including the Daily Herald.

(8th) Baron Foley’s mother was a Greenstone.

(3d) Baron Herschell is of Jewish origin, and is a lord in waiting.

(1st) Baron Hirst, chairman of General Electric Co., and of Empire

Commission of British Industries and of the Association of

Textile Institutes.

(1st) Baron Jessel, who was Controller of Horses Disposal Board

after the war; also chairman of Military Services Committee Panel

of 1918; and is president of the London Municipal Society. His son

has married the daughter of the Marquess of Londonderry.

(1st) Baron Mancroft, formerly Sir A. M. Samuel, Bart., who has

held countless important appointments under the government.

(2d) Baron Melchett, who, in Modern Money, advised the sale

of some of our Pacific and Atlantic possessions to pay off the war

debt; opened the business efficiency exhibition, 1933; is a leading

advocate of the Jew racket called planning, and is head of the

English Zionist Federation. Melchett’s sister married the new Lord

Reading, and another sister married Sir N. A. Pearson, but was

divorced.

(2d) Baron Michelham, real name Stern. One of his daughters

married the fourth Baron Sherborne, but without issue.

(1st) Baron O’Neill, distantly Jewish in blood through the families

of Lords Galway and Crewe.

Baroness Ravensdale is Lord Curzon’s daughter and is granddaughter

of the Jew L. Z. Letter. She is unmarried.

(3d) Baron N. M. V. Rothschild. The intermarriages of the

Rothschild family have already been referred to. There has recently

been a Rothschild union with the son of Baron Kemsley,

of the newspaper-owning family of Berry.

(2d) Baron Strachle, son of a Jewish Braham.

(3d) Baron Swaythling is a Samuel, and is head of Samuel

Montagu & Co., International loan bankers.

Dowager Countess of Desart is the daughter of a Bischoffsheina,

but the present earl is not her Bon.

Sir G. W. Albu, Bart. (South African gold mines and diamonds).

Sir Alfred Beit, Bart., (the same interests), actually half Jew.

Sir H. J. D. Broughton, Bart., a great grandson of a Rosenzweig

Sir H. J. W. Bruce, Bart., descended from a Ricardo.

Sir S. J. Bull, Bart., is son of a Jewish Brandon.

Sir Julian Cahn, Bart., director of Everyman Weekly.

Sir Felix Cassel, Bart., Judge advocate general.

Sir H. B. Cohen. Bart.

Sir Guy Colin Campbell, Bart., is son of a Jewish Lehmann.

81r T. H. W. Chitty, Bart., is the son of a Jewish Newbolt.

Sir R. C. G. Cotterell, Bart., grandson of a Ricardo.

81r P. V. David, Bart., a Bassoon.

Sir O. E. D’Avlgdor-Goldsmld, Bart., who has been high sheriff of

Kent.

Sir John Ellerman, Bart.

Sir J. P. G. M. Fitzgerald, Bart., is the son of a Bischoffsheim and

has married the daughter of the 7th Earl of Dunmore.

Sir G. S. Fry, Bart., is grandson of the Jewish Capper Pass.

Sir William Garthwalte, Bart., is son of a Jewish Andrade, married

a Rodrigues, and his son married the daughter of the Jew Lord

Duveen.

Sir E. C. Goschen, Bart.

Sir H. Goschen, Bart.

Sir J. L. Hanham, Bart., is son of a Jewish Lopes.

Sir R. L. Hare, Bart., is descended from the Jew Treves.

Sir P. A. Harris, Bart, M. P.

16 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

S i r F. D. S. Head. Bart., is descended from Mendes, the Jew physician

of Catherine de Braganza.

Sir J C. W. Herschel, Bart., is of distant Jewish blood, but, according

to a book, The Real Jew. edited by H. Newman, page 164. “anything

which can be called Jewish was absolutely zero,” in his

distinguished grandfather, the astronomer.

Sir George Jessel, Bart.

Sir H. A. W. Johnson, Bart., is great-grandson of the Jewess Rebecca

Franks.

Sir C. G. Lampson, Bart., is the son of a Jewish Van Gelderen.

Sir T. P. Larcom. Bart., is descended from a Jewish D’Aguilar.

Sir H. J. Lawson, Bart., is grandson of a Jewish Lousada.

Sir G. E. Leon, Bart.

Sir T. J. P. Lever, Bart., publisher, whose grandfather adopted

this old English name to camouflage the fact t h a t his real name is

Levy.

Sir E. J. M. Levy. Bart.

Sir G. J. E. Lewis, Bart, of the firm of lawyers Lewis & Lewis, who

keep in their cupboards the skeletons belonging to many great

British families.

Sir H. T. B. Lopes, Bart., of Jew descent; has married the sister of

the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe.

Sir P. Magnus, Bart.

Sir A. J. Meyer, Bart.

Sir C. G. J. Newman, Bart., whose brother married the daughter

of the 2nd Baron Loch. (Real name, Neumann.)

Sir M. B. G. Oppenheimer, Bart., whose father married the

daughter of Sir R. G. Harvey, Bart.

81r L. L. Faudel-Phillips, Bart., whose sister married Baron Hothfleld’s

brother.

Sir Lionel P. Phillips, Bart., whose father was arrested in 1896

and condemned to death for high treason, but was released; interests.

South African mines, Sudan cotton, etc.

Sir B. L. B. Prescott’s (Bart.) mother was daughter of the Jew

Lionel Lawson.

Sir L. R. Richardson, Bart., interested in South African wool; his

daughter was General Smuts’ secretary.

Sir H. L. Rothband, Bart., of J. Mandleberg & Co., waterproofers.

Sir E. L. Samuel, Bart., Australian wool interests.

Sir H. B. Samuelson, Bart., is of Jewish family which has intermarried

to a large extent with gentiles.

Sir Philip A. G. D. Sassoon, Bart., a Privy Councilor and first

commissioner of works; chairman of National Gallery Board; once

secretary to Lloyd George, and acted as such at Peace Conference;

royalty accepts hospitality from this Jew, who is a Rothschild on

his mother’s side. His sister married the Marquis of Cholmondeley.

Sir E. V. Sassoon. Bart., of Bombay, who has been a member of

the Legislative Assembly, India.

Sir Felix V. Schuster, Bart., held to be a high banking authority.

Sir R. P. Staples. Bart., is descended from the Jew Mendes.

Sir G. J. V. Thomas, Bart., whose mother was a Jewish Oppenheim.

Sir W. R. Tuck, Bart., whose firm prints Christmas cards.

Sir D. Wernher, Bart., is son of a Jewish Mankiewicz.

Sir H. E. Yarrow, Bart., is son of a Jewish Franklin.

The Earl of Birkenhead is descended from an oriental called

Bathsheba, described in a recent biography as a gypsy. Racially, it

matters little whether it was gypsy or Jew. He married Baron

Camrose’s daughter, and his sister married Baron Camrose’s son.

HALF-BREEDS IN THE MAKING

As though that were not enough, the following noblemen and

baronets now holding their titles have married women of Jewish

blood; their heirs, if by descent from these will be Jewish aristocrats:

(9th) Duke of Roxburghe married the granddaughter of a

Rothschild.

(5th) Marquess of Cholmondeley’s wife is a Sassoon.

(16th) Marquess of Winchester married a Jewess, Mrs. Claude

Marks.

(7th) Earl Castle Stewart married a Guggenheim.

. (2d) Earl of Inchcape married the Jewish Ranee of Sarawak’s

daughter.

(6th) Earl of Rosse married a Jewish Messel.

(1st) Viscount St. Davids married first a Jewish Gerstenberg; and

secondly a descendant of the Jew Treves by whom is his heir.

(1st) Viscount Bledisloe married a Lopes for his first wife, and

his heir is her son.

(1st) Viscount Dawson of Penn married the daughter of a

Jewish Franklin.

(3d) Baron Crawshaw married the granddaughter of a Ricardo.

(2d) Baron Hamilton of Dalzell’s married the daughter of a Jewish

Lawson.

(8th) Baron Howard de Walden married a Jewish Van Raalti.

(12th) Baron Kinnaird married a Clifton of Treves blood.

(1st) Baron May married a Strauss.

(1st) Baron Mount Temple’s first wife was a Jewish Cassel.

(3d) Baron O’Hagan married as first wife the daughter of a

Jewish Braham. by whom is his heir.

(1st) Baron Passfield, formerly Sidney Webb, a Fabian Socialist,

m a r r i e d the granddaughter of a “tall, dark woman of Jewish type,”

and his biographer states that Beatrice Webb, now Lady Passfield,

inherited many of her characteristics. (See Sidney and Beatrice

Webb, by M. A. Hamilton, p. 41.) This appears to be the daughter

of John Aked. Baron Passfield himself is described by Mr. Hamilton

263553—19504

as having Jewish features; he was born in Soho and his origins

“be has never illuminated.” Nevertheless, Mr. Hamilton says that

the Baron is pure English; a curious phenomenon.

(1st) Baron Parmoor married Lady Passfield’s sister.

(6th) Baron Plunket married a Jewish Lewis.

Sir L. C. W. Alexander, Bart., married the daughter of the Jewish

Baron Cable.

Sir J. W. Beynon, Bart., married a Moses.

Sir J. H. Blunt. Bart., married a Goldsmid-Stern-Salomans.

Sir H. L. C. Brassey, Bart., married the daughter of a Jewish

Ricardo.

Sir E. C. Coates, Bart., married a Crewe-Milnes of distant Jewish

blood.

Sir T. Colyer-Fergusson, Bart., married a Cohen as his second

wife.

Sir H. G. de Bathe, Bart., married the daughter of a Warschowsky.

Sir A. E. H. Dean Paul married a Jewish Wieliawski. “Brenda”

was a daughter.

Sir T. E. P. Falkiner, Bart., married the granddaughter of a

Ricardo.

Sir G. C. Hamilton married a Jewish Simon.

Sir L. J. Jones. Bart., married a Schuster as his second wife,

but his heir is by his first wife.

Sir E. A. Lechmere, Bart., married the daughter of a Samuels.

Sir R. Leeds, Bart., married a Jewish Singer

Sir C. E. Lyle, Bart., of the sugar-monopolist firm Tate ft Lyle,

married a Levy and his son married the daughter of Sir John

Jarvis, conservative M. P. for Guildford.

Sir E. O. McTaggart-Stewart, Bart., married a descendant of the

Jew Treves.

Sir A. Moir. Bart., married the granddaughter of a Jewish

Franklin.

Sir Oswald Mosley, Bart., married a granddaughter of the Jew

L. Z. Letter; he is chief of British Union of Fascists.

Sir. P. G. J. Mostyn, Bart., married a Jewish Marks.

Sir J. Gordon Nairne, Bart., married a Costa Ricci.

Sir N. A. Pearson, Bart., married a Mond, but obtained a divorce.

Sir Giles E. Sebright, Bart., married the granddaughter of an

Isaacs.

Sir C. E. Warde married a “de Stern.”

We are convinced that if we could get proof of certain facts

regarding the relationships of other titled families, we could more

than double the above list.

Here is a “mixed pickle” of Jewish relationships which we print,

not because these cases necessarily influence the titled people m e n tioned

in every instance, as some of them may detest the connection,

but to show how intimate the Jewish penetration has

become:

(9th) Duke of Devonshire’s brother married a descendant of the

Jew B e r n a l Osborne.

(11th) Marquess of Tweeddale married a Ralli. stepdaughter of

an Einstein.

(2d) Marquess of Milford Haven is brother-in-law to Cassel

offspring.

(7th) Marquess of Londonderry’s daughter married a Jessel. His

heir is godfather to a Jewish Jessel.

(4th) Marquess of Salisbury’s heir, Viscount Cranborne, married

a descendant of the Jew Bernal Osborne.

(7th) Earl Beauchamp’s daughter is godmother to the son of

Hon. E. Jessel.

(5th) Earl Peel’s aunt married Charles S. Goldman, M. P., and

the Earl’s uncle is a director in the Jew international bank of

8. Japhet & Co.

(27th) Earl of Crawford’s heir married a descendant of the Jew

Bernal Osborne. Another son married the daughter of a Jewish

Van Raalte.

(17th) Earl of Derby’s daughter married the son of a Rothschild.

(7th) Earl Spencer’s brother married a Jewish Blumenthal.

(7th) Earl of Orkney is nephew of Baroness de Samuel.

(4th) Earl of Verulam is brother-in-law of a Cassel.

(9th) Earl of Jersey’s stepfather is a Jewish Slessor.

(6th) Earl Ranfurly’s stepfather is a Jewish Lezard.

(2d) Earl Oxford and Asqulth’s sister married the cousin of a

half-Rothschild. A distant relationship, but significant from a

political standpoint.

(2d) Viscount Chelmsford’s brother-in-law is a Jew Goldman.

(5th) Viscount Sidmouth’s brother-in-law is a Jew Harris.

(2d) Viscount Scarsdale’s daughter’s godmother is Mrs. Simon

Marks.

(1st) Viscount Greenwood is brother-in-law of the half-Jew

politician L. C. M. S. Amery of the Privy Council.

(1st) Viscount Davidson’s second son’s godmother is the Jewish

Lady Reading.

(1st) Viscount Runciman’s son’s first wife was a Jewish Lehman.

(2d) Viscount Halifax’s eldest son married the granddaughter

of a Rothschild.

(1st) Viscount Hallsham’s brother married the granddaughter

of a Gompertz.

(8th) Viscount Powerscourt’s heir married into the Jew family

of Beddington.

(13th) Viscount Falkland’s sister-in-law was a Jewish Leon.

(2d) Viscount Chilston is brother-in-law of a Samuelson.

(1st) Baron Rankeillour’s second son married a Jewish Ricardo.

(3d) Baron Gerard’s sister married the Jew Baron de Forest.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 17

(4th) Baron Annaly is brother-in-law to Viscount Galway, of

Jew descent.

(2d) Baron Aberdare is brother-in-law of Lord Rosebery, son

of a Rothschild.,

(4th) Baron Fermoy’s daughter has a Sassoon as godparent.

(2d) Baron Hamilton of Dalzell’s nephew, his heir presumptive,

and himself son of a Ricardo, married the daughter of the second

Baron Burnham (Lawson, Levi).

(1st) Baron Kemsley’s son married a Rothschild.

(2d) Baron Phillimore’s heir married a Pereira.

