Drifting Together - Will the United States and Canada Unite?
(Written by request for the London Express, October 14, 1904, by Andrew Carnegie)

    (This article, in pamphlet form, was placed in the New York Public Library on February 27, 1906, by the Hon Joseph H. Choate.)

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 insideous 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 tha 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 organizations are made up of many Canadian and Anglo-American societies which 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 it's 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 when in substance he said : 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 American's 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 these 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 tenth anniversary of the Pilgrims of the United States. , New York, Tuesday, the 4th of February, 1913, at the Waldorf Astoria, 1913)
    (Hon. Joseph H. Choate, president of the Pilgrims and chairman of the evening, on rising and rapping for order, is roundly cheered and toasted by the members and guests assembled.)
    MR. CHOATE. I am going to ask you, in the first place, to rise, as you did just now for a much less worthy object, when I propose the loyal toasts. I ask you to fill your glasses and rise and drink to the President of the United States and his Majesty, the King of England.
    (The toast was drunk with great enthusiasm, cheering and singing the Star Spangled Banner and God Save the King.)
    Before the chairman could resume, a delegation of members, consisting of Messrs. F. Cunliff-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 addressed him as follows :
    "Mr. Choate, your brother Pilgrims making you the offering herewith of the Pilgrim fare, bread 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 momento of the occasion." --CUT--

    Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to read the speeches given by the American members of the Pilgrims, for they, like all converts are more un-American and pro-English than the British themselves.
    The address of Joseph. H. Choate is an example of Anglo-phile. pertinent at this time in view of the conditions that exist today. I shall now re-quote 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 misfurtune and suffering than the British Government. This should be clear as we review the early history of our own colonies, of India, Irelandand 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 out friendliness toward Great Britain, but not their friendliness toward us ; and again, he palced 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 ; that is, all for England and nothing for he 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 60 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 from a republic to a semi-democracy ; 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 commited to this war in 1910, and were  to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J.P. Morgan and 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 it's 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 :
--CUT--

CON'T -

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 occured 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 the 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 it's climax and has now been formally written into the public law of Great Britain.

    MR. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the Record, I include a pamphlet by John T. 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 OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE - (By John T. Whiteford)

    MR. THORKELSON.  Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the record, I include a short article entitled, "Undermining America."

Undermining America

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 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.

         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, 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 insideous British influence to return the United States as a colony of Great Britain has been active for over a hundred years.

                    [Reprinted from The Leader of February 17 and February 24, 1912, San Francisco, Calif.]

              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.
                                                                              (By Lillian Scott Troy)
                                                                                      (--CUT--)

(Web Ed. This article is not included at this time. It is lengthy and not vital to this study at this time. I will be adding it at some point in the future.)

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. The 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 truth of the British-Israel.
    First, may we 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 judgement of the clergymen and ministers, educationalists, 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 British-Israel? The truth is that 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 ecclesiastical, but political, as I have stated?

    It is generally stated, in order to give weight by comparison to the opposition, that there are no scholars in the British-Israel movement. No doubt those who make such statements think that 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 large 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, Yale, 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 dent 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 we have archbishops, bishops, well-placed clergy, ministers of high standing in 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 Christians churchs 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 (have allowed the British-Israel in the Church Organizations.) truths. That arguement does not meet the point at issue. But if the arguement 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 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 truth 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 higher than humanity because its scope is wider than 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 the 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 judgement 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 Sinai to the end of the world.
    The Bible deals with Judah as a seperate 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 A.D. 1018 (Ed. Note "0" looks like it could be a "9"), 2,520 years after the granting of the great Babylon charter.
    We see that these three participants in world history have been the chief actors on the 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, 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 will find the original statement in the introduction to Dr. Driver's Commentary on Jeremiah.
    The fact that a scolarly 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.
    We send the constantly increasing army of our 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.

    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 law enforcement 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 Unted 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 generally held by established church, the covenanters, the Puritans, and all the great denominations up to a very recent period, namely, the fact that Britain and her associate nations are Israel. Consequently we hold the Bible in its entirety, both in its references to the 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, that alone we hold what was generally held by the established church, the Covenanters, the Puritans, and all the great denominations up to a very recent period, namely, the fact that 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 is Judaic.

