Evening star., 1935-08-22
Neutrality.

The purpose of the neutrality legiS-
lation, of course, is to keep us out of
war. With that high purpose there
will be no dissent. But the maintenance
of neutrality in time of war is not as
simple as the Senate resolution, hastily
passed yesterday, might indicate. And
the hasty disposal by the Senate yes
terday, with very little debate, of the
dangerous and delicate question of neu-
trail procedure in time of war suggests
the thought that the Senate was just
as anxious to dispose of threat to
adjournment as it was to dispose of
threat of our becoming involved in an
other war.
That, of course, adds an unfortunate
complication to an already highly COM
plicated piece of legislation. The PreSi-
dent and the State Department hope, by
changes written into the House reso-
luton, to avoid some of the apparently
unwise features of the Senate reSolu-
ton, which seems arbitrarily to tie the
foreign relations, especially in efforts to
prevent, or to end, war.
The Senate resolution imposes an
arbitrary embargo on the shipment of
arms and implements Of war" upon the
Presidents proclamation of state of
war between foreign powers, leaving to
the President the duty of defining the
arms and implements of war" on which
the embargo shall be placed. The
House resolution would give more dis
cretion to the President as to the
placing of embargoes, and may extend
such embargoes to one of the most vital
munitions of war;" which is the extern
sion of credit. Certainly no embargo on
arms or implements of war; would be
effective without like embargo on loans
with which to purchase such materiel
somewhere else.
Under either the House or Senate plan
of maintaining neutrality, however. a
variety of complications may arise which
would defeat the very purpose of the
iegislation-which is to keep us out OF
war entanglements. Should Italy go into
Ethiopia to begin her conquest without
declaration of war-aS Japan did in
Manchuria-the Presidents proclamation
of state of war in fact followed by an
embargo, for instance, on the export OF
wheat to Italy, might be accepted by
Italy as an unfriendly act, even though
the same embargo applied arbitrarily to
Ethiopia. An embargo, at the same
time, extending with equal force to
belligerents, would constitute tacit aid
for the stronger of the two belliger-
ents. The principle of economic sane
tions, as might be applied under the
League covenant, extends to the Gag
gressor" nation. The United States, in
its neutral role, would not, under the
Senate resolution, distinguish in en-
bargoes between the aggressor power or
the power which is the victim of such
aggression. But to give the President
reasonable discretion in such a matter
would be to place upon him the re-
sponsibility of discriminating against the
aggressor, which would lead to the even
tual entanglements the avoidance Of
which is sought. And If the economic
sanctions of the League powers involved
the ban of commodities which the Presi-
dent did not place on his list of "imple-
ments of war;" complications for the
neutral would arise in its relations with
the peace-makers. Implements Of war
have been said to include every usable
object, with the possible exception of
ostrich feathers.
The objectives of the neutrality legis-
iation are beyond reproach. Leaving
aside the moral responsibilities of pre-
venting war, keeping out of war sur
passes in its importance almost every
thing else. But to keep out of war
through avoidance of traditional pitfalls
awaiting the neutral is difficult and
complicated task. Congress could spend
months, instead of days, in its con-
sideration. Care must be exercised lest
In the effort to keep out of war new
elements are injected which increase
the other possibility.