The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-08-24
SATURDAY. AUG. "a. 1898.
BEFORE 1T IS TOO LATE


munitions sales to all belligerents on the
ground that it in effect takes sides With Italy
and against weak Ethiopia. That is a very old
argument which has been exploded many
times. Nevertheless, it looks so reasonable
on the surface that # has impressed many
sincere citizens who want to keep us out of
war.
To be fair. let some one who believes in
that argument state it as strongly as possible.
For instance. one large newspaper in object
ing to an advance mandatory ban on Ameri-
can munitions traffic with all nations at war,
says:
1t aims to make us a strictly neutral ma
ton if Italy and Ethiopia fight. Yet it for
bids us to sell munitions to either of those
nations. But Italy has plenty of munitions
and can make more: Ethiopia has few and can
make none, is forced to buy all its war equip
ment. So the proper title of this bill, as re-
CARDS the Italy-Ethiopia fight. is a bill to
throw the United States unofficially into the
war on the side Of Italy. 1t is a bill to COM
pei us to favor Italy, the stronger nation, by
refusing to sell arms to Ethiopia, the weaker
nation"
What is the alternative? Why, says that
newspaper:
The best way to safeguard our neutrality
would be to leave the job to the President.
He should be given the power to embargo
arms shipments in any way he might see fit;
not commanded to embargo them all over the
map"
A Ii right let's test this theory by the
n facts of the last war. Did it keep us
out? 1t did not Look at the record and see
how it worked, not in theory but in actual
practice.
We did nothing until the outbreak of war.
Very soon afterward it was clear to every
one that the actual effect of selling any
munitions was to aid the Allies, who con-
trolled shipping and the seas. The effect was
to paraphrase the above quoted newspaper
ITO throw the United States unoffcially
into the war on the side. of the nation stronger
in munitions"
Since that was both unneutral and danger
Gus, resolution was introduced in the Senate
to stop it by an embargo. But the strong
nation BRITAIN protested to the State De-
partment that an embargo at that time. after
the war had begun would be unneutral.
That was right, so all the State Department
could do was to disavow and kill the resolu-
ton.
But Germany then officially protested that
the alleged neutrality of the United States
was in fact an unofficial and powerful Ameri-
can participation in the war on the Allied
side. To explain why it was too late to put
an embargo on this partisan traffic President
Wilson replied by citing international law
That any change in our laws of neu-
trality during the progress of a war, which
would affect unequally the relations of the
United States with the nations at war, would
be an unjustihable departure from the prin-
ciple OF strict neutrality the placing of
an embargo on the trade in arms at the
present time would constitute such change
and be a direct violation of the neutrality of
the United States"
Because Of our failure to embargo NUM-
tons before the war, It was thus impossible,
regardless of what we did, to achieve real
neutrality after the war began. If We con-
tinued the munitions sales We would be help
ing the only side able to land the munitions;
and If we banned the sales then We would
aid Germany. All because it i impossible,
after war starts. to embargo arms to one or
to all belligerents without in effect helping
one side at the expense of the other and
thus destroying neutrality