    Knowing these things, we know that we, as Israel, are subject to the Israel constitution, that in fact our kingdom is made up as of old Jehovah, the 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 judgements 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 THIS AN AGE OF REASON?

    Let us now be practical. The United States Army and the United States Navy, conscripts or no conscrips, are to crusade in a stupid war in Asia and Africa. Our young men 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 hertics, it must be our opponents, for we stand sqarely 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. 

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, poiting 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, or war in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Iraq, Palastine, 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 anfd 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 the consideration of the 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 Nation Message. It is important, and the events will be the 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 that the Great Pyramid is the center of the land surface of the world. Around those two centers, including them, we find the mandated territories and possessions of  Britain. Taking Jerusalem as the 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 the land.
    But Italy has announced her 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 has 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 prewrites the history of the threefold attempt to obtain possession of the land. The thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezeliel are very definite on the matter. We shall later quote the neccessary 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 turn to Joel and read that wonderful prophecy. In my copy of the Oxford Bible it begins at page 1112. It embraces less than four pages, and can be read in half an hour. I would recommend then that the reader should turn to Zecheriah, chapter XII, and read it to the end. In my copy it is page 1152, 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 wll 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 terrirory now under the British throne, which has Jerusalem for it 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 secong group listed are Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya. The third group listed are Gomer (Middel 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, all 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 will 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 pasages furnish those details :
    "And say, Thus saith the Lord God; behold, I am against thee, O God, 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." -- Ezekiel xxxviii : 3--6.
    The Lords army who shall oppose them are :
    "Sheba 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 deliver them out of the depresseion and out of chaos.
    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 Soloman was discovered on the porte-cochere of the White House kitchen, President Roosevelt has been accused of placing the Jew sign on everything : The six-pointed 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, Soloman's seal, the great pyramid message, "A memorial forever," told in the book of Joshua, fourth chapter, and this pyramid coming out on the 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 draweth 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 new 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 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 Manhatten 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 a 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., Jr. She now dwells and conducts prophetic for a small band of followers in a lushly furnished duplex studio in West Fifty-seventh Street, a neighborhood in which flourish 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 that 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 said 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 prophesies :
        Fascists are the Philistines, Mussolini is the Biblical "beast of iron teeth," and he will take over Spain.
    The 12 most powerful nation 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 Supreme 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 least we have secured, through the help of Mr. C.H.M. Foster, the honarary secretary of the Keswick convention, testimonials from several men of high rank in the British military and naval service, which we intend placing in 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 sent 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 rebellon 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 testimonials 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 it's 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 incluse 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.

    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 of 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 critisicm. 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 William T. Manning, and is evidently a critisicm of statements which he has made. Bishop Manning is well known and no doubt the walls of his church carry more 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" (Revelation, 17 : 5).
    The Episcopal bishop, William T. Manning, who a few years ago had something of a testimony for orthodox Christianity, is now 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 communcants 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 Cathlicism," he said, "it seems that God has set the Anglican communion in the middle place for the very purpose of reconciliation."
    W 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 tinkerig 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 ot 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 warning.
    We sometimes receive letters from premillenial ministers defending these doctrines, and remonstrating that 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 true that 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 that we have seen in small form is a recent booklet by Rev. Roy L. Aldrich, of Detroit, entitled "Anglo-Israelism Refuted." Mr. Aldrich dated  the subject with Howard B. Rand, general secretary of the Anglo-Saxon Federatrion 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 arguement. 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 fourth nothing, and how subsequent issues of the books dropped these references and substituted references to dates still in the future.
    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 1000 years. It was flatly stated that if these things did not come to pass as scheduled, it would be the first time that the revelation of the Sons 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 1936 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 truth 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 mainain 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 te bumps on the head and the hocus -pocus. What we need is good, sound statesmenship, 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 ot interpret these prophcies 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 prophsying. 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 countries first program.
    We read in a Jewish paper that a serious disturbance threatened as Arabs warned the Palastine Broadcasting Co. that a national issue would be made of it, if the new broadcasters dared to refer to Palastine as "Eretz Israel." Use of the phrase, which is the Hebrew for "the land of Israel" has already caused the resignation of 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 Semitic 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 inconsistent 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 aquainted 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. Pettinghill, 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 signors 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 be not 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 rabbies, who, in 1936, went on record as claiming military exemption for conscientious objectors of their own race.
    I can well understand the Member's embarrasment, 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 Uited States, but they do object being conscripted into service and sent to the Far East to fight for a nation and 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 consideration 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 that  the 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 of 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 the writer is thinking of the results of a denatured gospel, with it's 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 than 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 Christina term."
    The cat is out of the bag. It is not a revival of the old-time religion that these gentlemen are desiring. New emphesis 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 needing the good news of salvation. Instead of going forth "to seek and to save that which is lost," thye 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 Council of Churches, we would delegate them to put out the conflagration by introducing modern scientific methods and mass social reforms. As Dr. Shailer Methews once put it : "The church should be less concerned in rescuing people than in educatig them to keep out of danger."
    But if we are to set aside completely the fundamental basis of missions as given to 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 Councl 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 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 ot 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.

