"It is true that, on the signing of the armistice, the President, in the course of an address to Congress, used the words, 'the war thus comes to an end.' But he spoke of actual hostilities, as every one knew, and not of the technical state of war.
"It takes a treaty to end a war. Hostilities had ceased, but the war had not ended, and will not end until it is terminated in a constitutional manner. The drafters of the resolution and the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs who voted for it knew that this was the case.
"By quoting this statement of the President as the basis for this resolution the authors of the resolution lay themselves open to the charge of insincerity and sharp practice. The President never declared that the technical state of war which this resolution undertakes to declare at an end had come to an end, and the Supreme Court of the United States has recently declared that what the President had done did not announce the termination of the war. [32]
[32] The reference is to the Supreme Court decision on the question of war-time prohibition in the Kentucky distilleries case.
"This resolution contains some provisions that are within the power of Congress, and others that are not. So far as it seeks to declare peace, and so far as it seeks to direct the President to issue a proclamation to the German Government, it trenches upon the treaty-making powers and is not within the power of Congress.
"So far as it prohibits the United States citizens and residents from commercial intercourse with Germany or its nationals, and provides penalties for the violation of such restriction, it is valid. So far as it attempts to repeal war legislation, it is, of course, within the power of Congress."
With regard to Section 2, which fixed the date of the termination of the war as the date when the resolution shall become effective, the report said:
"There is much war and emergency legislation that should be repealed. This section does not repeal this legislation, however, and it gives no relief from the burdens, inconveniences, extravagances and losses which come from the existence of this legislation. Much of this legislation is burdensome, and oppressive in time of peace.
"Congress has the power to repeal it, and it should address itself to this task instead of frittering away its time in attempting to pass unconstitutional legislation for the purpose of embarrassing the executive department of the Government, or for some other political purpose."
Objection was raised against Section 3 for not adequately protecting American rights. The report, which was presented by Representative Flood, observed on this subject: