The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-11-30
Is Oil "War Implement?

LIlC UCIllDO1 d1 AlChlA dAAOJ G1SO otIJ the president shall" embargo ''arms, ammunition, and imple- ments of war" when a state of war exists. Secretary Hull has said oil isn't exactly an implement of war;" but could be classed as swar material"
 The dictionary says an imple- ment is That which fulfillS a want or use; especially an instrument, tool, or utensil used by man to &C., complish given work; as the im- plements of trade, of husbandry, or of war"
 Lawyers have been debating kere whether raw materials, and especially oil and chemicals, could legally be classified as .'imple- ments." Opinion is divided.
 The chief question raised is whether such definition would stand up in the courts. Many have pointed out that oil is an es- sential of warfare, an indispens- able part of such armament as tanks, battlesips, and guns.
 Might Bar Aid to Britain
 It seems obvious enough that an administration which has adopt ed Q Damn the torpedoes" attitude tow2rd the courts in its legislation was not deterred by the fear of what the supreme court might de- cide-long after the present neu- kraNty act expires it refused to class oil as an "implement."
 And it can hardly blame outsid- FITS who believe that in the back of the minds of Roosevelt and Hull is the fear that some time in the fu- ture sue h a precedent might bar this country from supplying oil to the British navy.
 Those who believe it's important to play no favorites point out that this. government beat the League of Nations - in whose policy Eng land has played such big part to the jump, first when it officially recognized state of war between Italy and Ethiopia and second when it began to bring powerful pressure against oil exports to Italy before the league laid down an oil embargo.
 K
 Looks Bad to Italy
 Without some underlying motive, they feel, this government hardly would have placed itself in what seems a more unneutral position than it would have assumed by simply placing oil on the embargo list. The latter course could easily have been defended as a carrying out of the congressional mandate.
 But when the administration, without authority of the neutrality or other act, proceeds to discourage trade with beliggerents by threats of coercion, the Italians are able to charge lmfriendliness and convince their own people of it.
 The course chosen has many more seds of war than the other. Threats Leave Bad Taste
 Some good reason, it is also ar- gued, must also lie behind the ex- traordinary decision to use the gov- ernment'S power as creditor to threaten American shipping com- panies in debt to it by specifically pointing out to each company it's debtor position in the same letter which said shipments of war ma terial to Italy or Ethiopia were contrary to government policy.
 One needn't be 8 rabid Repub- 1ican to realize that such method could be used to threaten bankers. railroads, insurance companies, home and farm owners and many others who owe the government.
 There are many other complexi- ties and conflicts in the neutrality problem, but the chief result of the current experience probably will be to stiffen the backs of those who insist that all neutrality legislation be mandatory on the executive Awa xanfa