(2d) Baron Hothfleld’s heir married a Raphael. His brother

married a Jewish Faudel-Phillips.

(7th) Baron Ravensworth’s sister married a Speyer.

Sir E. J. P. Benn’s (Bart.) heir married the daughter of the Jew

Sir Maurice Hankey; and his daughter married P. Shinkman.

81r H. M. Huntington-Whiteley (Bart.) (who married Mr. Stanley

Baldwin’s daughter) has a sister-in-law Cohn.

Sir J. D. Orr-Lewis (Bart.) is brother-in-law of a Stern.

Sir L. R. Phillips’ (Bart.) heir married a Jewish Lehmann.

Sir A. C. Cory-Wright’s (Bart.) heir married a Jewish Tree; another

son married a Levy.

Sir B. G. D. Sheffield’s (Bart.) son married a Jewish Faudel-

Phillips.

Sir J. H. B. Noble’s (Bart.) son married the granddaughter of a

Jewish Goldsmid.

Sir R. Bonsor’s (Bart.) sister married a Jewish Hambro.

Sir H. W. Hulse’s (Bart.) son has a Jewish Lawson as godfather.

Sir C. G. E. Welby’s (Bart.) son married a Jewish Gregory.

In many of the above cases, the heir to the title is involved.

Once more, we must emphasize how incomplete the above list

still is.

We do not know exactly how to classify—

Baron Strabolgi, formerly Commander Kenworthy, Socialist M. P.,

but the Dally Telegraph of April 16, 1934, is less cautious and

Includes him in a list of what it described as the “leaders of

British Jewry.” Lord Strabolgi looks Jewish, boosts the Jewish

nation at every opportunity and reacts like a Jew, and once was

a director of the European & Caucasian Export & Import Co.,

which, as the Patriot states, May 23, 1929, had a capital of £2,200

and “could be nothing but an intermediary between the Soviet

that found the banking security and the manufacturers who sold

the goods.”

Lord Marley is another baron who appears to be a little shy as

to his ancestry: Burke simply reveals him to be the grandson of

George Joachim Aman, but Lord Marley’s actions show that, whatever

he may be, he cannot regard it libelous to be described at

least as an “artificial Jew”: he spends much of his time boosting

Jews and defending Jew interests.

There are scores of other “lords” who are far too shy to reveal

even their mothers’ names. Surely it is an important thing that

the British Democrat should know something of the origins of,

say, Barons Arnold, Passfield, and Snell, seeing that they hold

prominent positions in the affairs of our country. Then there is

Baron Ashfield, whose father changed his name from Knatries to

Stanley; this fact is not given in Burke’s Peerage, and we should

like to know if he was a Jew. Have we not a right to know?

What Is the use of a peerage reference book which does not

tell where Jewish blood comes in?

A statement originally made by Mr. Shane Leslie, that Lord

Curzon of Kedleston had a Jewish grandmother, and repeated by

B. Falk in He Laughed in Fleet Street has, we understand from

Mr. Leslie himself, been withdrawn by him. We do not know

whether or no it should have been withdrawn.

“For over 14 years she had counted Lady Rothschild as her best

friend,” said Lady Snowden, on March 19 at the Jubilee appeal for

the Jewish Association for the Protection of Girls, at Grosvenor

House, Park Lane.

The Earls of Listowel and of Warwick helped to direct the Jewish

Daily Post of London, which has since gone into liquidation.

According to the Jewish Chronicle of May 10, Lord Winterton

stated in the House of Commons, May 7, that although he was not

aware of any Jewish blood among his ancestors, he would be very

proud of it if there was. Faugh!

Lady Diana Cooper’s child had as its godfather the late Otto

Kahn, of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

The Balfours, Cecils, Churchills, Lyttons, Russells, and Stanleys

seem to have a sort of hereditary lack of Aryan good taste in favoring

Jews.

Lady Patricia Moore, daughter of the tenth Earl of Drogheda,

served as head of a committee of the British Association of Maccabees

in 1933, together with the careerist, Mr. Randolph Churchill.

This is an exclusively Jewish national organization and we do not

know what these two were doing there.

Adultery with Jews accounts for certain cases where individuals

of obvious hither Asiatic race suddenly appear in old Aryan families

of nobility. The usual chain of circumstances in these cases was

described in The Fascist of May 1934, in an article called A 81de

Line of Usury. It is the greater scandal that these cases may not

here be advertised so that the Eurasian progeny might be chivied

but of our British aristocracy, which they must permanently contaminate.

These Jew-features cross-breeds often further betray

themselves by their instinctive leanings toward Marxism and

finance and by a preference and sympathy for Jewish company

and Jewish causes. They often live under the perpetual shadow

of Jewish blackmail.

263553—19504 3

Generally speaking, when people of Aryan family look like Jews,

they are Jewish.

KNIGHTS OF ENGLAND

The list of Jewish knights which follows gives no real idea of

the Jewish contamination of the once-prized honor of knighthood.

It is far more difficult to get at the ancestry of holders of nonhereditary

titles than it is of the others. It is easier for your

Jewish knight to camouflage himself, and there is no doubt whatever

that there are as many Marrano Jews today in this country

working for Jewry under Christianized names and under the Christ

i an religion-as ever there were in Spain and Portugal. We include

in the list below only names of living knights of undoubted Jewish

blood; we know there are scores of others, and we may be able to

add to the list in future editions, particularly if our readers will

assist us in the business of Identification.

The appointments mentioned are either past or present ones.

Sir S. S. Abrahams, chief Justice, Tanganyika.

Sir M. A. Abrahamson, of an engineering firm in Denmark; was

commissioner for repatriation of British and Allied prisoners of war.

Sir George de S. Barrow.

Sir M. Bloch.

Sir M. J. Bonn, banker; chairman of London regional advisory

committee for Juvenile unemployment.

Sir Montague Burton, cut-price tailor.

Sir B. A. Cohen, barrister.

Sir L. L. Cohen, banker and stockbroker and member of numerous

British economic committees.

Sir R. Waley Cohen, of Shell O i l and of Baldwins, Ltd.

Sir S. S. Cohen.

Sir A. Castellani, expert on tropical diseases. His daughter married

Sir Miles Lampson.

Sir Albert Clavering (formerly Closenberg), propaganda officer, central

conservative office.

Sir H. Courthope-Munroe (real name Isaacs). Has had many

important appointments in industrial arbitration and church tithe

work.

Sir S. D’A. Crookshank, major general; general secretary, officers’

association.

Sir S. Dannreuther, son of a Jewish Ionldes; deputy secretary.

Air Ministry

Sir Edmund Davis, director of many mining companies.

Sir Ernest Davis, New Zealand.

Sir Benjamin Drage, installment furniture dealer.

Sir W. Deedes, brigadier general.

Sir John Ducane, was commander in chief, British Army on the

Rhine. 1924-27; Governor of Malta. 1927-31.

Sir P. H. Ezechiel 3d, crown agent to the colonies since 1920.

Sir D. E. D. Ezra, late sheriff of Calcutta.

Sir L. Franklin, of A. Keyser & Co., Jew bankers; was in charge of

Belgian refugees at Folkestone.

Sir F. E. Fremantle, a descendant of the Jew Gideon.

Sir S. R. Fremantle, whose mother was an Isaacs.

Sir S. H. Fremantle, brother of foregoing.

Sir S. Glucksteln, tobacco magnate.

Sir F. W. Goldstone, general secretary, National Union of Teachers.

Sir W. H. Goschen, chairman of Sun Insurance office.

Sir H. Graumann, interested in South African gold and mayor of

Johannesburg.

Sir A. M. Green, High Commissioner for India in London.

Sir C. E. Hambro, director of banks, Insurance companies, etc.

Sir M. Hankey, clerk to H. M. Privy Council and secretary of

countless International conferences. (See the Facist for May 1935).

Name of his great-grandfather changed to Hankey from Alers.

Sir Victor Harari Pasha, director general of accounts, Egyptian

Ministry of Finance.

Sir D. Harris, of De Beers.

Sir P. J. Hartog, Indian educationalist.

Sir P. G. Henriques, once assistant secretary, Ministry of Munitions.

Sir A. Hirtzel, in India office since 1894, becoming Permanent

Under Secretary of State for India, 1924-30.

Sir G. B. Hurst, M. P. (formerly Hertz).

Sir Isaac A. Isaacs, Governor General of Australia. Member of the

committee which formed the Australian constitution.

Sir J. G. Jarmay, of Brunner Mond & Co.

Sir F. L’E Joseph, president of the Federation of British Industries.

Sir S. G. Joseph, mayor of Marylebone.

Sir E. Kadoorle, Iraq educationalist.

Sir Cecil H. Kisch, Assistant Under Secretary of State for India

and member of International financial conferences as British representative.

Sir Leon Levison, author.

Sir C. B. Levita, lieutenant colonel.

Sir J. A. Levy, Jewel dealer.

Sir H. C. Luke (Lusach), has held countless diplomatic key

positions.

Sir F. J. Marquis, of Lewis’, Ltd.; has occupied many key positions

in Industrial councils, etc., In this country.

Sir H. Marks, big-business man in South Seas.

Sir Charles Mendl. press attache, British Embassy, Paris.

Sir S. F. Mendl, member of war office advisory committee on Army

contracts.

Sir R. L. Mond, interesting himself in archaeology.

Sir H. A. Miers, geologist.

18 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Sir M. Myers, chief Justice of New Zealand.

Sir M Nathan, has had five colonial governorships.

Sir F. G. Newbolt, official referee, supreme court.

Sir H. J. Newbolt, official naval historian, 1923; controller of

wireless and cables in European War.

Sir E. Oppenheimer, chairman of Anglo-American Corporation

of South Africa.

Sir P. Oppenheimer, British delegate in many International commissions.

Sir C. E. Pereira, major-general.

Sir F. Pollitzer.

Sir Landon Ronald, musical conductor.

Sir C. Rosenthal, major-general.

Sir W. Rothenstein, artist.

Sir Isidore Salmon, of J. Lyons & Co., served on many important

public bodies.

Sir H. Samuelson.

Sir Claude Schuster, permanent secretary to Lord Chancelor.

Sir G. E. Schuster, on many bank directorates and financial

commissions.

Sir C. D. Seligman. member of advisory committee of Export

Credits Guarantee Department. Board of Trade.

Sir P. C. Simmons, London County council.

Sir E. D Simon, Lord Mayor of Manchester.

Sir H. H. Slesser, lord Justice.

Sir H. J, Stanley, Governor of Southern Rhodesia; real name,

Bonnenthal.

Sir L. S. Sterling.

Sir Albert Stern, director-general, mechanical warfare department.

Sir H. Strakosch, expert on scores of Empire financial commissions;

British financial representative. League of Nations.

Sir Aurel Stein, explorer and traveler to Tibet, etc.

Sir Thomas White, chairman of Central Valuation Committee for

England and Wales.

Sir H. A. Wernher, chairman of Anglo-Swedish Society.

Sir A. Zimmern, professor of International relations, Oxford

University.

Sir Otto Niemeyer denies he is Jewish; he does not look iIt; he

iIs president of the Bank of International Settlements.

The following Knights now living have married women of Jewish

blood:

Sir Percy Ashley married a Jewish Hayman. Has been lecturer

on history, London School of Economics, and secretary, import

duties advisory committee.

Sir J. M. Astbury married a Jewish Susman (first wife). Judge,

high court.

Sir R. M. Banks married an Ehrman, widow of an Epstein.

Judge.

Sir E. C. Benthall married the daughter of the Jewish Baron

Cable; he was Lord Reading’s agent in India.

Sir A. A. Biggs married a Pollak.

Sir C. V. Brooke married a Jewish Brett. Rajah of Sarawak.

Sir E. J. Cameron married an Isaacs. Has had many Colonial

Governorships.

Sir C. E. Corkran married a Ricardo. General officer commanding,

London district, 1928-32.

Sir R. W. Dalton married a Bamberger. Senior trade commissioner

of several Dominions.

Sir David Davis married a Platner. Lord Mayor. Birmingham.

Sir S. S. Davis married a Jewish Davis. Many administration

and financial appointments, particularly Palestine.

Sir P. H. Dent married a descendant of the Jew Gideon. Governor,

London School of Economics.

Sir G. M. Franks married a Garcia. General, president Allied

Commission of Organization, Turkey.

Sir R. Goddard married a Schuster. Judge, high court.

Sir A. Greer married a Van Noorden. Lord Justice of appeal.

Sir C. J. C. Grant married the granddaughter of a Rothschild.

General.

Sir J. Hanbury-Williams married a Reiss. Chief of British Military

Mission with H. Q. Russian Army in Field, 1914-17.

Sir A. E. W. Harman married a Ricardo. General.

Sir Malcolm Hogg married the granddaughter of a Jew Gompertz.

Sir A. Hore married the widow of J. I. Belisha. Permanent Secretary,

Minister of Pensions.

Sir H. K. Kitson married a Jewish de Pass. Admiral Superintendent

of H. M. Dockyard, Portsmouth.

Sir Miles Lampson married a Castellani. High Commissioner,

Egypt-

Sir K. Lee married a Strakosch. On many industrial commissions.

Sir H. J. Mackinder married a Ginsberg, director, London School

of Economics, 1903-8; British High Commissioner, South Russia

1919-20; chairman, Imperial Economic Conference 1926-31.

Sir W. Morrison married a D’Costa. On legislative council,

Jamaica.

Sir F. S. Parry married a descendant of the Jew Gideon. Private

secretary, First Lord Treasury 1897-1902; has been deputy chairman,

board of customs, for 25 years.

Sir W. T. Southorn married a Jewish Woolf. Colonial’ Secretary,

Hong Kong

Sir F. T. Spickernell married the descendant of a Jew Rosenzweig.

Secretary to First Sea Lord for 8 years.

Sir M. M. Wood married the daughter of Moss Davis. Liberal

whip.

263553—19504

Other knights have allowed their children to marry Jews or

Jewesses, or have other family ties with Jews, as:

Sir Hugh S. Barnes’ daughter has a Rothschild as son-in-law.

Sir F. Bowater’s son married the daughter of a Jewish Franklin.

Sir J. F. S. Coleridge’s daughter married a Seligman.

Sir W. Dalrymple’s son married a Jewish Albu.

Sir Austin E. Harris’s son married a Bahrens.

