and the credit at the country should crack. The Federal Reserve was supposed to be able to control the flexibility of circulation, and that will be all right as long as confidence is maintained.
The greatest fear here in Washington is over the danger of again becoming smeared in with Europe in the war preparations which are speeding up over there and the possibility of falling for the profit there will be in selling them supplies and furnishing money by detouring the Johnson law, or slipping our resources under the fence, which might be characterized, via Veracruz. Very earnest effort is being made by officials and laymen who are resolved that two things must not happen, to wit:
America must not become involved in the European war, which is now imminent.
America must not advance to European nations our reserve resources for war purposes.
Washington, D. C., March 10, 1937.
[Here the gavel fell]
Adjournment over
Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet Monday noon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Extension of remarks
Mr. HANCOCK of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the Record by inserting an article prepared by Col. Frank P. Hobgood, on the infallibility of Majority Court Decisions. Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, what is the article? Mr. HANCOCK of North Carolina. It is an article pre¬ pared by Col. Frank P. Hobgood on the Infallibility of Ma¬ jority Decisions and refers to the President's Court proposal. Mr. KNUTSON. Who is Colonel Hobgood? Mr. HANCOCK of North Carolina. He is an attorney at law living in Greensboro, N. C., and during the Wilson ad¬ ministration was special assistant to the Attorney General. Mr, KNUTSON. I have no objection, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. oath or orrics or the president and members or the house Mr, MOSER of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani¬ mous consent to proceed for 2 minutes. The SPEAKER pro tempore, Zs there objection to the request of tho gentleman from Pennsylvania? There was no objection, Mr. MOSER of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on last Satur¬ day X received a letter in the mail that came from an Institu¬ tion of higher learning, and Just as X was about to cast the letter aside X noticed the oath that is administered to every Member of the House of Representatives. This was followed by the oath administered to the Resident of the United States. This attracted my attention and, reading it through, 1 found that this professor of economics undertook to casti¬ gate the Members of Congress and the President of the United States as violators of their oaths, holding them to be felons guilty of perjury. Included in the letter was a charge to a Jury by a Federal Judge, in which he invoked one of God's commandments to Moses to point out that he who would take the name of God in vain was guilty of perjury, and that perjury was worse than murder, X felt such a keen resentment that 1 ascertained who this professor of economics was. He proved to be Ous W, Dyer, professor of Economics at Vandcrbllg University, Nashville, Tenn., and in my spirit of resentment and in de¬ fense of the Members of Congress and the President of the United States, and all people who take oaths In accord¬ ance with their conscience, X felt called upon to write him a letter. X have shown this letter to some of the Members of the House who have asked me to include lt in the Record, My purpose in asking this time at the present moment is to include Professor Dyer’s letter, my answer, and one to the chancelor of Vanderbilt University, transmitting an advance copy to the university's head for his Information as well as the trustees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the manner indicated. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
To the Representatives in Congress:
Since under the new order it is now considered a proper function of Congress, a subordinate agent of the Government, to change, radically, anything In the Constitution that may be displeasing to the President, another subordinate agent of the Government, I am appealing to you to support an Important change that has been almost completely overlooked.
The Constitution, as you know, requires every Congressmen and every other public official to take an oath to uphold the Constitution before they are permitted to perform any function of their offices. Even the clerks of Congress, the Sergeant at Arms, the doorkeepers, and the postmasters are required to take this oath.
The nature of the oath each Congressman is required to take Is significant in a peculiar way at the present time. The oath is as follows:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."
The very words of the oath that the Chief Executive is required to take are given in the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
To claim that the subordination of one of the three coordinate departments of the Government to the other two is consistent with the above oaths Is too absurd and puerile to be given consideration by intelligent people. To make such a claim is a serious reflection on the man who makes it as well as on those to whom it is addressed.
The question here involved is far more serious than any change that might be made In the Constitution. The question is, Shall public officials knowingly, openly, and defiantly violate the sanctity of an oath?
Therefore I am requesting you to Introduce a bill at once to repeal the provision of the Constitution that requires public officials to take an oath, and to repeal all laws that require witnesses and Jurors to take an oath Iin courts of Justice. Of course, you have no right, under the Constitution, to introduce such a bill. But we are not operating under the Constitution now. Hence the way la open for anything. If the oath Is repudiated by public officials, it is hypocritical and preposterous to make such repudiation a felony m applied to witnesses, Jurors, and others.
If public officials are too weak morally to carry the obligations of an oath, the oath should be abolished and a "big stick" wielded by a strong arm be substituted in its place.
The violation of tho sanctity of an oath by public officials is a deadly blow at the very foundation of civilized social order, and in addition it is flagrant insult to the Deity. Tho oath has been considered the supreme binding force on every man worthy to be called a man. The violation of the sanctity of an oath has been considered so antagonists to every conception of honor and manhood that it has been made a felony by civilized governments.
That you may better understand the chaotic condition under which we find ourselves at the present time, I will call your judicial notice to a charge to a Jury delivered by a distinguished Federal Judge some years ago:
"Gentlemen", said the Judge, "there can be no more solemn obligation (tho oath). Upon the first table of the law delivered by the Almighty to Moses amidst the thunders of Sinai was inscribed the commandment, ’Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for He wilt not hold him guiltless who taketh His name in vain.' That commandment as interpreted by the old Jewish rabbis and the best Biblical scholars of the poet and present is primarily a commandment against perjury. The reason why it, alone, of all the commandments is coupled with the declaration that the Lord will not hold him guiltless who violates it is doubtless because it is a willful insult to the Almighty to call upon Him to witness to the truth of a deliberate falsehood. Gentlemen, I think perjury la worse then murder, and that is why I call attention to the responsibility and the solemnity which rests alike upon you and upon me to do our duty."
Yours sincerely,
Vanderbilt University.
Gus W. Dyer,
Professor of Economics, Vanderbilt University,