        Extension of Remarks of Hon. J. Thorkelson of Montana in the House of Representatives,
                                                    Wednesday, September 4, 1940

Mr. THORKELSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks, quotations from magazines, the press, and to include exhibit 125, I shall attempt to prove that the contents of the British secret document, which I inserted in the RECORD on October 11, are true.
    This report, as you know, was investigated by the Senate committee on the alleged activities at the Geneva Conference, and is an exhibit in those hearings.

                                                   EXHIBIT NO. 125 -- BRITISH SECRET DOCUMENT

    Comprises 27 pages, 8 by 5 1/2 inches each, photostats, and is a duplicate, line for line, of Exhibit 126, without the cover sheet and the forward of the publishers inside the cover sheet; the first page of Exhibit 125 being page 3 of Exhibit 126, which first page of Exhibit 125 is also numbered 3.
    As placed with the committee, Exhibit No. 125 has the following memorandum accompanying it :

                                                                                                                                                                "NAVY DEPARTMENT,
                                                                                                                                                    "OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE,
                                                                                                                                                                "Washington, February 9, 1929.
"Memorandum for the director :
    "With reference to a document recently obtained from Mr. W. B. Shearer, which purported to be a confidential letter from Sir William Wiseman to Mr. Lloyd George, I wish to submit the following comment which I believe is convincing that the document is not authentic. The information which disproves the direct statements made, was obtained in New York by Lt. Comdr. Paul Foster, who conducted a personal investigation."

    Please note that exhibit 125 is not the report rendered by Lt. Comdr. Paul Foster, but is instead an abstract of his report which  Mr. A. S. Merrill furnished the Senate committee. The report is ambiguous and incomplete, and therefore of little value. As a matter of fact, it appears to be an attempt to shield the British Consulate and the British Military Intelligence Department.

    1. Without question the original of this document was printed and not typewritten. Obviously such a letter as this purports to be would never have been printed by Sir William Wiseman or any other man writing from New York a letter of such confidential character and addressed personally to Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England, In evidence that this letter was printed are the following :

    To say that the original was printed is silly, because originals of printed documents are written in long hand, typed, or recorded. This should be obvious, for no one dictates a lengthy report to a linotype operator. However, let me say here and now that the author of the British document, whoever he ws, knew what he was talking about, because the contents of the letter are only too true. Dr. William J. Maloney, a former English citizen, but now a naturalized citizen of the United States, graciously accepted the blame of authorship, to whitewash the responsible parties who wrote the document. He was not even familiar with the document, as his testimony revealed when he appeared before the Senate committee. I shall now reproduce a small part of his testimony.

    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  Who prepared the words which are found on the first, or outside page?
    Dr. MALONEY.  I don't remember his name, sir. He was a journalist who had been employed in Mr. Creel's bureau. He read the pamphlet and made this cover for it. I do not remember what his name was.
    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  So that is a fact, is it, Mr. Maloney, that you wrote this document?
    Dr. MALONEY.  Yes, sir.
    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  And caused it to be published?
    Dr. MALONEY.  Yes, sir.
    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  Was there a publishing house knowns as A. Gordon Brown and Co.?
    Dr. MALONEY.  No; that was just a name.
    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  One hundred and sixty-four East Thirty-seventh Street, New York?
    Dr. MALONEY.  That was just the name adopted for putting that out.