Sir J. A. Hawke’s daughter married the Jew Sir P. C. Simmons.

Sir A. Hopkinson’s daughter married Sir G. B. Hurst (Hertz).

Sir T. G. Horridge married the widow of A. Isenberg.

Sir Oliver Lodge’s daughter married a Jewish Yarrow.

Sir W. Monckton’s wife’s stepfather is a Cohen.

81r Guy Standing’s daughter married a Jewish Leon.

Some of the knights mentioned are themselves Jewish, but we

have no proofs in these cases and therefore make no distinctions.

The following are women of Jewish blood bearing titles as being

widows of knights:

Lady M. Barnard (nee Loewen).

Lady C. M. Chermside, daughter of 1st Baron Reuter.

Lady De Pass (nee Mercado).

Lady A. de Villiers, daughter of Simon Davis.

Lady M. H. Egerton, daughter of a Jewish Franklin.

Lady A. Gollancz (nee Goldschmldt).

Lady A. R. Goodrich (nee Helbert, originally Israel).

Lady A. G. Gregg (nee Samuel).

Lady A. Hayter (nee Slessor).

Lady L. Henry (nee Levy).

Lady A. E. Henschell (nee Louis).

Lady H. E. F. Jacoby (nee Liepmann).

Lady D. F. James (nee Basevi).

Lady K. de V. Lambton, granddaughter of the Jew, Bernal

Osborne.

Lady J. V. Lucas (nee Henriques).

Lady P. Lyons (nee Cohen).

Lady A. Mandelberg (nee Barnett).

Lady V. A. Myers (nee Levy).

Lady A. E. Nathan (nee Sichel).

Lady E. Prince (nee Jonas).

Lady A. Z. Pringle (nee Levy).

Lady R. Samuel (nee Beddington).

Lady I. Snowden (nee Isaacs).

Lady F. Walston (nee Einstein).

So, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

We ask our readers to Join us and to help to rouse what is

left of the great British Nation to race-consciousness. No man

or woman can escape the responsibility which the knowledge given

in this pamphlet forces upon them. The task cannot be left to

future generations, because every generation will be more Judaised

than the one before it.

The great Jew-wise reformer. William Cobbett thus addressed

the nobility of his day (about 1827) in his Letter to the Nobility

of England:

“You feel » • • that you are not the men your grandfathers

were; but you have come into your present state by slow degrees,

and therefore you cannot tell, even to yourselves, not only how

the change has come about, but you cannot tell what sort of

change it really is. You may know what it is, however • • •

when you reflect that your grandfathers would as soon have thought

of dining with a chimney sweep than of dining with a Jew or with

any huckstering reptile who has amassed money by watching the

turn of the market; that those grandfathers would have thought

it no dishonor at all to sit at table with farmers, or even with

laborers, but that they would have shunned the usurious tribe of

loan Jobbers, and other notorious changers of money as they would

have shunned the whirlwind or the pestilence.”

GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED KEEP TROTH

(Current engagements on going to press: The Marquess of

Queensberry’s daughter to Count Bendem, son of the new Jew

Baron de Forest.)

Revised to November 30, 1937, enlarged with addition of new

names and removal of others through death, and in three cases

through error.

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and

International Strife—Part VI

REMARKS

OF

HON. J. THORKELSON

OF MONTANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, August 21, 1940

ARTICLE FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO LEADER, FEBRUARY 17

AND 24, 1912

Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend

my own remarks in the RECORD, I include an Article which

is a reprint from the San Francisco Leader of February 17

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 19

and 24, 1912. by Lillian Scott Troy. The article is entitled

“Benedict Arnold Peace Society—Some Inside and Interesting

History of the Infamous Peace Proposal—How the

Scheme To Form an Alliance With England Is Being Engineered—

Carnegie’s Crafty Method.”

This is in line with the other matter which I have inserted

In the RECORD, of which it is part VI. In these articles I have

made it a point to show that this insidious British influence

to return the United States as a colony of Great Britain has

been active for over a hundred years.

BBNEDICT ARNOLD PEACE SOCIETY-SOME INSIDE AND INTERESTING

HISTORY OF THE INFAMOUS “PEACE” PROPOSAL; HOW THE SCHEME

To FORM AN ALLIANCE WITH ENGLAND IS BEING ENGINEERED;

CARNEGIE’S CRAFTY METHOD

By L i l l i a n Scott Troy

[Reprinted from The Leader of February 17 and February 24, 1912,

San Francisco, Calif.)

Andrew Carnegie is in high favor in England Just now. Britons

who formerly sneered at the return of the Scot American to his

native Highland heath biyearly, now nod satisfied approval when

the iron master’s name is mentioned.

When English sneer, they hate; when they hate, they hate forever.

Why this sudden change? Carnegie’s money? No! His libraries,

hero funds, etc.? No! His ambition? Yes!

Within the soul of the little Scotsman dwells a burning weakness,

which only an experienced physiognomist could discern in his immobile

features.

Ambition! Mad ambition; the ambition of Caesar.

The man who so cleverly amassed one of the largest individual

fortunes it has been man’s luck to gather together in the age of

the world would be less than human had he not some weakness.

To be ambitious is good but to be ambitious with a feverish but

deliberate intensity which sacrifices principle for trickery and craftiness

is bad. The master mind t h a t engineered the ways and means

to a colossal fortune has no limitations! Carnegie expands and

basks in the limelight; it is the one Joy of his declining years.

8ince the visit of King Edward to Skibo Castle in Scotland, a

new germ of ambition has been sown in the mind and soul of the

Scotsman. On that memorable day. when he was honored by the

King of England, a flag floated over Skibo Castle, which showed the

Stars and Stripes on one side and the British flag on the other.

As the King was leaving the castle, after offering Carnegie a dukedom—

on terms, the laird of the castle is said to have raised his

hand to the flag and exclaimed subjectively, “Tour Majesty entered

Skibo Castle under the American flag, and the British flag files

over your Majesty as you leave. May there be only one flag over

Skibo Castle when your Majesty graciously design to enter again,

and may that flag be the British flag. And may it also float over

the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific.”

Immediately after the peacemaker’s visit, the Carnegie peace

fund was started in America.

The fair name of peace was substituted for treachery and betrayal.

The word “peace” caught the popular mind for the moment.

The subtlety which marks the character of Andrew Carnegie

forbade mentioning arbitration with England until the peace fund

had been well advertised, and duly cemented in the minds of the

American people as the best scheme for good the laird of Skibo had

initiated.

The “Peace” Fund Committee was painstakingly selected, with a

careful regard for future development. And trading under the

holy name of “peace” the object and aim of this congenial committee

(neat salaries, etc.) was what? To sell the United States

to England !

These were the terms demanded for Carnegie’s dukedom ! His

money could buy men buyable, to favor “peace,” it could buy or

lease secretly newspapers to spread broadcast Carnegian doctrine

until their protean proclivities gradually permeated into easily influenced

minds; it could hire unnaturalized Englishmen or Canadians

who had lived and amassed fortunes in the United States but

who found the land of their long residence too inferior for adoption,

to spread the doctrine; and lastly, to be ultracharitable, it

could even pull the wool over the eyes of the President of the

United States!

This sudden haste about arbitration was unwittingly brought

about by the impending war between England and Germany. Carnegie

was forced on against his will and more farsighted Judgment

to bring about a working “entente” with the United States before

Germany made any hostile move against England. In fact, the

United States was to be held over the head of their friend Germany

in the shape of a “big stick” by England.

Look well at the men who are talking themselves hoarse trying

to tell us why we must have arbitration with England. Is there

a man amongst them who is a representative American? Is there

one whose patriotism for America we would class with that of

Washington, Jefferson, or with that of any of the great men who

have passed away, but whose example of shunning “entangling

alliances” has helped to make America what it is today, the sun

in the constellation of nations?

Of Carnegie I have already spoken—and sparingly. And what

of Mr. Eliot of Harvard? We are told that the gentleman is an

Englishman and as such probably knows what is good for England

more interestedly than he knows what is bad for America.

Mr. Choate, the ex-Ambassador to Great Britain? This gentleman

was principally notorious for his ultra-English tendencies and

263553—19504

sympathies when Ambassador to Great Britain; and any fame he

may have attained was chiefly as an after-dinner speaker.

Mr. Whitelaw Reid, the present Ambassador to Great Britain?

This gentleman is remarkable for the facility with which he manages

to marry his relatives of the gentler sex off to decadent members

of the English nobility; and also almost famous for the

beaming smile he bestowed upon Commander Sims of the U. S. S.

Minnesota when that previously inspired American officer made

his clever faux pas at the Guildhall luncheon in London, given

to the officers and sailors of the American Fleet in the Thames some

short time since. This speech, which the Englishment gulped

down with Joy, and which gave serious offense to Germany, contained

these most un-American sentiments:

“If Great Britain were to be threatened with an external foe, she

could count upon every dollar, every man, and every drop of blood

in America.”

Like the famous speech of an ex-President of the United States

at the Guildhall some time previous, it is generally accepted t h at

Commander Sims simply had his little say, as he was parroted to,

and felt amply repaid in the genial nod and beaming smile of

approval of the American Ambassador.

This speech was intended to convey false news to Germany; it

was intended to scare Germany off.

If the little “feeler” passed unchallenged in America, the intended

end would have been accomplished; if exception were taken as to

how and for whom we Americans were willing to shed every drop

of our blood, there was Sims to be the scapegoat.

I am in Germany as I write this and I want to say right here

that Commander Sims’ unlucky inspiration has done exactly what

these “Benedict Arnolds” expected it to do, and the American

people have been greatly injured in the eyes of a friendly nation.

Without any other reason than that the Germans have made such

wonderful progress in their foreign trade. England has continually

insulted and misrepresented German motives and ideals until an

industrious people have had the last straw added and they are going

to have compensation.

The Boer War opened the eyes of England to her own delinquency

and she discovered, after all the rest of the world had done so,

t h a t she was the happy possessor of an army that was “brag” and

a navy officered by sap-beaded gentlemen’s sons which was all

“boast.”

The bragging, boasting, and bluffing went merrily on, but Great

Britain immediately began to look around for crutches and a cane.

She made an alliance with Japan; Germany minded her own business

and sawed wood. She made an “entente” with her old bitter

enemy, France; Germany continued to saw wood and work. She

made an alliance with Russia and then triumphantly began to

insult Germany. She made demands on Germany—commanded her

to cease increasing her navy. Germany quietly told Great Britain

that her armaments would increase in the ratio of Great Britain’s

hostile alliances. England tried bluffing and got her bluff nearly

called. Germany said she was ready to take her chances with the

quartet of England, Japan, France, and Russia, but politely added

that she much preferred to work and increase the prosperity and

happiness of her people; but * * * If Great Britain wished to

have a little fracas * * * “Barkis was willin’.”

Like the slinking coyote which has the will and desire but not

the courage to pounce on the lamb, England, with all the reinforcements

of three other hungry powers, decided that the time to

attack Germany had not yet come. And then the question of how,

was the nightmare of Great Britain. A man of initiative, clever in

handling difficult situations with dispatch was needed. America

was looked to with covetous eyes—but no Englishman dare suggest

arbitration. Why? Because the American mind would Immediately

become suspicious of a “nigger in the woodpile.” The suggestion

must come from an American! It must appear as if

America graciously made the initial move, and England immediately

fell into her arms.

Andrew Carnegie, whose sentiments were always British, while

willing to father the scheme and pay the bills, was too far sighted

to openly suggest the idea himself, knowing the propensity of the

American people to ask embarrassing questions, so he whispered

first to the King, and the peacemaker found Carnegie’s whisper so

dashingly funny that he must hold his kingly sides in acute

risibility.

The question of arbitration with England must come from no

lesser an American than the President of the United States!

Pulling England’s chestnuts out of the fire—no wonder the King

laughed)

Then the canny Scot, the clever organizer, came to the United

States on mischief bent. He tickled President Taft under the ribs

and cooed something into his ear—several things. And out of a

clear sky “our” President—all by himself (?)—holds out the glad

hand to England and says, “Let us arbitrate.”

And he says he thought it all out by himself! Ananias!

One high in authority and near to the Throne, in a speech in

1908 said: “In seven years the Union Jack w i l l float over the whole

of the United States.”

Elihu Root wishes us to celebrate one hundred years of peace

with England in 1915—the seventh year. Synchronism!

Why not celebrate with our friends, with whom we have never

had war? Why celebrate with the only nation on earth who has

always been and still is our own enemy, the only nation who has

had the distinction of oppressing us, and whose smoldering hate

and contempt for the “Yankee” is only second to the hate and

ill w i l l she bears her Irish and Indian subjects?

20 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

The present King of England openly boasts that if George III

(3rd) had held court in New York, there would have been no

American Revolution. The Queen, a woman hard and cold as

Queen Elizabeth but without Elizabeth’s brains, detests Americans

fiercely. No opportunity is lost in showing her royal contempt

even to American women who have, by marrying musty and decaying

scions of the British nobility, not only reinstated their husbands

in three full meals a day, but their whole families as well.

The Duchess of Marlborough was insulted before the world at

t h e Coronation. Why? Because she was a hated “Yankee”.

It is quite safe to say that the only Americans who are treated

by the English royalties as if they were human beings are the

numerous relatives of Ambassador Reid. Not that the Reids are

supposed to be in any degree more eligible than any other American

family, but because Mr. Reid is and may still be very useful

in furthering the arbitration treaty—and a few other things.

The Liberal and the Irish parties have on two occasions taken serious

umbrage at Ambassador Reid’s attempt to take sides in the

British election. At one time it was thought t h a t t h e Irish party

would take the matter to Washington.

On last Thanksgiving Day, Ambassador Reid contemptuously aired

his opinion of Americans at the dinner given by the American Society

in London. He said that Americans who visited England were

generally of two kinds: Those who referred to America as “God’s

country” and who couldn’t find anything as good in England as in

America, and women who wished to intrude their republican presence

on English royalty.

And thus in a public speech did the man who represents the

United States in Great Britain hold his own countrymen and countrywomen

up to ridicule. And on Thanksgiving Day, a day on

which, if he couldn’t bring himself to say something fair and kind,

he had done better to have held his peace.

