Evening star., 1935-09-13
NEUTRALITY PLEA
! MADE BY THOMAS
.Futi|ity of War in Solving
Questions Stressed by
Radio Forum Speaker.


(Continued From Sixth Page)
worthy objective It is a definite
notice to the world at large that II
nations use war as an instrument for
the settlement of differences those
nations cannot expect assistance from
us. The greatest good that has come
to America as result of this law Is
Our break with the past in regard to
our own theory of neutrality Right
after our original neutral theory was
advanced it was suggested to our Gov
eminent that If We were to be con-
sistent we would prevent the sale OF
arms on the part of American citizens.
but our Secretary of State, Thomas
Jefferson, pointed out that many
American citizens made their living
from the manufacture and sale OF
arms and that the private citizens
right to sell should not be stopped by
the Government. That has been our
American neutrality theory for one
hundred and fifty years, and the right
to trade although we were neutral has
been defended so completely by
America that that very fact has taken
us into two wars. Thus our particular |
neutrality theory up to the present has
made for war as far as we are con-
cerned rather than keeping us out Of |
war.
Motives Of Legislation.
The motive behind the present legis- |
lation is one which comes definitely |
from two preSent-day concepts uni,
versally held by American people: |
First, that trade which is made out |
, of war does not pay in the long run,
and secondly, that If it is brought into |
existence because of economic consid- |
erations, the loss in lives, the wrecked
homes the sacrifices and the saddened
firesides are all too great for a
.momentary trade advantage. Thus the
greatest business Nation on earth now
condemns that business which wrests
1t profits from the misery and suffer-
ing of its people. Is that not an ad-
vancement in the thinking Of a ma
ton? Are we not making some prog
ress by treating these great emotional
2
an intellectual way? America has de-
cided that If there is to be war we
-, will stay out. The meaning of the
law is that we do not want war and
we do not want to have anything to
do with war.
Look Made Into Past.
Let us connect what we have done
lately with Americas international
actions in the last generation. We
refused to become a member of the
League of Nations primarily, accord
ing to those who voted not tO adhere
TO the covenant, because our entrance
constituted an entangling alliance. and
entangling alliances ultimately meant
war. The sincere advocates of nom
adherence to the covenant made their
stand on the promise that we should
stay out Of peace negotiations in order
that we would not be found tied when
peaceful processes changed to war
like ones. We have refused to adhere
to the World Court primarily for the
same reason. Now We are faced with
this fact: the objectives and the aims
of both the World Court and the
League Of Nations were declared to
be, and have been according to his
tory. directed toward the preserva-
ton Of peace. We have said we want
no official connection with an insti-
tuition which is set up primarily to
maintain peace. Could We take any
other stand than that which we did
when We passed our neutrality law
and declared that We wanted to have
no ties if nations go to war? If we
have decided not to cooperate
formally for peace, how could we ever
decide to cooperate for war? BY the
logic of our past actions we are forced
to maintain our present one. Had We
taken any other stand we should have
been forced to say: 1--WE won't have
anything to do with our neighbors
while they are good neighbors, but
when they get bad and act foolishly to
each other, then we will join then"
Surely Washington's and Jefferson's
notion Of no entangling alliances
meant no entangling alliances in war
times as much as in peace times. If
we have refused to cooperate In the
maintenance of peace, would we not
stand utterly condemned In our own
public opinion and in the opinion OF
the rest of the world If we did not
take the same aloof stand-"stay out
of it" stand. keep away from it.
stand and I'VE will have nothing to do
with it" stand when nations go to
war?
Can We Do 1t?
Now the question arises, have we
the ability, the national power, have
we the individual strength to stand
by our declarations in regard to the
outlawry of war, to stand by our de-
cisions in regard to neutrality, to
stand by our theory of no entangling
alliances and aloofness in the face of
q temporary loss of profits? That is
the sordid question which you and I
have to answer. Students of history
and students of politics will answer
that mans love of economic advan-
tage will wreck these more or less
idealistic stands when the time comes.
Temptations Will Arise.
To put 1t more plainly, America Is
years away from the last war and suf-
fering from Is years of economic un-
balance, says now it was all wrong,
we must stay out. Can we do it, or
vill history repeat itself? # war
comes to Europe the price of food
stuffs will go up. Can we Withstand
the temptation to sell our wheat at
50 bushel? Copper will reach again
a price around Is or 80 cents. With
that chance for profit will we have
the strength to say, mo, we would
rather not sell, it is not worth the at
tendant cost in lives and blood and
wretchedness" Cotton will double
in price. Is the Government Of the
YYnikad GkaAnr ox,e,alerla kaa fann