 *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *

    Senator ALLEN.  When the State Department had this hearing in New York touchig this, what was their purpose? Were they objecting to the promulgation of this pamphlet?
    Dr. MALONEY.  I refused to attend that hearing. It was scheduled for a Friday morning at 10 o'clock; and about 9 o'clock I sent a telegram to Dr. Bannaman, saying I regretted if I inconvenienced him but that I would not attend the hearing. He did not then either arrest or subpoena me.
    Two Secret Service man came around and told me this was a matter of twenty years; and they fixed the date for another hearing the following morning. I had noit asked for any postponement; and, again they did not compel my presence; so I ignored them.
    Senator ALLEN.  What did they allege as the nature of the offense which you had commited in promulgating this?
    Dr. MALONEY.  They did not allege anything, sir.
    Senator ALLEN.  And was it dropped?
    Dr. MALONEY.  It was dropped. I heard no m ore about it.

*        *        *        *        *        *       *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *

    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  While you may have answered this question, why did you pursue the matter in the way you have just stated?  What was the motive?
    Dr. MALONEY.  I wanted to show the ramifications, as I saw it, of British propaganda in this country..
    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  I think you said you were then opposed to our country entering the League of Nations?
    Mr. MALONEY.  Yes, sir.
    Senator ALLEN.  Did this circulate in Great Britain in any form?
    Dr. MALONEY.  We got a number of orders from Great Britain for single copies, from members of Parliament and others, who seemd to think it was an amusing thing.

    The testimony of Dr. Maloney is illuminating, for he could not remember the name of the printing company, nor the name of the journalist who prepared the words on the front page of the pamphlet. He admits, however, that the document was written--which is contrary to the statement in the report by Mr. Merrill. Then, again, he ignored the request of the State Department to appear before it, by refusing to attend such hearing. The State Department made no effort to have Mr. Maloney testify. He furthermore states that two Secret Service men informed him that the authorshup of the document was a matter of twenty years. That, in itself, is interesting, for what right had our Secret Service officials to threaten him with twnety years for publishing this document. Surely it was no offense against the United States. So it appears to be another form of coercion in order to protect the British Government.
    The doctor was, however, interested in exposing British propaganda, and he makes the statement in his testimony that he exposed only a part of it; and he is right.
    Let me again quote from the testimony :

    Senator SHORTRIDGE.  May I ask you why you wrote it?
    Dr. MALONEY.  Lord Northcliffe, at the time the proprietor of the London Times, the London Daily Mail, and a great number of English newspapers, was over here in charge of the British propaganda in America. I used to read his newspapers and follow his boastings as to what he was doing to put us into the League, and I was opposed to the League. I heard, about May 1919, that his campaign had reached a crisis in an issue of the London Times of July 4. He was going around getting articles from various Americans friendly to England and friendly to going inot the League at that time, and he was telling in his papers about the numbers. I think he said he had 8,000 purchasing agents. He had a club over here of 100,000 which he called the Overseas Club. He ran a magazine for their special benefit. He was very busy in interchanging preachers, and I think he claimed he had arranged 1,260 meetings for British preachers to address in the United States. He was also interchanging newspaper correspondents, and so forth. So I thought that if I prepared a skit on all he was alleged to be doing, or said he was doing, when he published his account of his stewardship on July 4, it would not have the effect that he anticipated, particularly if I could spread this all over America and show them just what he thought he was doing.

*        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *        *

    When Mr. Northcliffe published his report on July 4, he had much of what is in here. he had more that is not in here, and some of the things in here he had not. I thought we had rather brought his campaign to an anticlimax.

    In his testimony, Dr. Maloney makes the statement that the English and Canadian people thought the British secret document was amusing. I do not question the amusing part of it, for they must have looked upon us as the biggest suckers in the world in allowing ourselves to be used and abused and ridiculed by a power we helped to win a war which they would have lost.
    It is particularly tragic, in that it has not only brought about another war, but has in addition to that provided a wide dissemination of socialistic and communistic doctrines which are now destroying our own Government. It also authenticates a part of the letter which I inserted in the RECORD on October 11, 1939. No one can fail to recognize the effort which was made by the committee, innocently or otherwise, to cover up the authenticity of this report, for it is absolutely clear that the real author was whitewashed by the committee, in not trying to establish the identity; and by Mr. Merrill in obscuring pertinent matter which should have gone into the record.