The English newspapers made much of Ambassador Reid’s anti-

American speech. Many were the gloating references made to the

effect that even the American Ambassador could not stand his own

people. And why, may the American people consistently ask, does

our patriotic reference to the United States as “God’s country”

exasperate Mr. Whitelaw Reid to such an extent t h a t he must select

Thanksgiving Day of all days to criticize at a public dinner our

warm-hearted and truthful reference to our own country? As to

the American women he holds in such contempt for endeavoring to

“intrude” their republican presence on English royalty, why should

they not. If they wish to, and royalty wants their money to save t he

disintegrating nobility? Can Mr. Reid, with all his close experience

of royalty, begin to compare any royal house in the world with even

the average American family? No! Can he compare any of the

royal women with American women in refinement, courtesy, genuine

kindness, brains, wit. or honorable pride and virtue? No doubt t he

United States Ambassador, knowing the distaste the English King

and Queen have for Americans, would turn it to account by barring

out all but his numerous family and family-in-law from the sensitive

royal presence. One has only to glance casually at the picture

of the group of guests at Ambassador Reid’s country home in England,

where King Edward is seen sitting close to D. O. Mills, Mr.

Reid’s father-in-law. to observe the angry and disgusted expression

on His Majesty’s face at being roped in so neatly and being obliged

to sit and have his royal face and figure taken “with that d d

old nobody, Mills.”

But the possibility of an entente with America, and possibly in

time—well, the King was only playing the game, even if it did

upset him.

Cecil Rhodes’ dream of empire found expression in his legacy providing

for the education of American youths in England. Rhodes

hoped that the process of time would gradually prove an influence

in changing the history of the United States as it is written and

studied in America to the way England teaches it in her colleges

and desires that it should be taught in America in order to “do

Justice to England.”

Rhodes sagaciously remarked t h a t as far as education went, every

10 years saw a new generation. As the influence of American boys

educated under English direction increased, so would the tendency

to rewrite the history of the United States become easier to suggest

and more certain of success. The history of our country as

written, studied, and believed in England would put Baron Munchausen

to shame.

The first seeds of hate for America are sown in the young student’s

mind by a cruelly calumnious attack upon George Washington.

George Washington is spoken of as a “most inferior rebel

general.” One wonders what were the delinquencies of the British

he whipped. Children are taught that Americans are the refuse

of Europe; the descendents of servants, adventurers, and criminals.

The Japanese are right when they say t h a t a secret is best kept

by three men when only one man knows it.

Intoxicated with what appeared to them as signs of success in the

great “peace” fraud, there are a few whose loquacity, whose brag

of American dependence, is more fluent than their silence. Hence

this article.

We are told in England that Andrew Carnegie is a loyal subject

of the King, and has sworn allegiance to the British crown. Although

born a Scotsman, no American cares a rap whether he is a

Scotsman or a Frenchman or a Russian, but we most certainly do

take exception to his pretending to the American people that he

is acting for the best interests of America as an American when he

i s neither the one thing, nor doing t h e other.

263553—19504

Why was President Taft in such an indelicate hurry to rush the

arbitration treaties through the Senate last July? Because Germany

was preparing to attack Great Britain in August, and only

the moral influence of a possible entente between Great Britain

and the United States, which at a moment’s notice could be widened

into an offensive and defensive alliance, prevented hostilities.

Mr. Astor, otherwise known as the expatriated American, is

keenly in favor of “peace.” That’s enough to make us suspicious.

He loves America so.

John Hays Hammond is in favor of “peace,” too. Our President

commented most kindly on the warm reception accorded Mr. Hammond

at the coronation last June.

And why was John Hays Hammond sent to represent the United

States at the coronation of the King and Queen? Why did he

receive such a fall-lnto-my-waiting-arms reception? Because he

fought in South Africa with the English against the brave Boers.

Also because he is all for England and Carnegie “peace.”

While no one in their normal senses would question or attack

t h e patriotism, guilelessness or artless simplicity of heart of E l i h u

Root, yet—keep your weather eye on him.

Many reputable citizens whose patriotism was unquestioned were

misled into taking an active interest in public demonstrations in

favor of the special brand of buncombe called Carnegie “peace.”

The chief aim and object of getting prominent names associated

with Mr. Carnegie’s scheme was partially successful for a short

period but now the eyes of the deceived are widely opened to the

full and complete campaign of treachery launched against the

United States in Skibo Castle.

If the arbitration treaties must be discussed in the Senate, let

the debate be an open session, and let us mark well the men who

call upon the dishonored spirit of Benedict Arnold to help them

to a ready flow of eloquence that they may hide under their

scintillating utterances the sardonic curl of a traitor’s lips.

The following is what a few very ambitious but traitorous

Americans in high positions could tell us if they would, and to

which policies they have either pledged their wealth, their brains,

or their influence. Many of these men are under pay from a

fund which has given none of its “peace” money to prevent war

between Italy and Turkey, or any other nations or peoples at war;

a fund which under a false name, is only being used, and only

will be used to assist to the utmost the destruction of American

Independence, and the slow or fast betraying of America’s nationhood

into the ready hands of the only genuine enemies she has

ever had.

As far as can be ascertained, the following are the guidance

rules laid down for the accomplishment of this secret society

which we can make no mistake in calling the “Benedict Arnold

Peace Society.”

1. Power of the President of the United States to be increased

so as to gradually diminish the powers of Congress.

2. Supreme Court of the United States to be revised so as to

embrace only Judges agreeable to absorption by Great Britain, and

uniformly hostile to the United States Senate.

3. Precedents must be established by said Court against the

United States Senate in rulings, decisions, etc., (specially prepared).

4. Strong campaign must be waged in the several States and

Territories against Congressmen and Senators showing hostility to

Great Britain. If unsuccessful in defeating them, they must be

continually watched until discovered in some overt act, mainly

personal, and under threat of exposure forced to resign.

6. When the success of the arbitration treaties is assured a few

unimportant disputes between the United States and Great Britain

may arise, in which the preference must be given to the United

States. These apparent victories must be widely advertised in

order to create confidence in the propitiousness of arbitration with

Great Britain. While the scope of the treaties must be of considerable

latitude, care must be taken not to in any way bring

such questions as to the fortification or navigation of the Panama

Canal, or the Monroe Doctrine, into dispute until the situation is

under firm control.

6. As soon as compatible with conditions, the arbitration treaties

must be widened into an offensive and defensive alliance.

7. On accomplishment of same. British and American naval officers

must be mutually exchanged, but care must be taken that

this suggestion is made by an American.

8. Quietly and unobtrusively, American soldiers must be sent to

Egypt and India; British soldiers may then be quartered in the

United States.

9. English royalty, preferably the Duke and Duchess of Connaught,

must be sent to Canada, from whence they must make

frequent trips to New York. But great care must be taken not to

enter Washington if there is a demonstration against them, ox

until they have practically “held court” in New York.

10. The wives and daughters of men controlling great wealth

and influence in America must be given preference at these

“courts.” They must be selected carefully from every State and

Territory in the United States. Thus a new “society,” through

royal favor, must quietly and expeditiously be created.

11. Honors must be conferred on the husbands of women thusgiven

preference in the social circles of America, and a rank or

position determined by Judiciously distributed decorations.

12. Honor must be conferred on all American officers favoring

“peace.”

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 21

13. The women of men showing hostility to “peace” must be

socially ostracized.

14. When a strong phalanx of influential people in favor of

“peace” has been created, and the exchange of British and American

naval officers accomplished, and as many as possible of the United

States troops transported to India, the King and Queen of England

may then visit Washington.

15. Should any demonstration of hostilities to their Majesties

occur, the Hindu troops and the British may, in the absence of the

American soldiers, quell any disturbances.

16. Men whose wealth prevents their being influenced by money

must have honors and position and possibly a title dangled before

their wives’ eyes.

17. When newspapers cannot be bought or leased, new publications

must be started.

18. Educators must receive special favors in flattering newspaper

notices; and wide publicity must not be given to Independence

Day celebrations; people persisting in demonstrations must be

“cut” and held up to ridicule. Any demonstrations with fireworks

must be strongly opposed and discouraged on the ground of protection

to life and property.

19. An elaborate celebration must be arranged to take place in

the United States in 1915, to commemorate 100 years of peace

between Great Britain and America, by which time the object and

aim of “peace” will be at the apex of consummation.

20. Education of the masses must be discouraged, in order to

create harmony with the desires of the wealthy and the several

trusts, who will see in such a suggestion a strong tendency to

reduce wages from their now unreasonable heights to the basis

of wages paid in Great Britain; also, the suggestion that the

ignorant cannot organize so formidably as the educated masses will

be widely appreciated as dissension and suspicion of their own

leaders can be more easily advanced.

21. A popular feeling against Irish immigration may be aroused

in the United States by giving wide publicity to all individual cases

of rejection of immigrants for reasons of acute poverty, insanity

or criminality, or disease.

22. Arbitration, offensive or defensive alliances, and finally

peace must be brought about as quickly as possible. For the

latter, armed compulsion may be necessary, and it is recommended

that the Indian and British troops be altogether confined to the

east of America, leaving the protection of the west to the Japanese

troops, 80,000 of which are already scattered throughout the Sandwich

Islands, Mexico, British Columbia, and California. Reciprocity

with Canada can be passed almost unanimously through the American

Congress, and then opposed bitterly in Canada on one ground

only—that of annexation by the United States. Simultaneously

with the rejection of reciprocity by the Canadian people, a member

of the British royal family, preferably the Duke of Connaught,

must take up his residence in Canada.

23. With the assistance of some interested and powerful trust,

such as the Meat Trust, strained relations may be brought about

between Germany and the United States; in such event, and with

a defensive and offensive alliance with Great Britain, a casus belli

of England would be more easily turned into account by a simultaneous

attack on Germany. Great Britain’s diplomatic relations

with Germany must remain intact until the consummation of the

alliances with the United States.

24. It Is suggested to embrace France in the arbitration treaties,

for the moment, as suspicion must not be created during the

initial efforts.

It will be remembered that when the Japanese hero of Port

Arthur visited the United States last summer, he graciously

informed us that “arbitration between Great Britain and the

United States would be such a benefit to the United States.” He

had Just come fresh from England; he hadn’t been provisionally

promised the Philippines, either in the event of • • •.

As the great Japanese admiral placed a wreath at Washington’s

Tomb, did any of us remember the almost prophetic words of the

first American President, “to beware of entangling alliances”?

Let the shades of Benedict Arnold blush for shame, for there are

those today who exceedeth him in treachery and betrayal. Away

with the Carnegian peace at the price of liberty !

England’s attempted dictation and interference both in our

internal and foreign affairs is plainly and boldly illustrated in a

book written by Lieutenant Colonel Lowther, military secretary

and official mouthpiece of the Duke of Connaught. Lieutenant

Lowther says that he suggested a solution of the Japanese tangle

to Colonel Roosevelt, namely, that the United States of America

should give the Japanese all the facilities they asked for in California,

on condition that the Empire of the Rising Sun should

take over the Philippines from the United States.

In these few words Lieutenant Lowther has embodied two shots

for one bird:

Firstly, the flooding of the United States with cheap coolie labor

will reduce wages, thus gradually making it more difficult for t he

man in ordinary circumstances to spare enough money to support

his children during the time they should be in school, and thereby

making it necessary for children’s education to be reduced to the

level of the children of the poor in England, which would tend in

a very short time to make for a sharp class distinction or “illiterate

rabble.” This latter class is regarded as very desirable in England,

as the more ignorant the lower classes, the more easily they are

controlled.

Secondly, Japan wants the Philippines. Her alliance with England

was made for one purpose, and that was, by the careful and

cunning treading of certain intricate and complicated paths of

diplomacy, to bring about the peaceful or otherwise militant absorption

of the Philippines. England’s alliance with Japan was

made to offer the tempting bait of the Philippines as a reward for

services which Japan must be ever prepared and ready to offer, if

necessary.

What about the Japanese coaling station recently discovered in

Mexico? Preparation?

Lieutenant Colonel Lowther has held the post of naval attache;

his advice has been highly appreciated in the deliberations of his

Government; be has lately accompanied the uncle of the King of

England to the United States as military secretary and official

mouthpiece; therefore let no one discount his set idea of what our

policy with the Philippines should be; a man so strictly trained in

the policy and diplomacy of his Government speaks with authority

from his King and government.

Should a suggestion be made to Congress that “it will be next

to impossible to hold the Philippines without increasing our

Army, which will entail a great burden of expense on the United

States,” it will be well to investigate the company the suggester

of this statement has been keeping; also, if it is his own opinion,

or if it is the opening wedge to the proposal of the English officer,

Lieutenant Colonel Lowther, military attache and official mouthpiece

of the Duke of Connaught, to “turn over the Philippines to

the Empire of the Rising Sun.” • • •

The opening chapter of Lieutenant Colonel Lowther’s book, in

its general exaggeration of lawlessness in the United States, has

helped to cement the idea in the English mind that the United

States must come under British rule speedily.

Simultaneously with the publication of this British officer’s

book depicting Americans as a lot of wholesale murderers, devoid

of the slightest honor or courage, and comparing them detrimentally

to the gentlemen he had known in Pall Mall, he was

scattering broadcast in New York and Washington his hypocritical

expression of admiration for “the great Republic and the

American people.” His comparison of the Canadian soldier to the

United States soldier leaves nothing to be admired in the American

soldier. In fact, every reference to anything or anybody in America

is teeming with contempt and bitterness. Even the clubs in the

United States, which received him with open-hearted hospitality,

be refers to with sneering contempt, and, to be accurate, one must

say that many of his statements regarding the people whose bread

he broke are devoid of the merits of truth.

The inefficiency of the Senators and Representatives is systematically

advertised to the British public in cleverly written magazine

and newspaper articles and books. The English portion of

the British public are not overly given to think for themselves; when

they read that India “must be governed,” Egypt “must be governed,”

they are one with the Government; and now that they are dally

and weekly being fed on the suggestion that the United States has

completely gone to the bow-wows, and can only be saved if she

throws herself into British arms, they won’t let go of the idea, and

will help to a man to bring about the consummation of “Carnegie

peace.”

Even Mr. A. Maurice Low, an Englishman who has lived in the

United States for 20 years, tells his countrymen the following in

his book on America:

“Secrecy is often essential in negotiations, but secrecy is impossible

when a treaty must be communicated to the Senate. The

Senate is not popular with the country at large.”

He goes on to explain that Members of the Senate are certain to

break their oath of secrecy taken regarding “executive sessions.”

