"But it is necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting somebody, even at times, our own citizens. The public good, however must prevail over private gain. As we said in Bishop vs. Jones (28 Texas, 294) there cannot be "a war for arms and a peace of commerce". One of the most important features of the bill is that which provides for the temporary taking over of the enemy property".

This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary take-over of enemy property. The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be returned ­ mustn't it?

The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent right of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, "I'm seizing your ship." Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.

Reading from Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold" written in 1933:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and user must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call "yours"? Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Russell:

"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation . . . ."

That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis is ours),

"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner . . . ."

This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the potential power of the government.

Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those powers conferred to him.

On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of Now York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:

"Resolution Adopted by the Federal Reserve Board of New York: Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency . . . ."

In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913. The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We, the People, would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had deposited.

Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say, "People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency."

How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover:

"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6 . . . ."

In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen during that period of time?

Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution, we find a proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows:

"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that 'the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, * * *"

Now, in any normal usage of the American language, the standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows also must be quoted exactly, doesn't it? If it's not, that's a fraudulent use of the American language. At that point where that, * * *" began, what did the original Act of October 6, 1917 say?

Referring back, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 says:

"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be excluded wholly within the United States)."

This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibits the government from taking control of We, the People's money and transactions, didn't it?

However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933:

"…by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can see the full significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion of domestic transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and "any person" became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the Act. Further, we can now see that the usage of * * *" was, in all likelihood, meant to be deliberately misleading, if not fraudulent in nature.

Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board's proposal, we find that anyone violating any provision of this Act will be fined not more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself, initially; no, they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, a banking institution.

Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of the United States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed the actions were "neither justified nor necessary" (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088). Let us see what happened; remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. On March 5, 1933. President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9, 1933.

"Whereas, public interests require that the Congress of the United States should be convened in extra session at twelve o'clock noon, on the Ninth day of March, 1933, to receive such communications as may be made by the Executive."

On the next day, March 6, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, in which we find the following:

"Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding"

Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the question of who should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on deposit at the Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says, in effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being withdrawn by me in an "unwarranted" manner. Remember, the people of the United States were in dire economic straits at this point. If I had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing as much of my gold as I needed for my family and myself as a "warranted" action. But the decision was not left up to We, the People.

It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being withdrawn for the "purpose of hoarding". The significance of this phrase becomes clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039, wherein the term "hoarding" is inserted into the amended version of Section 5 (b). The term, "hoarding", was not to be found in the original version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. It was a term which was used by President Roosevelt to help support his contention that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency, and his assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.

Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039. In reading we find the following:

"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended, 'that the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *"

exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York.

If we return to 48 Statute 1, Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:

"by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039. On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. Let's see what Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:

"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday . . . . "

We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday. Let's read on:

"Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed;"

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9