The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-12-28
A DOOR MUST BE OPEN OR SHUT

TN and out of Congress- there seems to be some
confusion as to what is neutrality One school
contends the present temporary law should be
clarified and broadened to include credit ban a
wider range of enbargoed war materials etc. but
that it should be mandatory on the President to
treat all belgerents alike
The other holds that the President should have
vide discretionary powers-that with the consent of
congress, he should have authority to permit NUM-
tons shipments to some while denying them to
others
In line with this view, Section of the tentative
dra1t OF revised neutrality act proposed by the
National Peace Conference, says:
IF the President shall find that one or more of
the beigerent countries was attacked in contraven-
ton OF the Pact of Paris, and if such finding is
concurred in by a majority of the other non
oehgerent countries parties to the said pact he shall
so advise Congress, and, with it's consent he NAV
revoke his embargo procamations in respect to
such countries attacked and provisions hereof shall
thereupon cease to apply in respect to such country
countries"
While the National Peace Conference expressed
itself in favor Of vastly strengthened neutrality
measure, there mo agreement" on Section 7
Some held, and we believe correctly that while this
may be the moral thing to do, it is certainly not
neutrality.
Which brings us to the crux of the whole problem
And that is this: Do we wish to remain neutral in
the next war, do we propose to SIDE with other
nations in effort to define and defeat the ag-
gressor and uphold the victim?
Let us not fool ourselves We can not take sides
and be neutral at the same time In the words of a
great French philosopher door must be open or
closed: 1t can not be both at once. Congress can
debate for years to whether the United States
should do the or the other. But if we want to
be neutral there is no room even for moment
of equivocation. We simply or we are not.
If we wish to take sides; if we wish to pronounce
one belligerent the aggressor; if we wish to join
with Britain, France and other members of the
League of Nations to punish the outlaw and aid the
victim, by all means let us do SO. But in that case
we should be far safer within the League than out
side trying to drum up majority of Pact of Paris
signatores to side with us as to which nation is the
aggressor.
There is enormous danger in isolating ourselves
on the hand while attempting to aid one side
of a conflict on the other.
If we wish to remain neutral in the next war. the
problem ahead of Congress is fundamentally simple
In time of peace must lay down a definite Amer
lean neutrality law To change the rules in time
may in itself, be considered hostile Then no mat
ter what the law may be- it must be applied to all
belligerentS alike.
The President may be given certain discretionary
powerS-Such adding this that key material
to his list of enbargoed articles. But when these
are forbidden to one it should be mandatory upon
him to forbid them to all.
Some other course might be right. 1t might be
sound. It might even be our duty But no other
course would be neutral.