He also says. “It is generally believed that Members of Congress, as

a body, are corrupt.”

Lest some of my statements regarding the hatred the English

people cherish for America and the Americans be doubted, I am

going to give a few extracts from a book written by an Englishman

during the last term of the ex-President in the White House.

While the actual literary merits of this book may be nil, its long

and complicated sentences obscure and badly constructed, and its

syntax amateurish, nevertheless its purpose and its veiled meaning

is as clear as crystal. Every page of this book shows malice; every

paragraph venom. When I first began to read this book—on the

recommendation of another English writer that I would find out

some truths about my own country—I naturally supposed the publication

to be a sort of “freak” idea; but on closer investigation

of all books written by Englishmen about the United States I

found that nearly all of these books contained far-fetched lies

and calumnies written with pens that were steeped in bitter jealousy,

detestation, and hatred. “Americans who favor ‘Carnegie

peace,” otherwise called ‘absorption,’ will do well to read ‘Y, America’s

Peril.'” The Y is intended to mean Yankee. This book is

intensely popular in England, no less a personage than the late

King Edward finding in it the best book on the “Yankee” he has

ever read. The author is almost a hero. You had better make up

your minds to read some things which you will find real “nawsty.”

Following are a few printable extracts from this book:

“There can be no doubt t h a t America is the dumping ground of

Europe’s refuse; it is t h e scum of other lands. It has no right to

be called a nation. Everything in the United States seemed unwholesome.

I think the desire for gold is so deep-rooted in Yankee

that if he could “beat” his own father he would do it. In less

263553—19504

22 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

than three generations the United States will be unfit for a civilized

lady or gentleman to live in.

“Prom the boy who shines your boots to the Senator, they are

a nation of boodlers. Americans are the cast-offs from every land

on the face of the earth.

I saw a good deal of the American woman—In fact, “most all”

that she could show me without exposing herself to Yankee’s anger.

Verily Yankee’s women, and sometimes unwise ones, do not believe

in hiding the light of their charms under a bushel or anything

else. By the time I had been in the States a month, I began to

ask myself, was any woman in the land to be trusted?

I was informed * * * that in a western town, there was not

a virtuous woman, and that 75 percent of them had suffered from

“modern appendicitis.”

(Writer’s note—particulars regarding the explanation of this last

statement, which appears in the book, cannot be printed.)

Yankee is a deadly assassin, worse than a rattlesnake. Yankee is

awfully brave, especially when it is 20 to 1. Yankee does not care

to fight with his fists. The American police are no more fitted for

police than a barrel; they bear a resemblance to a walrus on end.

The standard of fair play, even that of good taste, is not the same

as in England. Yankee is vulgar and ignorant. He wears tan

shoes with a dress suit. The typical American has no intellectuality.

He has a nether lip like a motherless foal reared on a

whisky bottle. His hair is cut “slop bowl” fashion. He is sallow,

with pointed narrow Jaw. Of this type are made magistrate,

Judges, and so forth. Young men of America are of the ladylike

type. Men in America are effeminate looking. They are a mixture

of poodle dog and girl.

It is quite a rarity to see an American city-bred child with legs.

Their poor little apologetic pipestems are simply pitiful. Already

this process of decay has begun. Yankee has no instep. His food

is as flat as a pancake and as “narrow as the trend of his mind.”

* * * His legs are thin, and so infrequently is his body. He is

a tramcar. I visited the Philadelphia University and had a look

through the dental school there. I inquired carefully for the

specialists who would not take on anything but canines. I found

that it had not come to that yet, but it is trending that way.

The carrion-eating vulture would have suited the Americans

quite as well as an emblem of liberty as the eagle.

In four generations when the aggressive newness of the Congressional

Library at Washington has been toned down, it may be a fine

building. The Capitol is shoddy.

The English writers of books, and those who write for the press,

have attacked and calumniated every ideal of our nationhood for

generations, but they have left the virtue of our women unassailed

until of late years. Where one heard a grudging compliment paid

to the virtue of our women, now we hear the most cruel and untruthful

aspersions cast upon them individually and collectively.

There is no use to remonstrate; they will tell you that several

English writers who visited the States have written in their books

that the American woman is simply “rotten,” and they ought to

know.’ The English are more like sheep t h a n lions; they herd close

together in their opinions, which they generally do not form for

themselves and when the leader of the flock says “bah,” they all

“bah, bah.” If he says “boo,” they all “boo” together. They read

Y, America’s Peril, because the King read it. They like it for the

same reason he liked it—because it “slammed it to the Yankee

upstarts.”

This particular writer says he came away from America with a

nasty taste in his mouth. He says the first hotel he stayed at

was in San Francisco and the waiters look like “a lot of dirty

brigands.”

He evidently bears a most venomous spleen for Washington, like

the rest of his compatriots. He says he doesn’t see how Washington

could have been an American if he never told a lie. Writing

of the Washington Monument at Washington, he waxes torpidly

eloquent. He says that Washington’s Monument is a mere elevator

“and like everything in America, from Justice on, it is hollow and

corrupt.” He says the Washington Monument is typical of American

usages and customs—hollow and corrupt. He adds: “Yankee !

Yankee! have you anything in your land t h a t is not hollow?” He

calls the American boys “young American dastards. * * * Poor,

pitiful little Yankees.”

It is puzzling and singular that the only American he admires is

Theodore Roosevelt, of whom he speaks pityingly as “Roosevelt,

president of champion spitters of the world.”

Like many Englishmen, he frets because on our currency we have

the words “In God we trust.” He says that this should be changed.

It is to be wondered if the inspiration to eliminate “In God we

trust” from our currency during the t e rm of office of the only American

this Englishman admired was done to solve the particular sensitiveness

of this anti-American Britisher.

He says, “The dollar is dirty in the West. It is positively filthy

in the East, both metaphorically and actually.”

The inscription “In God we t r u s t ” is a lying religious inscription.

He says t h a t he apostrophized a Negro thus: “Aye! Whiter t h an

you, Yankee, except for about a hundredth of an inch. Whiter

than you!”

Americans will be surprised to learn the author’s story of the

Battle of Manila Bay, but they may rest assured that if the history

of the United States is rewritten according to Carnegian ideas and

to coincide with the British patriotism of Prof. Morse Stephens, of

the State university at Berkeley, Calif., this, in a few generations,

will be accepted as the correct version:

263553—19504

“England beat the Spaniards at Manila. This isn’t generally

known, and I got the strictest confidence from a certain admiral

in Chicago when Dewey gave the whole secret away.”

This writer tells his readers that Dewey went all the way to

Manila without ascertaining if he had certain guns and ammunition.

In consternation, Dewey sent to Admiral Seymour, of the

British squadron in Manila Bay, and obtained the guns and British

ammunition with which the Spanish were whipped.

He says that Dewey was confused as to what to do in the battle

and signaled Seymour, who from the British flagship directed

the American admiral how to proceed, signaling “Fire your port

broadsides,” and in reference to one Spanish ship Admiral Seymour

directed Admiral Dewey not to fire but to “blow her out of the

water.”

The closing reference to the battle of Manila Bay is as follows:

“And now you have for the first time the story of how the

English beat the Spaniards at Manila.”

This book, which so pleased the late King, and which was read

so widely in England, did not miss its mark—the ever growing

tendency of the English public to accept as final that the absorption

of America by Great Britain would simply be a matter of a

few years.’

Referring to the United States being skillfully steered into

British waters, one is astounded to read that “courageous President

Roosevelt realizes the decaying tendencies of the United

States of America. A skillful pilot is at the helm, and he is not

unaware of the danger * * * but his assistants—what of

them?” (The Senate).

Continuing, he says he hopes the President will “wear ship”

ere it is too late, and steer the ship into the safe and deep

waters beyond (England). His book ends with the expression

of a certain conviction that America and Great Britain would

“go hand in hand and that time is not far off,” and a full-paged

curse on t h e United States and its citizens:

“Land of sallow, scurrying men!

Land of bribery and corruption!

Land of the greasy food!

Thrice cursed art thou!”

But these British plans for the peaceful or militant absorption of

the United States, with the assistance of Andrew Carnegie’s executive

ability and money, the treason of members of the Benedict

Arnold Peace Society, and the willing cooperation of the rewriters

of the history of the United States have gone sadly amuck on

account of the threatened war between England and Germany. The

matter of the arbitration treaty with England has been unduly and

indecently rushed, much to Mr. Carnegie’s displeasure; this indelicate

haste was caused by the hysterical announcement of Lord

Charles Beresford, the hero of many a naval parade, that the British

Navy was not what it seemed; that the Navy was “without officers,

without men, without the necessary units, and in the event of war

with Germany the British Navy would be a present to the enemy.”

Plans for the peaceful or otherwise absorption of the United States

were overwhelmed with the fear that Germany would give unto herself

a present of the British Navy, and possibly even more. While

the plans of Carnegian peace were not scheduled to be ripe for a

test until 1915, the fear of war with Germany in the immediate

present forced the issue with such feverish haste that more than one

cat was let out of the bag of diplomacy. England could not tax her

people any heavier than she was taxing them, and even if she had

the necessary funds at her command to build a navy that would

compare with Germany’s she did not have time. Germany was

ready to spring, and England had little faith in the French and

Russian Navies combined against the Germany Navy. She dare not

expect the Japanese Navy to fight ship to ship with the Russian

Navy for fear they might remember old scores and forget they were

fighting for England and t u r n their guns upon each other.

There was only one subtle influence which could stay Germany’s

hand, and that was the arbitration treaty between England

and the United States and the possible ratification of that

treaty by the United States Senate. The treaty was sprung upon

the Senate, Just as reciprocity with Canada was, and it did not

occur to the British Government that there would be any difficulty

in quietly slipping the treaty through the Senate, and

quickly widening it into a defensive and offensive alliance.

There have been times in the history of the United States when

the country has not only been threatened with enemies from without,

but also from traitors from within.

There have been times when the United States Senate has taken

upon itself the functions of a court of impeachment.

If war is to come between England and Germany, let us keep

our hands off. While deploring war and the horrors of war, we

must choose between the lesser of the 2 evils—the killing of

some thousands in battle or t h e continual oppressing and torturing

of millions. A war between England and Germany would mean the

killing of perhaps a few thousand men; but it would also mean

liberty for 360,000,000 oppressed of India; liberty for 12,000.000

Persians; liberty for 4,000,000 Irish; liberty for the struggling

Egyptians from Alexandria to the Sudan. It might even mean

the peace of the world—the break in the trail of blood.

From the Sudan to London, Theodore Roosevelt hurrahed for

England; in Egypt he told a patriotic and brave people to be “loyal”

‘ to the British Government; he said English rule in India was

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 23

great. Ask the Indians. Ask the Egyptians! * * * and you

might also ask Mr. Morgan Shuster. Hands off!

Carnegie set up the Church Peace Union in 1914 with a $2,000,000

fund to further his alms.

World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through

the Churches has as its stated purpose “To organize the religious

forces of the world so that the weight of all churches and Christians

can be brought to bear upon the relations of governments and

peoples.”

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and

International Strife—Part VII

REMARKS

of

HON. J. THORKELSON

OF MONTANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, September 3, 1940

Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend

my remarks In the RECORD, I include an article by the Reverend

Dr. W. Pascoe Goard which appeared in the National Message,

March 28, 1936, the official publication of the British-

Israel World Federation. This article is entitled “British-

Israel Is True.”

We wish to speak a word of caution and expostulation to those

of our brethren of the Christian ministry who are boldly challenging

the t r u t h of the British-Israel.

First, we may present our credentials to Justify what we are

about to say hereafter. The following has been written without

particular consultation with our associates, but there need be no

question that they carry the weight of the judgment of the clergymen

and ministers, educationists, and other professional men, and

of the laity, who stand with us in the many countries where our

movement prevails.

What is the truth of the British-Israel? The truth Is that

the British-Israel is not a denomination and is not an ecclesiastic

sect; but is instead a subsidized political organization.

The question may then be asked, How can the British-Israel

call the Christian clergy “brethren” when their organization

is not ecclesiastic, but political, as I have stated?

It is generally stated, in order to give weight by comparison to t he

opposition, that there are no scholars in the British-Israel movement.

No doubt those who make such statements think t h a t they

are strictly adhering to truth, and that this movement is one

carried forward by those not qualified to Judge.

The statement, however, is not only untrue—which is the negative

form of the statement—it is positively untrue. A much shorter

form of expression might be used. Facts will be desired to support

this statement. Anyone who cares to search the literature of the

British-Israel movement will be struck with the fact that among

the small number who for many years stood together in defense of

this truth a very largo proportion of them carried the various

degrees which our universities bestow. Such degrees were earned

from Oxford, Cambridge, London, Birmingham, Durham, Trinity

College, Dublin, Aberdeen, Tale, McGill, Toronto, British Columbia,

and many other universities. We warn our opponents, if they have

any respect for truth, to avoid circulating such misleading statements

as these.

I do not believe anyone will deny that the British-Israel

World Federation is well connected and well financed. The

question is, Who are the financial promoters of the subversive

movement to establish a world government? Can it be

possible that the international bankers are the financial

backers? . Can it be possible that this movement is connected

with the Grand Orient Lodge? Is it not true that

the British-Israel and its proponents comprise the group

now actively promoting war, and is it not true that the

backers of this movement are those who control gold and

international gold credit? We must recognize that the

British-Israel world movement is anti-American and destructive

to the principles of this Government.

Turning to standing and experience in the various churches:

Within our ranks have been archbishops, bishops, well-placed

clergy, ministers of high standing in the various churches, heads of

educational departments and institutions, distinguished members

of the bar, and so on. Such positions as have been occupied by

many of those referred to have been achieved through merit in

long and vigorous years of service in the various branches of the

Christian church.

It is indeed unfortunate that many Christian churches

have allowed the British-Israel in the church organizations.

263553—19504

Ministers should know that political movements within

church organizations will destroy the church itself.

Of late a movement to bring forward such leaders as Dr. Goudge,

Dr. Dimont, Dr. Campbell, and so on, heads of theological divinity

schools, has evidently had as its object the forming of a ring

around us of authority. We recognize the attainments and

achievements of these highly esteemed men in other fields, but not

in the one under consideration. Within our movement we can

meet these gentlemen with men of equal attainments, of as wide

experience; teachers and authors of equal standing. We cannot

allow position or authority to weigh in a question of facts and

truths. That argument does not meet the point at issue. But if

t h e argument continues to be advanced, we balance it as we have

already said.