    I.  Subparagraphs  (a),  (b),  (c),  and (d), :
      (a)  The paragraph headings indented into the left margin are of a different kind of type than other capitol letters shown in the document. Two typewriters would be necessary to effect this variety of capital letters.
      (b)  Both the right and left margins throughout are perfectly uniform. No typist would be able to sustain such perfection.
      (c)  There are no typographical errors or erasures.
      (d)  The individual leters examined under a microscope show different characteristics, in itself conclusive proof that the document was not typewritten.  For instance, to follow the letter "e" throughout a sentence : In the first case, the loop at the bottom might be indistinct and in the second it might be heavier at the bottom, an inconsistency that is not found in typing.

    Mr. Merrill's report on these subparagraphs is ambiguous, immaterial, and not pertinent, as to proving or disproving the authenticity or correctness of the British secret document. He reports on a printed pamphlet and not on the original report. As a matter of fact, he has not even taken the original report into consideration.

    I shall now quote subparagraph (e) of paragraph I.

    (e)  The letterhead reads British consulate. This is incorrect, as the office in New York is a consulate general.

    The statement in this subparagraph is also incorrect, for the office is the British consulate, and the official in charge of it is the British consul general. This is a designation used by all governments.
    Referring again to paragraph I, wherein the statement is made that messages of such confidential character were not addressed to Prime Minister Lloyd George personally, is another error, for Sir Gilbert Parker did render a weekly, personal report to the Prime Minister of England, as this paragraph I now quote will show :

                                                                                                (By  Rt. Hon. Sir  Gilbert Parker, Bart.)
    I was in the United States for some months on this trip. I have been from New York to San Francisco. I was at Washington when President Wilson dismissed Count Bernstorff and heard him do so, and I am firmly convinced of this -- that President Wilson commited his country to this war at the right moment -- neither too soon nor too late. He had stopped up every avenue of attack by the pacifists and the jurists and the pedants and the pettifoggers.
    Perhaps here I may be permitted to say a few words concerning my own work since the beginning of the war. It is in a way a story by itself, but I feel jusitfied in writing one or two paragraphs about it. Practically since the day war broke out between England and the Central Powers I became responsible for American publicity. I need hardly say that the scope of my department was very extensivce and its activities  widely ranged. Among the activities was a weekly report to the British cabinet on the state of American opinion, and constant touch with the permanent correspondents of American newspapers in England. I was frequently arranged for important public men in England to act for us by interviews in American newspapers, and among these distinguished people were Mr. Lloyd George (the present Prime Minister), Viscount Grey, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Bonar Law, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Edward Carson, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Walter Runcimen (the Lord Chancelor), Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Lord Cromer, Will Crooks, Lord Curzon, Lord Gladstone, Lord Haldane, Mr. Henry James, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Selfridge, Mr. Zangwill, Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and fully a hundred others.
    Among other things, we supplied 360 newspapers in the smaller States of the United States with an English newspaper, whihc gives a weekly review and comment of the affirs of the war. We established connection with the man in the street through cinema pictures of the Army and Navy, as well as through interviews, articles, pamphlets, etc.; and by letters in reply to individual American critics which were printed in the chief newspaper of the State in which they lived, and were copied in newspapers of other and neighbor States. We advised and stimulated many people to write articles; we utilized the friendly services and assistance of confidential friends; we had reports from important Americans constantly, and established association by personal correspondence with influential and eminent people of every profession in the United States, beginning with university and college presidents, professors, and scientific men, and running through all the ranges of the population. We asked our friends and correspondents to arrange for speeches, debates, and lectures by American citizens, but we did not encourage Britishers to go to America and preach the doctrine of entrance into the war. Besides an immense private correspondence with individuals, we had our documents and literature sent to great numbers of public libraries, Y. M. C. A. societies, universities, colleges, historical societies, clubs, and newspapers.
    It is hardly necessary to say that the work was one of extreme difficulty and dilicacy, but I was fortunate in having a wide acquaintance in the United States and in knowing that a great many people had read my books and were not prejudiced against me. I believed that he American people could not be driven, preached to, or chivied into the war, and when they did enter it would be the result of their own judgement and not the result of exhortation, eloquence, or fanatical pressure of Britishers. I believed that the United States would enter the war in her own time, and I say this, with a convinced mind, that on the whole, it was best that the American commonwealth did not enter the war until that month in 1917 when Germany played her last card of defiance and indirect attack. Perhaps the safest situation that could be imagined actually did arise. The Democratic Party in America, which probably would not have supported a Republican President had he declared war, were practically forced by the logic of circumstances to support President Wilson when he declared war, because he had blocked up every avenue of attack.

