Evening star., 1935-09-02
NEUTRALITY LAW
FULL OF PITFALLS.
President Declared Unduly
Hampered in Carrying
on Foreign Policy.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


keeping the United States out OF war;
But he might have gone further
and added that. as between Congress
and the President of the United
States, authority to conduct the deli
cate foreign relations that develop for
q neutral country when some other
nations are engaged in war might bet
ter be lodged with the executive
branch of our Government.
Mr. Roosevelt has had peculiarly
valuable experience on this question,
for. as Assistant Secretary OF the
Navy, he was on the inside OF the
Wilson administration In the trying
period of neutrality that preceded our
entrance into the World War And
while there are many people who to-
day wish America had never joined
the allies and while there are many.
too, who specifically will place con-
siderable blame upon our neutrality
policies, the fact remains that, con-
fronted with the events as they arose
from 1914 to 1918, the hands-of
policy might in those circumstances
have produced greater trouble and
possibly more involvement than Is
generally realized.
Arms Embargo Peril Cited.
The demand. for instance, for an
embargo on arms which came from
the elements which sympathized with
the German side of the war was
plainly viewed as an anti British
n,aneuver calculated to curtail the
British source of munitions in
America. But suppose Congress had
adopted such mandatory legislation.
what would have been the reaction
in a country like Canada, just across
the line from the United States? The
flower of Canadian youth was at the
front. To have cut of the British
munitions might have led to such ill
feeling with Canada as to leave scars
for generations thereafter. Thus,
Canada today is Americas best Gus
toner To no small extent, Canada's
interests and our own in world af-
fairs are much the same. Likewise,
in Far Eastern affairs. the interests |
Of another British dominion, Australia.
policies.
The ramihcations Of any hard and |
fast rules that win compel the United |
States to maintain a neutrality, |
which, on the surface, seems like q
strict observance Of a hands-of atti- |
tude, but, in reality. means taking |
sides with one or the other Of the
belligerents, are such that 531 mem
bers of legislative body cannot hope
to deal with them.
No country in the world has found
It possible to conduct foreign relations
through legislature, Influenced as it |
inevitably is by political currents.
Foreign Element Complication. |
America has a much more difiicult |
task in preserving neutrality because |
there are so many foreign strains In |
our cosmopolitan electorate, but this |
is all the more reason why the Chief |
Executive. representing only the ma
tional interest, should have the dis
cretionary power to deal with any |
situation that might arise.
Nor Is the matter Of neutrality a
simple question Of keeping out OF or
participating in a war. The Senti-
mental aspect, of course, has been
emphasized and accounts for the
enthusiastic way In which various
members of the Congress have sought
to take advantage Of emotional vote
getting. But neutrality is too often
a problem of commercial intercourse
affecting the employment of millions
of citizens through destruction OF
foreign trade.
Thus, to put an embargo on NUM-
tions alone might not be harmful to
a belligerent nation which has plenty
Of factories Of its own, but an en-
barge on the export Of iron and steel
and cotton and other raw materials
used in the manufacture Of explosives
could present an altogether different
problem Of interference with domestic
trade and employment.
Farmers Need Markets.
Then there are the farmers Of
America, who used to have a consid-
cradle export market and who would
not take kindly to a policy which
forbade them to export the products
of the soil to the belligerent coun-
tries. Then, how can food for COM
blatant armies be differentiated from
food for non-combatant peoples2
Mr.. Roosevelt rightly says the pur-
pose and objective of the legislation
passed by Congress in its closing
hours is good, but that inf1exible rules
are dangerous in neutrality problems.
Obviously, he had asked for permis-
sive powers and had been refused.
He was prepared to let the neutrality
resolutions lie on the table till next
session. He would have preferred no
legislation to any which sought to
tie his hands. As it developed, he
could have vetoed restrictive legisla-
ton. but he did not wish to seem to
be in the position of opposing neu-
trality. His stand might have been
misconstrued abroad, especially in
Italy.
So the compromise which was
adopted merely restricts the executive
until next February, after which he
will have broad permissive powers,
though not broad enough to deal with
all possible contingencies. It is
matter of surprise that a Congress
which has been SO generous in be-
slowing upon the Chief Executive all
sorts of powers of discretion to handle
domestic questions should be so re-
luctant to trust the President in mat
ters of foreign policy.
Public Opinion Acts as Curb.
But the truth is Mr.. Roosevelt prob
ably could have easily gained his end
by an appeal to public opinion had he
thought 1t wise to make an issue at
this time.
There is merit, of course, in the
view held by many members Of Con-
gress that the phnging Of Nation
I4<x~rI