We respectfully ask of the rank and file, of those who oppose

us—What is it you oppose? We recommend each opponent to face

this question, lest in opposing us he may be found to oppose the

very standard upon which the whole doctrinal structure of his own

communion is based. We will state the things for which we stand.

Dr. Goard employs a subtle argument to disarm anyone who

may take issue with his statements. The fact remains, however,

that the British-Israel is to establish a world state with

a David as King, and the capital of this state, according to

their own publications, is to be Jerusalem. I am opposed to

the British-Israel, because I am quite well satisfied with our

own government and unwilling to crusade for the British Empire

or for the real motivators behind this movement in Asia,

Africa, Egypt, or anywhere else.

We accept the Bible as it stands. We are quite aware of the

various approaches to the Bible and of the various criticism to

which it has been subjected. We do not speak in ignorance of

these things, but rather with the full knowledge of them as men

who have been over the ground again and again for many years

past. Our approach to the Bible is an intelligent one. Our

acceptance of the Bible is confirmed by facts beyond counting.

It is our considered opinion that with the facts in hand which we

possess, it is impossible to do otherwise than accept the great,

sequent, even consequent, development of facts and t r u t h as it is

presented in Holy Writ.

We believe the Bible as it now stands does not need any other .

interpretation than that which facts, history, and experience

accord. The Bible carries Information not otherwise possessed by

humanity, and which must have had a source higher t h a n humanity

because its scope is wider t h a n the sum total of unaided human

knowledge. For instance, the Bible contains knowledge of the

past before human history began, and knowledge of the future to

which humanity has not yet attained but is from day to day

attaining. We accept it in its spiritual revelations, in its contacts

with natural science and history, and in its prophetic dealing with

t h e future. We take the Bible to be what the Prayer Book assures

us it is, namely, “The Word of God Written.”

I shall not discuss the historical aspect of the Bible or

its revelations, for I grant that education existed then as

well as today. The point In issue is that the British-Israel

have appointed themselves as the chosen people to sit in

judgment on the throne of David in Jerusalem, and I do not

deny the British-Israel such rights. Reserving my own

rights, I object to giving my aid in this cherished desire, and

I refuse to share any responsibility in establishing this world

state.

The Bible deals with Israel as a continuous national entity, from

Sinal to the end of the world.

The Bible deals with Judah as a separate national entity, from

its organization as a kingdom under David to the coming again

of our Lord Jesus Christ.

These two paragraphs are illuminating, for they reveal the

real purpose of the British-Israel plan; and it is to establish

Judah as a kingdom under David, and so stated in the latter

paragraph. The British-Israel movement is, therefore,

backed by those who are interested in a Judaic state, and

they are not the gentiles or those which the British-Israel

pretend they represent.

The Bible deals with the continental empires and nations, from

the granting of the Imperial charter to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon

and to his successors right down to that time indicated by

Daniel, of which he said, “I beheld till the thrones were cast

down • • •.” Many scriptures show this to have been the

ending of the Babylon succession, which took place in A. D. 1018,

2,520 years after the granting of the great Babylon charter.

We see t h a t these three participants in world history have been

the chief actors on t h e stage. They have so monopolized the activities

of world history that what has taken place outside of their

scope has scarcely been worth telling.

Bible prophecy and secular history are now merged into one.

This is within the scope of our faith. What objection has any

churchman of any denomination to make of the facts here given,

24 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

and on what grounds can such objection be raised? Surely every

Bible reader must know the truth of that which we have just

stated. If not he can easily verify the truth.

We see and know that the general course of the history of each

of these peoples is told in the prophetic scriptures. Further, by

the interweaving of these lines of prophecy the general course of

world history was foretold.

We take these lines of prophecy and we compare them carefully

with world history. This is not an easy task. It takes much original

research, which we have gone to the labor and expense of

making. For instance, for years we have maintained a research

department, the members of which have worked and still work in

such institutions as the British Museum, and elsewhere, where the

treasures of knowledge are deposited. As a result of the general

scholarship of our leaders and the special knowledge thus obtained,

we can give chapter and verse for much of the Information required

to establish the fact that history fully fulfills prophecy. A large

and growing literature is produced and is still being produced in

this field of research.

What a triumph that is for the Bible and for those who preach

the Bible facts and truths. Dr. Driver was compelled by his lack

of this special knowledge to admit what he believed to be a fact,

that many of the promises made by God to the northern Kingdom

of Israel and to the southern Kingdom of Judah had never been fulfilled,

and that circumstances have so changed that they never can

be fulfilled, but must be rather looked upon as ideals which God

would fain see fulfilled in the life of His people. This is not a

verbatim quotation, but whoever desires to do so w i l l find the

original statement in the introduction to Dr. Driver’s Commentary

on Jeremiah.

The fact t h a t a scholarly wing of the British church, for whom

Dr. Driver spoke as the regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford, should

have found itself driven by the great atheist, Tom Paine, and his

follower, Bradlaugh, to make such an admission, denotes a great

tragedy for British Christianity.

The whole thing was a consequence of Dr. Driver’s failure to read

the continuous history of Israel and to identify it in its modern

strength. Possessing this key to the knowledge of history, we are

able to say that every covenant which God has entered into, every

promise which God has made, and every prophecy which God has

authorized concerning the northern Kingdom of Israel and the

southern Kingdom of Judah have been and are being fulfilled to

the letter up to date, and time only is the element required to complete

the fulfillment of them all. Thus we bring triumph to the

church; thus we restore shaken faith in the Bible and all its implications.

Why Christian ministers should oppose us in making

known this triumph is beyond our understanding.

This article which I am quoting is interesting, and I shall

now requote a part of the foregoing paragraph:

Possessing this key to the knowledge of history, we are able to

say that every covenant which God has entered into, every promise

which God has made, and every prophecy which God has authorized

concerning the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom

of Judah have been and are being fulfilled to the letter up to

date, and time only is the element required to complete the fulfillment

of them all.

In making this statement, Dr. Goard takes much for

granted, and I am sure he will find many disappointments on

the road he has selected to follow. I realize that he expects

the armed forces of the United States to aid him so that his

prophecies may be fulfilled, but the taxpayers of the United

States, who pay the expenses of the Army, and particularly

the men in the Army who must give their lives to please Dr.

Goard, might object to aid him in establishing a world state

in Egypt.

It will be and is being objected to t h a t we substitute the national

and secular phases of the gospel for the spiritual evangel. We do

no such thing, and we commend this fact especially to the judgment

of our evangelical brethren. Speaking to the latter for a

moment, we say that the evangelicals have rightly opposed with

vigor and courage the mutilation of the Bible by the higher critical

and modernist schools. We join with them heartily in this. But

now we say in all kindliness, and with the seriousness which belongs

to such a statement, that our evangelical opponents go much

further than higher critics and modernists in determinately ignoring

and often vigorously denying the whole of the kingdom message

which deals with the state and its administration. To do this is to

deny or ignore quite half of the Bible literature.

Further, we call the attention of our evangelical brethren to the

fact that at every point the kingdom message, as it refers to the

state, interpenetrates the evangelical message as it refers to the

church of Christ.

The evangelical message cannot be given in its fullness nor in its

full power if the kingdom message and its references to the state

are eliminated. It would be foolish for either side to boast; it

would be equally foolish to fall to estimate the work being done.

Accordingly, we say that because we understand and use the national

element as it penetrates the spiritual evangel, we not only

preach the evangel as our evangelical brethren do, but we preach it

in its fullness with the fullness of its power in a way that our

evangelical brethren who disregard the kingdom message as it refers

to the state cannot do.

The question is asked, What are the standards of doctrine recognized

in the British-Israel movement? We make answer: We form

no denomination; we are not an ecclesiastical sect; our members as

a rule are members in good standing in their own communions. We

send a constantly increasing army of members into congregations

and churches. We take none out. We leave it to the membership

and adherents of our movement to exercise perfect freedom as to the

formula by which they express their faith. Among us we hold to the

Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. One wing of our adherents

expresses its faith in the terms of the Articles of the Church of

England. Another wing holds as the expression of its faith the

standards of the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist Churches.

Still another wing holds the Methodist standards. These three great

expressions of faith cover in general the same ground and may be

considered as the basis of the faith of British-Israel. Further, as a

body we hold and use the Book of Common Prayer, recognizing that

that book in its entirety and in detail is compiled upon the assumption

that the people who use it and hold it dear are the people of

Israel and inheritors of the covenants made With our forefather

Abraham.

These three paragraphs are informative, because-we find

that the British-Israel movement is not a Christian movement.

It is not a denomination or church movement and

it is not ecclesiastic, as I have already stated in discussing the

first paragraph. The interesting part is this statement:

We send a constantly increasing army of members into congregations

and churches. We take none out. We leave it to the membership

and adherents of our movement to exercise perfect freedom a s’

to the formula by which they express their faith.

This statement leaves no doubt as to this movement, for it

is an organization which Judah is employing to destroy and

upset Christian faiths in order to establish their own world

state. The statement, “We take none out,” is true, for these

“fifth columnists” are sent into every church, and even into

the Government itself, to spread British-Israel and world

union now. This in itself proves clearly that all of these movements

are un-American, anti-American and most damnably

subversive. If we had a patriotic Justice Department and lawenforcement

bodies that had the interest of the United States

at heart, they would bring every one of these organizations

before the bar of justice, because they are enemies of the

United States and performing treasonable acts against our

Government.

Stated briefly, the Bible, the prayer book, the great confessions

of faith are ours. We are probably unique in this, that alone we

hold what was g e n e r a l l y held by the established church, the Covenanters,

the Puritans, and all the great denominations up to a very

recent period, namely, the fact t h a t Britain and her associate nations

are Israel. Consequently we hold the Bible in its entirety, both in

its references to church and state; we hold the prayer book to mean

fully what it says; we hold the great confessions of faith, with all

the understanding of the fathers who produced them. We hold the

state to be designed of God to be as holy as the church, and we

believe the time is speedily coming when upon the holy vessels of

the temple and the bells of the horses in the streets there will be

inscribed equally, “Holiness to the Lord.”

This paragraph also identifies the source of this movement

in these words:

We are probably unique in this case, t h a t alone we hold what was

generally held by the established church, the Covenanters, the Puritans,

and a l l the great denominations up to a very recent period,

namely, the fact t h a t Britain and her associate nations are Israel.

This statement reveals how deceptive this movement is, for

Great Britain and her associates comprise Mongolians, Negroes,

Australians, and many other racial types, who are not

of the tribe of Israel. I may also say that no one would make

such claim except the British Israel; and the reason for that

claim is due entirely to the fact that the background of this

movement in Judaic.

Knowing these things, we know t h a t we, as Israel, are subject to

t h e Israel constitution, t h a t in fact our kingdom is made up as of

old of Jehovah, t h e King of Israel, represented on earth by the House

of David, of the nation Israel, over which the King bears rule;

and of the constitution, which consists of the commandments,

statutes, and judgments of the Lord.

This paragraph lets the cat out of the bag, for Jehove, or

Jehovah, is the God of the Jews and David is their coming

king. Their constitution or laws is the Talmud, and their

prophecy is taken from the Old Testament.

IS T H I S AN AGE OF REASON?

Let us now be practical. The United States Army and

the United States Navy, conscripts or no conscripts, are to

crusade in a stupid war in Asia and Africa. Our young men

263553—19504

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 25

are to give their lives—not in protection or defense of the

United States, but for the sole purpose of establishing a

kingdom in Arabia with Jerusalem as the capital, and with

David as the king of the world.

I now conclude by quoting the last paragraph:

These are the things we hold; these are the things we teach.

On what ground do Christian ministers oppose us? On what

ground do they say that we are schismatic or heretics? Surely, if

either ourselves or our opponents are schismatic or heretics, it

must be our opponents, for we stand squarely for the faith which

was first delivered to the saints.

Published by the Covenant Publishing Co., Ltd., 6 Buckingham

Gate, London, SW. 1. Printed by the Stanhope Press, Ltd.,

Rochester, Kent.

I hope that Members of Congress will read this insert,

entitled, “British-Israel Is True,” and another insert entitled,

“The International Situation,” because both state the

purpose of the British and the American Israel, as well as

the Anglo-Saxon Federation.

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and

Internal Strife—Part VIII

REMARKS

of

HON. J. THORKELSON

OF MONTANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, September 3, 1940

Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend

my remarks in the RECORD, I include an article entitled “The

International Situation.” This article appeared in the National

Message, the official organ of the British-Israel World

Federation, under date of November 23, 1925. It is also

affiliated with the American-Israel Movement, located in

Knoxville, Tenn.

The front page of this pamphlet shows the battle map of

Egypt and Arabia, with arrows pointing from Ethiopia toward

the Sudan; and with three arrows pointing from Persia, Siberia,

and Tobolsk, toward Iraq and Arabia. There are also

three arrows pointing from Moscow, central Europe, and

southern Europe toward Syria, and one arrow from Libya,

pointing toward Egypt. This map is therefore to show the

direction of attack on these British Mandates, as prophesied

by the British-Israel World Federation.

What is our position in this battle plan of British-Israel?

Our position is supposed to be on the side of Great Britain,

to war in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Palestine, and Syria,

against all the world powers. It will require a large army to

fight the world, so I am not astonished when the Chief insists

that we call out 40,000,000 men to fight for the British-Israel

World Federation. All of this is to establish Jerusalem as the

capital of the world and the center of this world government

in Egypt and Arabia.

Our Army will travel by the way of the Pacific and Indian

Ocean to India and the South African British possessions,

such as Tanganyika and Rhodesia, from which attack will be

launched against the forces that are supposed to attack this

little parcel of land lying on each side of the Red Sea. This

might seem like a crazy plan, but it is that which the British-

Israel and Great Britain have in mind in this war.

I have described the map and shall now insert the article

which appears on the other side of the pamphlet.

We come to t h e consideration of t h e international situation. The

attention of the world has been drawn irresistibly to Italy by the

movements of Italy. This is focused at the moment on the invasion

of Ethiopia. We have not dealt at large with this matter, and

we have avoided having much discussion on it in the National

Message. It is important, and the events will be t h e measure of the

importance. But, after all, it is but a detail of the larger plan.