    This is conclusive proof that confidential messages were sent to Lloyd George, and not only prove that the report by Mr. Merrill is in error, but it also substantiates the contents of the letter which was in the RECORD of October 11.
    I shall now continue to quote from exhibit No. 125, British secret document :

    2. The office of which Sir William Wiseman was in charge, although he worked in close harmony with the British consulate general. was never really connected with it and the consulate letterhead was not used. The headings used by Sir William were invariably "MI-c, Report No. ---."

    Paragraph 2 is immaterial, for it does not prove or disprove this report.

    3. Sir William Wiseman was relieved by Colonel Thwaites in 1918 and left the United States shortly afterward. During June 1919, when the subject document was supposed to have been written in New York City, Sir William was actually in Paris attending the peace conference as an advisor to the British delegation on American affairs. In March 1919, Colonel Thwaites was relieved by Captain Strath-Gordon. He was in charge on the date of the document.

    This paragraph is immaterial, because it again deals with an issue that has no bearing on the authenticity of the document.

    4. Neither Sir William Wiseman nor Captain Strath-Gordon were friendly to Lloyd George, either in a political or persoanl way. Even had they been, such a report as this would have been addressed to the head of the intelligence service in London, thence to the central offices of the various branches of British intelligence (the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Colonial Office, the Military Office, the Naval Office etc.), which are directly under the Prime Minister.

    This paragraph is, if I may use the word, silly, or even childish, for it assumes an impossible situation. It would be ridiculous should anyone take this seriously and believe that the Prime Minister of England would send people unfriendly to himself to America to take charge of the consulate, of the British propaganda service, and of the British military service. Such things never happen in any government, particularly in such important organizations.

    5. It is difficult to believe that anyone would attempt to figure out the average time and cost of "Anglicization" to the penny and minute, as mentioned on page 4.

    It may be a little difficult to figure out how anyone would sit down and estimate the cost of "Anglicizing" Americans. However, it is not difficult to imagine that the British Government would engage in such tabulation, for they look upon us as sheep, as one of their nobility has already stated. Looking upon us as sheep, they will, of course, count us like sheep; and that is what they did in the British secret report.

    6. On page 9 mention is made of a dope scandal in the family of Lord Reading. It is hardly conceivable that such reflections on a prominent member of the English Government would be made in an official document, especially if such references were irrelevant.

    This also has no bearing on the authenticity of the letter which was in the RECORD of October 11, but inasmuch as it is mentioned, let us bear in mind that there was a dope scandal in England and a Marconi scandal which nearly disrupted the British Parliament.

    7. There are repeated references to Messrs, Pierpont Morgan and Co., whereas the firm name is always referred to as J.P. Morgan and Co.and the individual as J. Pierpont Morgan. A man of Sir William Wiseman's intelligence and experience in New York would not make such an error.

    Mr. Merrill takes exception to the fact that the author of the British secret document interchanged the name of J.P. Morgan and Co. and J. Pierpont Morgan, and states that no one connected with the British Government would make such a mistake. This statement is also immaterial, for it is quite likely that a Britisher or an American might use one name when he referred to the company and the other name when he referred to Mr. Morgan personally.

    8. On page 12 the work of F. Cunliffe-Owen is spoken of in a commendatory way, whereas at this time he was under the surveillance of the British Secret Service, as he had been reported on adversely.

    Again Mr. Merrill draws a very peculiar deduction, when he refers to Mr. F. Cunliffe-Owen. I am sure the gentleman in question was not adverse to the Brithish Government, and that there was not reason why the British Secret Service should watch Mr. Cunliffe-Owen. It would be much more sensible if he and other Englishmen were watched by the American Secret Service.

