Evening star., 1935-11-28
THE POLITICAL
MILL
BY G. Could Lincoln.

ton, now law, which was adopted just
before the last session adjourned, does
not, in the opinion of some Of the legis-
lators, 60 far enough. Take, for example,
Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg of Mich
igan, who has been a foremost advocate
Of neutrality as well as of the proposal
to take the profit out Of war. Senator
Vandenberg has recently expressed quite
forcibly his ideas with regard to American
neutrality and the course which should
be followed to keep the United States
out of any European conflict. He de-
scribed what must be done when Con-
greSs settles down to deal with "perma-
nent" neutrality law. He said
First. 1t is not enough merely to warn
Americans that they travel on belligerent
ships at their own risk They should be
prohibited from any such travel at all
except when no other ships are available
when seeking to leave war zones for
home. 1t is impossible, in practice, for
them to travel at their own risk They
cannot actually shed their citizenship.
1t is indefeaSible. The outraged emotions
of their fellow citizens, in the event of
major calamity, will not stop to assess
the niceties of a presidential proclama-
ton which warned them of their tenn
porary eXpatriation. AS matter of fact,
they are not eXpatriated. Nor should
they be- But they should be told. by
force of law, that they have no business
needlesSly riskipg their country's peace
by needlesSly risking their own neckS.
Second. All loans or credits to actual
belligerents should be prohibited-be-
cause money is the most dangerous, the
most powerful and the most unneutral
Of all contraband. This it seems to me,
is an axiom. But fortunately it is an
academic axiom at the moment because
the johnson act prohibits loans to de-
faulting nations at any time; and. un-
fortunately, practically all major powers
are defaulters to us at present. We not
only get into trouble with these foreign
loans; in addition we do not get our
money back. 1t is not only bad 'neu-
trality,' 1t is bad business. So far as
am concerned. we have had enough.
Third The final question, frankly
less clear than the rest, involves general
trade with belligerent-tradeo other than
direct arms, ammunition and imple-
mentS of war; My own view at the mo-
ment-subject to revision in the light
of larger exploration of the matter-is
that this remainder of trade with bel
ligerent might well be on 'caSh-and-
carry basis In other words, it could pro-
ceed at the buyers risk rather than our
own.
THE whole purpose Of the new formula
must be to make neutrality mean what
it pretends to say. The whole trend. as
I see it, involves no surrender OF Sover-
eighty or honor; only the surrender of
equivocal privileges which are calculated
actually to be anti-neutral in net re-
suits"
Just what the Michigan Senator means
by cash and carry" basis for American
trade with warning nations is not quite
clear. 1t seems to mean, however. that
American merchants are to have the
cash in their hands before they ship
goods to the belligerents. This at least
would aSure payment, and not make it
necessary for the American traders to
seek Government aid later to collect
money owed them.
The idea of the Michigan Senator is to
have American producers and business
men generally abstain from making
profits out of selling goods to warning
nations when by selling these goods
America might be drawn into the war
as it was in the World War. The picture
of what happened in the years 1914-1917,
before this country was involved in the
struggle, as painted by Senator Vanden-
berg is not pretty. But in those days 1t
was considered that America was living
up to its rights by its insistence upon
trading with belligerent nations. Eventu-
ally that Is what drew the country into
the war-although there was, OF course,
a great deal of sentiment in this country
in favor Of the allied cause.
What Vandenberg terms the old idea Of
neutrality was put forward promptly by
the State Department in August. 1914.
A circular issued said: The existence Of
war between foreign governments does
not suspend trade or commerce between
this country and those at war-except as
this rule be modified in respect to ac-
knowledged contraband." This. said
Senator Vandenberg. was not only the
letter Of international law, but was also
IAN exceedingly useful philosophy for
our cash registers"
In October of 1914 the State Depart
ment issued q further circular, which
said in part:
"A citizen of the United States can sell
to belligerent government or its agent
any article of commerce he pleases. - A
neutral government Is not compelled to
prevent these sales to belligerent.
Contraband articles are subject to enemy
seizure; but it is the enemy's duty to
prevent the articles reaching their desti-
nation, not the duty Of the nation whose
citizens have sold them. If this enemy
of the purchasing nation happens for the
time to be unable to do this, that is for
him one of the misfortunes OF war"
Secretary of State Bryan in 1914 de-
clared that money is the worst Of all
contraband, since it commands every
thing else" The department asserted
at the outset of the war: Loans by
American bankers to any foreign nation
which Is at war are inconsistent with the
true spirit of neutrality" But war trade
was in the air, and before long there was
discrimination between loans Of money
and loans Of bank credit. In 1915 Lansing
was Secretary Of State, and he wrote:
Can we afford to let declaration as to
our conception of the true spirit of neu-
trality made in the first days OF the war
stand in the way Of our national interests,
which seem to be seriously threatened?
My opinion is that we ought to allow
the loans to be made for our own good"
President Wilson acquiesced, and month
later the first big loan to allies was made,
$500 OO0, 900 to English and the French.
N1fhiro lfLa ~ nyay % npar1 o0aiv