Evening star., 1935-04-26
American Society of Inter.
national Law Hears
DR.. Dickinson.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
DEFENDED BY KUNZ
Theory Participation in War Is
Demanded Is Untenable,
Professor Says.

Legislation to prohibit international
traffic in arms during wartime as one
means of maintaining the neutrality
Of the United States was proposed
today to the American Society of
International Law, holding its twenty
ninth annual convention at the Willard
Hotel.
Prof Edwin D. Dickinson of the
University of California told the
assembled lawyers the legislation re-
quired would prohibit exports Of air
craft, tanks and all other instru-
mentalities Of war, and would put the
Government in a position eventually
to control the entire war materials
traffic at its source.
The price of neutrality in our time
is vastly expanded sphere of neutral
obligation, much contracted privilege
OF neutral trade and a corresponding
emphasis upon neutral lf-sufficiency
and isolation" he added.
League Is Defended.
Denial that the Covenant Of the
League of Nations prevents neutrality
of any nation was made by Prof. Jo-
sef L. Kunz of the University of To-
ledo.
The opinion that there is no more
neutrality under the covenant or even
under general international law is
juridically untenable, for it is in op-
position to positive law and to the
daily practice of states
Only article x. providing for protec-
ton of the covenant against aggres-
sion, is clearly incompatible with neu-
trality. he said. but article XVI, in
volving economic sanctions, merely
modifies the principle of neutrality.
Dangerous Attitude Cited.
Warning that insistence upon neu-
trail rights has more than once
dragged the United States into Euro
pean wars. DR.. James Brown Scott,
president of the society, opened the
meeting last night.
DR.. Scott contended for mCo:flca-
ton of ella ms of the United States
as a neutral in view of the wars into
which such insistence has brought the
United States in the last century and
a half.
Our neutral trade with Great Br1-
tain got us into passing trouble
with France. resulting in an unde-
clared war" Dr. Scott asserted. Our
insistence upon neutral rights during
the Napoleonic wars got us into
second war with Great Britain IN
1912 and 1914 and likewise our in
sistence upon neutral rights in the
World War caused the Congress Of
the United States to declare war
Two Proposals Offered.
DR.. Scott offered two proposals 10
limit American foreign trade in war
time to neutral nations and forbid
traffic in arms.
y. BY vesting in the Government
of the United States the manufacture
of arms and munitions and other
commodities, which the Government
from time to time should consider as
necessary solely for its defense.
q. BY denying the right to private
citizens to manufacture any and all
such commodities as are thus reserved
for exclusive manufacture by the
United States"
The surrender of any neutral rights
was opposed by Fred K. Nielsen. for
mer solicitor of the Department Of
State, who held that war was more
likely to involve this country because
of failure to hold all belligerents
equally responsible for the respect OF
American neutral rights.
Preparedness Held Futile.
In subsequent discussion Frederic
R. Coudert of New York, declared it
was futile to try to prepare before
nand for contingencies in wartime;
Prof. Edwin NJ Borchard of Yale Law
School, expressed the belief it is still
possible to remain neutral under the
present system, and Prof. Charles G.
Fenwick of Byrn Mawr College
doubted that there could be any more
neutrality in the face of collective
action of nations against an aggressor.
The subject of neutrality will con-
tinue to occupy the lawyers this after
noon in an address by Lester H.
Woolsey, former solicitor of the State
Department, and tonight in addresses
by former Secretary of State Stimson
and John Dickinson, Assistant Secre-
tary of Commerce.