    9. On page 16 references are made to the Morgan firm, regarding the loan to Japan, and to the statement that the greater part of that firm's capital is invested within the British Empire, both of which statements Sir William Wiseman would have known to be incorrect.

    Page 16 of the British secret document refers to a loan of $200,000,000 made by the United States Treasury, through J.P. Morgan & Co., to the British Government. This statement is absolutely true, for I have photographs of two checks issued by the United States Treasury, one for $200,000,000, drawn to the order of Sir Cecil Arthur Spring-Rice, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the other for $30,000,000, drawn to the order of Colville Barclay, Minister Plenipotentiary of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
    This is, therefore, sufficient proof that the author of the British secret document knew what he was talking about when he wrote that report. I now quote from the New York Times American of Sunday, February 22, 1925 :

    April 25, 1917 : The famous $200,000,000 check issued against this warrant was promptly endorsed to J. P. Morgan & Co., British fiscal agents, to cover an overdraft which Morgan and the banks allied with him had granted Great Britain before our entrance into the war. This $200,000,000 of the United States Government got to Morgan just in time, as is evidenced by Walter Hines Page, then American Ambassador to Great Britain, in his authoritative Life and Letters.
    "In April 1917 the British balances in New York were in a serious condition. By April 6, 1917, the date of America's entrance into the war, Great Britain had overdrawn her account with J.P. Morgan & Co. to the extent of $400,000,000 and had no cash available with which to meet this overdraft. The money was now coming due; if the obligations were not met the credit of Great Britain in this country would reach the vanishing point. The American Government finally paid the overdraft out of the proceeds of the Liberty Loan. This act saved the credit of the Allied countries."
    Thomas W. Lamont, of the morgan firm, has made the proposition that we cancel half the allied indebtedness to us, now totalling $12,000,000.
    May 15, 1919 : Thirty million dollars of Liberty Loan money handed to Great Britain without legal warrant after the war was over. American diplomats and consular officials abroad were complaining at this time that Great Britain was spending millions to get a monopoly of the oil resources of the world and to recover her pre-war trade supremacy. The total sum unlawfully advanced to Great Britain after the armistice was $330,000,000.

    The endorsement of Colville Barclay, Minister representing the British Government, on the back of the $30,000,000 check paid to Great Britian 6 months after the war was over.
    On December 5, 1918, after the war, Norman H. Davis, special representative of the Treasury Department abroad, wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Albert Rathbone as follows :
    "From the Treasury standpoint it is advisable, of course, to cut off as soon as possible all advances to the Allied Governments. But, on the other hand, from a political standpoint, it may be advisable not to cause tooo much anxiety just before the peace conference.
    "As I have already advised you, the British Treasury has notified the French and Italian Treasuries that they are through making advanced to them. . They have either done this in order to force them on us or for political reasons in order to force their opinions at the peace conference in consideration of them agreeing to additional advances."
    Loans unauthorized : The secret correspondence carried on by cable, courier, and sealed diplomatic pouch, and therafter carefully guarded in the archives at Washington, discloses thta the officials on duty in Washington, having applied to Congress for authority to make these loans, and having been refused such authority, therafter continued to make them without legal authority. These amazing documents, whose authenticity is beyond question, prove that the Treasury Department, in making these unwilling advances, was yielding to a contention of the President, then in Paris negotiating the Versailles Treaty, that the success of his policies -- the League of Nations -- depended uopn liberal advances to the countries upon whose representatives at Versailles he counted for support.
    For example, Secretary Glass, on January 14, 1919, cabled President Wilson in Paris, promising a new loan to Rumania, and containing the sentence :
    "Appreciate importance of food supplies in relation to your policies and anxious to use powers of Treasury to support them."
    A judicious interpretation of the mass of data now available can lead only to the conclusion that both the representatives of the American Government and the representatives of foreign governments knew that there was no authority under the law to make post-war advances for European reconstruction and relief.
    The language of the law, the successive Liberty Loan Acts clearly provided  that credits should be advanced to the Allies only for the purpose of prosecuting the war against our public enemy.
    The record further shows that Secretaries of the Treasury McAdoo and Glass, realizing their inability legally to make further loans after the war ended, sought authorization for such loans in Congress in December 1918 and February 1919.
    The books of the Treasury Department show that, specifically denied this power by the Congress, Treasury officials then proceeded to disburse to the Allies $15,000,000,000 more of American public moneys.
 

