Evening star., 1935-01-06


Prom an etching by Charles W. Cain.
and perhaps it would be If there were
some infallible method of defining the
aggressor. There is not the slightest
doubt that If we make any public
statement that our conception of neu-
trality includes the surrender OF neu-
trail privileges we shall thereby become
part Of the new system.
Hits International Law.
In this surrender, however, we
should be dealing a blow at interna-
tional law as severe as that when we
agreed, at Montevideo, never. at any
time or under any circumstances, to
employ force in a Latin American
country. At that time We surrendered
the right to protect our citizens abroad
in time of peace: now 1t may be that
the administration is preparing to
surrender the right to protect them
in war time. This seems to me to be
chipping away the very corner stone
of international law. which is that
the first duty of State is the pro-
lection of its citizens.
A tame acQuieScence in whatever ag-
gressive measures belligerents might
take against neutral trade would sug-i
gest that there would be similar ac-
quiescence in other aggression. In
reference with trade is for the pur-
pose of preventing goods from reach
ing one or the other of the combatants,
thus strengthening one at the expense
of the other. 1t is justified on the
ground of self-preservation.
Exactly the same argument might
be advanced for using neutral terri
tory as base. I take it we should
keenly resent that; yet 1t differs only
in kind from the seizure of our ships,
and it would be a probable sequence
of a weak remuneration of our right
to protect our legitimate commerce.
If, therefore, we decide that we are
not willing to take, lying down, any
and all blows which may be aimed
at us as neutrals: that we do not
want, either directly or indirectly, to
be drawn into the European system.
which presupposes, theoretically at
least, participation in all future wars,
is it not conceivable that we could
be instrumental in strengthening as
we'll as in radically revising the rules
governing neutrality? Is it not thus
possible that We might preserve our
own safety and at the same time be
of more use to the world?
Neutrals Hold Power.
AS fast as neutrality laws have
formulated themselves they have been
rendered obsolete by mechanical and
scientific developments. They are now
a queer mixture Of what both neu-
trails and belligerents may and may
not do and are little observed by either.
They are based on both moral and
material realities. For us to scrap
them unilaterally would be arrogant
and dangerous. To revise them, In
conjunction with other nations. might
20 result in localizing war that 1t would
be almost innocuous, at least to the
world at large.
1t is possible that such a revision
might result in an agreement to with
hold supplies altogether from both
belligerents; that it might strengthen,
instead of destroy, the doctrine of the
freedom of the seas. The effective
ness of any rules adopted would, of
course. depends on the validity of the
promises of the signatories, but 1t
must be remembered that common
action along such lines has never been
attempted. In any revision we must
forget the belligerents and put all en-
phasis on the rights and duties of
neutrals. Except in world war, neu-
trails would be all powerful if they
should act in concert.
Granted the dismal fact that many
of the laws of neutrality died during
the World War, the study of the sub
ment of State is all to the good. But
there are certain things which must
be remembered if that study is to be
useful Any publicity as to the dis
cussions is deplorable because it creates |
the impression that the Government
thinks war is imminent, and this is
not true.
When and If a plan is drawn up 1t |
should be filed for future instruction |
of those In charge, not printed and
distributed. Publication would put the |
rest of the world on notice as to the |
intentions of the United States, and
this would be just as silly as to have
the Army furnish the enemy with its
plan of attack; If these intentions |
should appear to be pusillanimous the
American plans might actually be an |
Indictment to war.
Careful consideration must be given |
that any plan adopted shall not de-
stroy what little is left Of our inter-
national trade. (Other agencies Of the !
Government make Mr.. Hull's task difh- |
cult enough as it Is without uninten-
tional sabotage in his own depart
ment.) It Is essential that the Gov
eminent be left free to strike the best
bargain possible as to trade when the
time comes to discuss that matter with
the belligerents.
Finally, if any plan regarding Amer
ican neutrality is produced it should,
II it is intended to influence policy
over a long period of years, be abso-
lutely non-partisan politically, and
above all, it should have the full con-
currence Of the War, Navy and Com
merce Departments.