Italy is moving; Russia is quiescent, and Germany active only

within her own boundaries. We consider that Italy is less of a

menace to ultimate world peace than either Russia or Germany.

We turn to our Book and there find our instructions. We give, in

connection with this article, a map of the heart of the world. We

call to mind that the city of Jerusalem is placed exactly in the

center of the world’s population. We further call to mind t h a t t he

Great Pyramid is the center of the land surface of the world.

Around those two centers, including them, we find the mandated

2 6 3 5 5 3 – – – – 1 9 5 0 4 – – – -4

territories and possessions of Britain. Taking Jerusalem as a center,

and looking eastward and north and south, we have Palestine,

Trans-Jordania, Iraq, Arabia. Again taking our stand at Jerusalem

and looking southward, we have Egypt and the Sudan; with the

countries beyond that we do not now deal; they do not come into

the picture. The map shows the British mandated territories and

possessions as the heart of the world, and this they are. Whoever

possesses them a quarter of a century from now will dominate the

world. God has said that Israel shall possess them. We believe

that the Celto-Saxon world is Israel. Therefore, Israel, the sons

of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Ishmael, will possess t h e land.

But Italy has announced the intention to regain that which once

constituted the eastern part of the Roman Empire. That is plain

enough and needs no explanation.

Russia has long announced her intention and has every plan made

to take possession of the Euphrates Valley and Palestine, at the least.

That also is historic, plain, and needs no interpretation.

Germany, in the last war. made a definite attempt to hold the

land which, through Turkey, she had occupied. She lost the war,

but not the cause, and has by no means given up hope or intention

In regard to such possession.

The Bible takes knowledge of all this, and prewrltes the history

of the threefold attempt to obtain possession of the land.. The

thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel are very definite

on the matter. We shall later quote the necessary passages to illustrate

this. The minor prophets have had very clear vision of this

upheaval, as they had very clear vision of that upheaval which

ended in the destruction of Jerusalem. We recommend the reader

to t u r n to Joel and read that wonderful prophecy. In my copy of

the Oxford Bible it begins at page 1112. It embraces less t h a n four

pages, and can be read in half an hour. I would recommend then

that the reader should turn to Zechariah, chapter XII, and read

it to the end. In my copy it is page 1162, and two-and-a-half

pages of the Bible embrace it all. In chapter XIV, verse 2, there

is this statement: “For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem

to battle.” Now, this is a prophecy which would not have fitted any

former period of world history. It is a prophecy which will fit no

future period of the world history. It is a prophecy which will

have fulfillment now.

All nations, then, are to be gathered against that territory now

under the British throne, which has Jerusalem for its center. Three

groups will move against this territory, with the intention of

occupying the whole or a part thereof. First among them will be

the chief prince of Meshech (Moscow) and Tubal (Tobolsk). The

second group listed are Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya. The third

group listed are Gomer (Middle Europe) and all his bands, the

house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands, and

many peoples with him. In the map on the previous page we have

traced arrows to show the lines of approach by which the various

peoples will invade the British territories, a l l aiming at Jerusalem as

the central point. Here is the map:

Translated into modern phraseology. Central Europe, Russia, and

that power which holds Ethiopia and Libya will be marching toward

a common center with one definite purpose; namely, the seizing of

the land. Those who would read what will be the final issue of the

matter may read the passages already named in Joel and Zechariah

and, more specifically, the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters

of Ezekiel.

The following passages furnish those details:

“And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee,

O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:

“And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I

will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all

of them clothed with” all sorts of armour, even a great company with

bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:

“Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them: all of them with shield

and helmet:

“Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north

quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee.”—Ezeklel

xxxvii:3-6.

The Lord’s army who shall oppose them are:

“Sbeba and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the

young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a

spoil? Hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? To carry

away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great

spoil?—Ezekiel xxxviii:13.

The gathering of the nations is expected and provided against by

the Lord; the King of Israel:

“For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and

the city shall be taken, and the houses* rifled, and the women

ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the

residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

“Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations,

as when he fought in the day of battle.”—Zechariah xiv.2-3.

Mr. Speaker, I shall make no comments on this article,

except to say that this is a description of the coming war

that is planned to take place in Egypt. I shall now include

excerpts from other articles, giving the names of the magazines,

so that those who read may be better informed of the

most devilish plot which has ever been evolved by the brain

of man.

I now quote from “The hand of God in the White House,”

by Edna Bandler:

Franklin D. Roosevelt, ordained and used by God to be His executive—

to be the leader and deliverer of His people (like Moses) to

26 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

deliver them out of t h e depression and out of chads.

Only the hand of God could have delivered this man out of

the net of the Chaldeans. But he stood alone like a Christian

statesman and pleaded the cause of his people. Just he and God—

no “party man” or organization could boast. Just the hand of God

put him on the throne.

I have seen the hand of God in the White House. From’ the day

the shield of David and seal of Solomon was discovered on the

porte-cochere of the White House kitchen, President Roosevelt has

been accused of placing the Jew sign on everything: The sixpointed

star rightfully belongs to us, and George Washington ordered

it on the White House pillar, and it was not an accident

that Betsy Ross, whose father and family were the makers of the

first Stars and Stripes; Betsy changed the star to the five-pointed

star, but God meant it to be so. We, “the preserved of Israel,”

were lost and hidden until a time appointed to be revealed.

With the David shield, Solomon’s seal, the great pyramid message,

“A memorial forever,” told in the book of Joshua, fourth

chapter, and this pyramid coming out on t h e new $1 bill with the

six-pointed star, all has great significance.

“All the shields of the earth belongeth unto Me, saith the Lord,

and when the standard and the ensign is set up, ye shall know

your redemption drawetb nigh.” The reason this obverse side of

the seal is only on the $1 bill is because “Christ and His people are

one.” On our early coin with the 13 links of chain, and in the

center of the coin “We are one,” and on the other side it was

written: “Mind your own business.” Our shield and all the shields

of the nation tell their story. In my new book, Unveiling of Israel,

many startling things. A great prophecy has Just been revealed.

I shall now quote from a book entitled “The House of

Israel”:

Much is made of the “perpetuity of the Davidic throne.” If the

Davidic throne was to be established forever, then it must be

found somewhere now. The English throne must therefore be the

throne of David, and King George the seed of David, for does not

the Scripture say that “David shall never want a man to sit upon

the throne of the house of Israel”? (Jer. 33: 17, 20-21.)

I shall now quote an excerpt from Time, of September 16,

1936, by Mrs. Edna Bandler, whose husband, I believe, was a

prominent Jew:

“The coming of the Lord * * * Great confusion upon earth

* * * September 16, 1936,” was announced last year in Manhattan

by a Mrs. Edna Bandler in volume 1, No. 1, of a magazine

called the Prophet. Last week Mrs. Bandler turned up in the

news again, conducting a “week of prophecy” in Town Hall daily,

donning a white veil and prophesying for the 25 to 100 people

who dropped in, admission free, to hear her.

Edna Bandler is the white-haired intense-eyed widow of a rich

diamond merchant. Until 2 years ago she lived in a mansion, full

of gilt and marble, which John D. Rockefeller built years ago in

West Fifty-fourth Street for his son, John D., J r . She now dwells

and conducts prophetic services for a small band of followers in a

lushly furnished duplex studio in West Fifty-seventh Street, a

neighborhood in which Sourish many Swamis and faith healers.

Mrs. Bandler prophesies in a helter-skelter flow of words which

many a listener last week found incoherent. Several of her ideas

accord with those of British “Pyramidologists,” who believe t h a t in

the courses of masonry and many tunnels of the Great Pyramid

of Cheops are to be found prophecies of the world’s history until

the year 2045. Pyramidologists thought September 16, 1936 was

to be epochal for the world, but Prophetress Bandler now denies

that she predicted anything like the world’s end. She insists,

however, that, known only to her, 300,000 people were slaughtered

on Mt. Carmel on that date. Sample Bandler prophecies:

Fascists are the Philistines. Mussolini is the Biblical “beast of

the iron teeth,” and he will take over Spain.

The 12 most powerful nations on earth are the 12 tribes of Israel,

of which Prophetress Bandler will identify only England (Ephraim),

France (Reuben), the United States (Manasseh).

. President Roosevelt, to be the last United States President, is

God’s anointed. Because he is divinely ordained, and also because

man’s span is 70 years, the President will be allowed to appoint

as many 8upreme Court Justices as he pleases.

The world’s redemption will come through love. “I’m giving the

last love-call for the world before the tribulation comes.”

When all communications between the United States and Europe

are cut off, when radios go dead, when we are forbidden by decree

to speak the name of Jesus, when David, Duke of Windsor, takes

an airplane to Jerusalem, then we will know the conflict is at

hand.

This will give my colleagues an idea of the British-Israel

World Federation, an organization which is widely distributed

into every nook and corner of the Nation. These subversive

teachings which have for their purpose the creation of a

world government, with Jerusalem as the capital, should

now be clear to all who read this message. This movement

has infiltrated our churches, schools, and even the Army

itself, as this quotation clearly reveals:

More than a year has passed, but at last we have secured, through

the help of Mr. C. H. M. Foster, the honorary secretary of t h e Keswick

convention, testimonials from several men of high rank in

the British military and naval service, which we intend placing in

262553—19504

the hands of every officer in the United States Army and Navy. As

a foretaste of what our readers are to receive in the next months

from the publication of these wonderful stories of God’s dealing in

the lives of great men of empire, we quote a sentence or two, from

the letter from Admiral Sir Harry H. Stileman which accompanied

the manuscript. “I send it with the earnest prayer that my experience

as a reconciled sinner may help some brother officer in

the United States Navy to lay down the arms of his rebellion at

the feet of the Lord Jesus, the captain of the Lord’s host, and

accept from these pierced hands God’s gift of eternal life.” These

admirals and these generals are men who won their promotions

and highest honors in the Great War. Their testimonies are going

to be of great interest, heart warming, thrilling words to put

into the hands of young people.

This movement is very subtle, and on its face appears to be

a Christian movement. We must, however, take into consideration

that the people who fight and die in this war are not

only Christians, but include other creeds and races as well.

We will conscript an army today, not to protect America, for

we are not threatened. We will instead organize an army to

fight in the Holy Land on the side of the English. Can we

hope to succeed in this war, facing as we will all nations in

the world? The answer is absolutely “No.” We should,

therefore, make it our business to build the defenses of the

United States, wash our hands of this deadly international

intrigue that is enshrouding common sense and sound reasoning.

And this may be done, as I have said many, many

times, by returning to our fundamental teachings and to the

principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and

Internal Strife—Part IX

REMARKS

OF

HON. J. THORKELSON

OF MONTANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, September 5, 1940

Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend

my remarks in the RECORD, I include certain excerpts from

the magazine Prophecy, monthly—current events in the light

of Scripture, June 1936.

I am endeavoring to shed a little light on the British-

Israel World Federation and the Anglo-Saxon Federation,

for both of these movements are not, as I have said, in the

interest of the United States.

Unfortunately, members of these groups—and I believe

many of them are innocent members—are going hand in hand,

supporting a plan which is undermining our churches, changing

our educational system, so as to prepare the public to

quietly accept a colonial status in the British Empire.

This movement is carried forward, as I have said, by the

various endowment foundations and by the many pro-English

organizations, such as the Overseas Club, the Pilgrims,

American-Canadian Clubs, and Anglo-American Clubs, and

even the Octavia Society of England. All of these have many

branches throughout the United States, and are in reality

as subversive as the communistic party itself. The only difference

is in that the membership of these upper-strata

organizations occupy a social status, which leaves them more

or less immune from criticism. However, it is important that

light be shed upon their activities, so that we may know them

for what they are.

The first article concerns Bishop T. Manning, and is evidently

a criticism of statements which he has made. Bishop

Manning is well known and no doubt the walls of his church

carry many secrets that in themselves would be a revelation.

I shall now quote this article:

[From Prophecy Monthly—Current Events in the Light of Scripture

of June 1936]

WORKING TOWARD THE ONE VISIBLE CHURCH

“Mystery Babylon, the great, the mother of harlots and abominations

of the earth” (Revelations, 17:6).

The Episcopal bishop, William T. Manning, who a few years ago

had something of a testimony for orthodox Christianity, is now

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 27

campaigning for a great religious federation to include everything

Protestant and Catholic. In an essay being distributed in several

nations he decries the “sin” of disunion of Protestantism and

Catholicism.

He calls for “true and full conversion to Christ” in Protestantism

of all sects and Catholicism, whether Roman. Anglican, or otherwise.

The essays are’ to be the subject of discussion and questionnaires

among these Anglican communicants during the next 4 years to

obtain a statement of essential principles, or a platform on which

the reunion of Christendom may be approached by Anglicans.

This platform will be presented at an International convention in

London in June 1940, to which three representatives from every

Anglican diocese in the world will be invited.

“In the great task of reconciling Protestantism and Catholicism,”

he said, “it seems that God has set the Anglican communion in t he

middle place for the very purpose of reconciliation.”

We can never believe that when our Lord prayed that His people

“might be one” that He contemplated that the desired unity should

be manifested by one comprehensive religious corporation. Where

will we find in the church epistles any intimation that God recognizes

in any way the existence on earth of one visible church under

the authority of one ecclesiastical organization? God recognizes

only the mystic church, comprised of born-again persons, wherever

they may be, and God’s purpose requires no tinkering at the hands

of schemers to repair its unity, for it has never been broken. The

unity for which our Lord prayed (John, 17:21-23) is a unity of life

in the Father and in Himself.

If the good bishop is working for such a unity, produced only

through the regeneration of individuals, we are with him. A church

that is the creation of the Holy Spirit must be a church founded

on the eternal rock—the deity and atoning work of Jesus Christ.

The apostate denominations can never be brought together on such

a basis. Any vast human organization such as is proposed can be

brought into existence only through compromise. It would be the

counterfeit of the body of Christ, the prophesied federation of

apostate sects which is to mark the days of the age end. With such

a movement, we would have no part whatever.

The words of the risen Christ recorded in Revelation should be

sufficient guidance as to His mind in this age. Here He addressed

each of the several churches of Asia and His appeal at the close of

each is: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith

unto the churches.” His appeal is to the individual believer in

respect to His Word and He holds each individual church responsible

directly to Himself.

My opinion is that the people should be left free to worship

as they please, within the rights and liberties of the Constitution.