    The foregoing quotations should be sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Merrill's report is wrong and the British secret document to Lloyd George is correct.

    10. On page 13 there is a reference to Kuhn, Loeb's entry into the motion-picture field and aquisition of the Players-Lasky-Hearst motion-picture concerns. The consolidation occured in December 1919, while the date of the document is June 1919.

    This statement by Mr. Merrill is also wrong, for the Famous Players-Lasky was aquired by British interests in May 1919, and not, as he states, in December of the same year.
    The following quotation from the New York Times, May 16, 1919, is in proof of this :

EUROPE, THE FIELD FOR ITS PICTURES--FAMOUS PLAYERS-LASKY AND BRITISH INTERESTS IN A $3,000,000 CORPORATION--AMERICAN-FOREIGN ACTORS--CONSTRUCTION OF BIG STUDIOS TO BE BEGUN AT ONCE-THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS THE FIRST FILM

    The formation in London of a corporation capitalized at $3,000,000 to produce motion pictures against European backgrounds was announced last night by the Famous Players-Lasky Corporation. The name of the corporation is the Famous Players-Lasky British Producers, Ltd.
    The construction of studios and plants on a large scale will be started immediately, according to C. A. Clegg, business manager of the international enterprise. American and European actors will take part in photoplays staged in the Alps, the devastated areas of France and Belgium, Wales, Scotland, Spain, and other famous and picturesque parts of the Old World.

    The Americans chiefly interested in the venture are Adolph Zukor, president, and Jesse L. Lasky, first vice president of the Famous Players-Lasky Corporation. Among those representing British interests are Maj. David Davis, M. P., Maj. Norman Holden, Alexander Nisbet, W. J. Burdon Evans, Albert Hirst, A. W. Keeley, Thomas Wrigley, J. H. Kippax, J. G. Thompson, George Isaac, and Abraham Collins. Most of these men are already identified with banking, manufacturing, and theatrical institutions in England.

    Mr. Merrill concludes his report with the following statement :

11. The above, to me, is quite convincing that the document is a fraud.

    Mr. Merrill makes a statement whihc I flatly contradict, because his report is wrong, and the British secret document is correct.
    There is much more evidence to be had to prove the authenticity of the British secret document, that was sent to Lloyd George on June 10, 1919, and which I hope  to have time to submit before this Congress adjourns. 

Mr. THORKELSON.   Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the RECORD and to include excerpts from magazines, press, and other publications, I shall now proceed to discuss the British Secret Document, which was addressed to the Right Honorable Lloyd George, and dated June 10, 1919. The second paragraph of this document, entitled "Preliminary Consideration," deals with Anglo-American Alliance, which will eventually result in a peaceful return of the American Colonies to the dominion of the Crown of England. This has been discussed in the articles entitled "Steps Toward a British Union, World State, and International (should be internal) Strife," August 20, parts I, II, III, and IV, and August 21, parts V and VI, and September 3, parts VII and VIII, and September 5, part IX. In these remarks the reader will find much evidence to substantiate the letter sent to Lloyd George June 1, 1919. Further evidence may be found in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, under the title "Proof of Authenticity of British Secret Document," page 5547.
    I shall now proceed with further discussion of this most dispicable letter; a letter which holds, American people to ridicule and shame by those who are now dragging this Nation into a war that the people do not want and which will, if the warmongers do not desist, lead this country into internal strife. The greatest threat to this Nation will come when the English Government moves to Canada. It is then that the various groups such as the British-Israel, Anglo-Saxon Federation, and various endowment organizations and international bankers will become the real "fifth-columnists" and crusaders for Britain, to incorporate the United States in the British Union. In this attempted sabotage of the Republic, the Communists will be used as they have been to date, only to be liquidated when they have served their purpose to those in power, who have bribed them and paid their way.
    The New Deal is copying the political coups of South American republics, and the President no doubt hopes to establish himself as a dictator by the aid of the Army, Navy, and intelligence units in the United States, which means, of course, that there may be no election if this "coup militaire" is accomplished.
    Cecil Rhodes is th