For anyone to attempt to establish a monopolistic

church, as advocated by Bishop Manning, is as unsound as

monopoly in commerce and of the gold which is now in the

Treasury of the United States. All of this is a part of the

British-Israel plan to undermine the United States. I shall

now quote an article from the same magazine entitled

“Proofs of British-Israel Trickery,” on page 21:

PROOFS OF BRITISH-ISRAEL TRICKERY

If it seems to some of our readers that we have much to say

on the subject of Anglo-Israelism, they should understand that

our mail is flooded with letters and literature from readers who

are taking up with these ideas, and our increasing conviction that

this is one of the latter-day deceptions, leads us to repeat our

warnings.

We sometimes receive letters from premillenial ministers defending

these doctrines, and remonstrating t h a t we have no right

to term this a heresy for it is being preached by many who are true

to the fundamentals of salvation. This we do not doubt, yet we

are certain that these sincere men do not realize to what extent

they have been imposed upon by official literature of the movement,

or to what port they are being led. It may be t r u e t h a t some

advocates of Anglo-Israelism preach “Christ and Him crucified,”

but it is equally certain that some of the outstanding writers on

the subject have no place for this message but preach legalism

in its full potency. In all the literature, it is the peculiar “gospel

of the kingdom” which is given prominence, and this is a doctrine

of the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon people and their calling to

reform the world.

One of the most startling exposures of the official literature t h at

we have seen in small form is a recent booklet by Rev. Roy L. Aidrich,

of Detroit, entitled “Anglo-Israelism Refuted.” Mr. Aldrich

dated the subject with Howard B. Rand, general secretary of the

Anglo-Saxon Federation of America, in a high school auditorium

in Detroit. Mr Rand utterly failed to answer the propositions

stated by Mr. Aldrich.

In the booklet mentioned, Mr. Aldrich gives numerous quotations

taken from the best known books of the movement, showing how

the writers have deliberately misquoted Scripture or omitted portions

of verses which would have ruined the argument. He shows

how they have also misrepresented the position of other writers.

But if one wishes conclusive evidence of the fallacy of the thing,

he should read the quotations as to time reckonings and the setting

of dates based upon pyramid measurings and the year-day

theory. He quotes again and again from positive predictions of

officially recognized leaders, showing how their dates brought forth

nothing, and how subsequent issues of the books dropped these

references and substituted references to dates still in the future.

263553—19504

Anglo-Israel literature has been saturated with predictions that

Armageddon would take place in the years 1928 to 1934. In this

period was included the seven times for Judah’s trouble, the gathering

of all nations against Jerusalem, the repealing of all man-made

laws by Britain and America, the adoption of the constitutional law

given to Moses and the assumption of Authority by Christ. We were

to see in 1934 the last war for 1,000 years. It was flatly stated

t h a t if these things did not come to pass as scheduled, it would be

the first time t h a t the revelation of the Sone Bible (pyramid) had

ever failed. One of their most cocksure writers, W. C. McKendrick.

went so far as to say: “You can depend upon it that every divinely

inspired prophecy from 1917 to 1938 will come true at the allotted

time. Armageddon will be upon us 11 years from the time we took

Jerusalem.”

Those who are sincere seekers of t r u t h should accept our challenge

to read Mr. Aldrich’s booklet and check his quotation with the

standard books from which they are taken. They will find that

they are following blind leaders who have not hesitated to employ

trickery in their efforts to maintain a following. We do not question

the sincerity of many who have accepted and are teaching

these doctrines, but we do pray that they will let the sure Word

of Prophecy be their guide. When the books of men become essential

to one’s maintaining of a system called Christian, we have

reason to suspect that we are off the main track.

I have taken the liberty of including this article, in order

to show that British-Israel is suspected by many people, who

know the real background of this movement. My reason for

inserting these articles is to bring to light the fact that there

is a movement on foot to try to establish authenticity, or to

prove the prophecies of the Old Testament. We have no

need for occultism, or for astrology, or for phrenology—feeling

the bumps on the head, and such hocus-pocus. What

we need is good, sound statesmanship, that is based upon

the Constitution of the United States. What do we care

about Moses, and what do we care about the prophecies of

the Old Testament? What interest can we have in the

people who are trying to interpret these prophecies in order

to compel us to enact these mysteries in a real world war,

which can only end in the sacrifice of millions of lives. Let

us get back to sound reason and common sense, and forget all

of this soothsaying, legerdemain, and phophesying. Our

Nation cannot be guided by astrological predictions or by any

other mystic procedure, for such entertainment is fine in the

parlor but has no place on the Ship of State.

I shall now quote another short article from the same

magazine:

THIS IS JERUSALEM SPEAKING

“Then will I turn to the people a pure language.” (Zeph. 3:9.)

It is interesting enough to find that a language for centuries

considered dead, should be suddenly revived and spoken by 90

percent of the Jews in Palestine, but doubly striking to learn that

within the last few months, a Palestine Jew, Jacob Maimon, has

adapted the international stenographic system to the Hebrew language,

achieving the maximum of efficiency required. Maimon and

his adept students are a familiar sight at meetings of the Zionist

General Council and the Zionist Congress, compiling complete records

in Hebrew. Classes were started some time ago in Tel Aviv,

and the first shorthand writers are on the staff of Daver, the

Hebrew labor daily.

On March 30 Hebrew made its world debut as a radio language,

when the Palestine broadcasting service was inaugurated, with

addresses by Sir Arthur Wauchope and members of the Jewish and

Arab community.

“This is Jerusalem calling” were the words that opened the station

in English, Hebrew, and Arabic, and introduced the speech

of Postmaster General William Hudson.

In various parts of Jerusalem, crowds thronged the outside of

radio stores listening as the radio loud speakers broadcasted the

country’s first program.

We read in a Jewish paper t h a t a serious disturbance threatened

as Arabs warned the Palestine Broadcasting Co. that a national

issue would be made of it, if the new broadcasters dared to refer

to Palestine as “Eretz Israel.” Use of the phrase, which is the

Hebrew for “the land of Israel” has already caused the resignationof

the Arab section of the broadcasting station.

It is quite evident, after reading this article, that the Arabs

did not like the Jews to say, “Eretz Israel.” The Arabs no

doubt look upon Arabia as their own home, which is proper and

right, because they have lived there longer than anyone else.

This article also calls attention to the split in the false and

true Semetic ranks, for the Arab, we must confess, is a true

Semite.

I wish to quote still another article from the same magazine,

which is in regard to a manifesto, which the editor received:

We who have subscribed our names hereto declare that we are

opposed to anti-Semitism in whatever form it may take, as in28

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

consistent with our heritage of liberty and fair play as citizens of

America, and as unworthy of those who bear the name of Christian.

We further declare that any attempt to use the Scriptures as an

excuse for an anti-Semitic attitude is a perversion of God’s Word

and irreconcilable with the spirit and teaching of the Lord Jesus

Christ. * * * We wish our lives to be worthy of the Gospel

of Christ so that the Jew may differentiate between the Gentile

who is a Christian and the one who is not. And wherever there are

those seeking to make the Jewish people acquainted with the contents

of the Christian message, we wish to uphold their hands in

prayer and sympathy. * * * To the Jewish people we declare:

We have for you a heart full of sympathy. • • • We have no

part in the stirring up of base passions against you, and we want

you to know that those who are thus guilty do not express the

love which the Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to show you.

Among the many signers are Dr. George W. Arms, Brooklyn, N. Y.:

Dr. Arthur I. Brown, Bible lecturer; Dr. Oliver Buswell, Wheaton

College; Dr. Herbert W. Bieber, Philadelphia: Dr. O. F. Bartholow,

Mount Vernon, N. Y.; Dr. H. A. Ironside. Chicago; Dr. Howard A.

Kelly, Baltimore; Dr. Fred Melday, Denver; Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer,

Dallas; Dr. Robert Evans, Pasadena; Dr. Otis Fuller, Grand Rapids;

Dr. Albert G. Johnson, Portland; Dr. Cortland Myers, Pasadena;

Dr. Wm. Pettingill, Wilmington, Del.; Dr. Herbert Booth Smith,

Los Angeles; Dr. John Bunyan Smith, San Diego; Dr. W. H. Rogers,

New York; Dr. W. P. White, Los Angeles; Dr. Harold Strathearn,

Rochester, N. Y.; Dr. Theodore Taylor, New York; Dr. Frank Throop,

Columbus, Ohio; Dr. I. L. Yearby, El Paso, Tex., and many others.

People like the signers of this manifesto are responsible

for anti-Semitism, for it is they who designate the anti-

Semite and who raise the question so that it becomes an

issue. These gentlemen who signed the manifesto must be

Semites themselves, or else why would they go into battle

against an enemy of their own selection and designation?

Surely no one bears any enmity toward the Semites as

long as they are willing to conform to the same rules and

regulations that all Americans have obligated themselves to

do. A citizen of the United States, however, has the right

to speak in defense of his own Government, without having

his life threatened by those who employ the term anti-

Semite, and who are Semitic; and I include the gentlemen

who signed the manifesto in that category.

Would it not be more honorable if the same gentlemen

said, if they are not Semites themselves, that they are supporters

of the Semites; that they believe in extra Constitutional

rights for them; that they believe they should own

and control all the gold; that they believe they should own

all the business and means of communication in the United

States; that they believe the so-called anti-Semitic, or gentile

American should work with a pick and shovel while the

people they support, the Semites, should be lords over the

land? Should these gentlemen come out like this, we would

know where they stand; but they, like the others, hide behind

a screen of deception.

From now on I shall assume that all who use the designation

anti-Semitic are Jews or close associates of the Jew.

I believe the gentlemen in question will concede this point

to me. and in doing that they have also classified themselves.

The so-called anti-Semites, or gentile Americans can then

meet this unfair designation as a clear-cut issue.

I was indeed astonished to hear the gentleman from New

York [Mr. CELLER] denounce those of his own race of “Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob” for having besieged him in his office,

to express their views on a critical piece of legislation.

They, of course, acted within their constitutional rights, in

seeking this audience; and, more than that, they acted

within the provisions of a resolution passed by a conference

of rabbis, who, in 1936, went on record as claiming military

exemption for conscientious objectors of their own race.

I can well understand the Member’s embarrassment, particularly

in view of the position he has taken in regard to

the conscription bill; yet these people are, as I have said,

clearly within their constitutional rights, to express their

opinion; for it is the people of this Nation who must fight

and die in defense of their own rights. I take it that these

people do not object to service within the United States, but

they do object being conscripted into service and then sent

to the Far East to fight for a nation and for a cause in

which they have little interest.

As a Representative in Congress, I have given audience to

many people who are not residents of my own State, but I

look upon this as a public duty to treat all people with con-

263553—19504

sideration and courtesy—no matter who they may be. After

all, it is the people who are the power in this Nation, and we

Members of Congress are elected to protect their rights; and

when we fail in this worthy object they must, in view of our

failure, act in their own behalf. It is because of this that

these people are here in Washington to protest against the

conscription bill.

I wish to further quote from the Prophecy magazine:

Can it be t h a t t h e modernists sense the need of a revival and of

getting back to the great commission?

Let us read on:

That Protestantism is not as potent as it once was is hardly a

matter for dispute. Our denominations mean less and less to us.

They represent no important convictions on the part of their

membership, and would visibly collapse were it not for their vested

Interests and the spirit of fellowship sustained by a common

tradition.

Yes; all this we can follow if t h e writer is thinking of the results

of a denatured Gospel, with its resultant loss of a missionary incentive.

Surely there are many churches where the pulpit stands

for no positive convictions, and membership in them amounts to

little more t h a n belonging to a social club. But perhaps we have not

caught this editor’s drift. He proceeds:

“It is high time the churches and leaders who sense the weakness

of our sectarian missionary structure should come together in a

missionary project which is independent of denominational control.

An ideal alternative would be for the Federal Council of

Churches to take over the missionary enterprise of such denominations

as would transfer their present responsibilities to it. It is

both logical and urgent.”

And why, pray tell, should we hand over the management of

missions to this troup of Modernists?

“The primary reason,” says the Christian Century, “is that

denominational agencies do not and cannot express the conception

of Christianity which is taking form among us today. The goal

should be nothing less than the reorientation of the Christian

Church in respect to the world mission of Christianity. It is

probable that the very word ‘missions’ would have to be abandoned

for a more Christian term.”

The cat is out of the bag. It is not a revival of the old-time

religion that these gentlemen are desiring. New emphasis upon

the marching orders given by our Lord, is not in their thoughts.

No; they would even rid the church of the word which implies

that men without Christ are lost and Deeding the good news of

salvation. Instead of going forth ‘to seek and to save that which

is lost,” they would instill into the church the “new conception of

Christianity’s social responsibility.”

No longer are we to regard missionaries as saving brands from

the burning. Under the direction of the Federal C o u n c i l of

Churches, we would delegate them to put out the conflagration

by introducing modern scientific methods and mass social reforms.

As Dr. Smaller Mathews once put i t : “The church should be less

concerned in rescuing people than in educating them to keep out

of danger.”

But if we are to set aside completely the fundamental basis of

missions as given us by the Lord Jesus Christ; if the church is

no longer to hold convictions based upon a divinely inspired

Christian revelation—one wonders why we should trouble ourselves

to maintain such an organization as the Christian Church, or

what need we have of a Federal Council of Churches of Christ?

“Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain.”

In concluding this speech, may I say that the Federal

Council of Churches is a subversive organization, the members

of which are clothed in garments of pink, red, and

scarlet, all the colors of radicalism and communism. It is

now well to take heed, for this movement is carrying this

Nation into trials, tribulations, and war. No nation can

survive unless it maintains Christian morals and believes in

the teachings of the Man who came from Galilee. It is this

faith that has carried people on, and it is this faith which has

built up the Christian civilization, a civilization which cannot

survive when we deny Christian teachings.

I have included these articles in my remarks because they

are self-explanatory and more or less in line with the position

that I have taken as a Member of Congress. No nation

can survive that foregoes the teachings that gave it life and

security, and these teachings cannot survive if we destroy

the Nation that gives the people an opportunity to express

and fortify themselves in the comfort that such teachings

give them.

We must, therefore, as I have said before, return this

Nation to those sound and fundamental principles upon

which it came into life, namely, the Constitution of the

United States.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ END OF SPEECH ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

%d bloggers like this: