Evening star., 1935-10-08
j. s. NEUTRALITY
FUTURE PROBLEM
Dangers May Face Country
Despite Present Isolated
Position for Peace.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


The United States Government,
having been advised from Geneva that
the League of Nations was about to
declare formally that Italy had re
sorted to war" saw no reason to hesi-
tate further about issuing proclama-
ton of neutrality.
Back in 1914 America issued proc
lacation of neutrality and was par
ticipant in the war less than three
(. years later.
If the Ethiopian italian conflict can
be localized there will be no danger OF
a worldwide war or American partici-
patton therein.
Too many people believe, however,
that going in or staying out OF war
is a mere matter of executive discre-
ton at Washington. Hence they are
inclined to applaud the Presidents
neutrality proclamation and his warn
ing to American citizens to refrain
from travelling on beligerent ships,
which means, in this case, Italian YES
sells, because Ethiopia has no merchant
marine.
Ships Attacked Nevertheless.
But, unfortunately, these warnings
to citizens not to travel were advocated
in 1915 and 1916 and they were not in
themselves the controlling factors in
forcing America into the war. 1t will
be recalled that ships flying the
American flag were torpedoed by Ger
man submarines and that American
public opinion was famed to fever
heat by the sinking of neutral as well
as belligerent vessels on which inno-
cent passengers, in no way involved in
the war itself, were drowned without
In some cases being given chance for
their lives.
90 Today America is theoretically neu-
-tral. But actually, the very words
of the Presidents proclamation warn
ing American citizens not to travel
on belligerent ships is regarded by
italy as an offense. For, as Capt.
D'Annunzio of Italy rightly points
out, there are no Ethiopian sub
marines and hence the danger of
travel on Italian ships is remote.
What the spokesmen for the Italians
did not perceive, of course, was that
the State Department is merely pre-
pairing to absolve itself from legal
responsibility for anything that might
happen if an Italian ship is blown
up by a crank or by somebody who
deliberately seeks to involve America
in the dispute through an untoward
act that might 1nfame American
opinion.
Future Attitude Problem.
The question then turns on what
would be the attitude of the American
people if barbarism were revived on
the high seas. Would they sit su-
pinely by and in tinid or Indifferent
fashion give up their rights to use
the oceans and seas in which no
nation has proprietary right?
The pacific feeling of this country
at the moment is such that many
people would give an Affirmative
answer to that question, little realiz-
ing that. if Britain is drawn into the
war and Canada becomes involved,
the citizens Of the United States would
not only have their trade relations
impaired with their best customers,
but that neutrality in fact would be-
come practically impossible.
The significance, therefore. of the
Presidents proclamation, made in the
face of the fact that our Government
probably realized it would offend Italy,
must be sought in some other direc-
tion. 1t lies rather in an inner hope
for a course that will mean peace
rather than war.
- Collective Action.
Thus the powers are acting in con-
cert at Geneva. Whatever they do
will be done collectively and not in
dividually. Their main fear has been
that, if they adopted financial or eco
nomic sanctions or penalties, the
United States might play lone hand
and unwittingly reduce the effective
ness Of those sanctions or embargoes.
Happily or unhappily for Mr.. Roose-
welt, the Congress tied his hands so
that at the moment, anyway, he is
compelled to proclaim embargoes and
to prevent any belligerents from get
. ting help through the purchase of sup
: plies in the United States. This au
thority lasts only until next February,
= by which time the international sit
uation either will have cleared up to
. the extent of localiZing the conflict,
, or there will be a threat of a general
war and the Congress can be expected
. to deal with the new circumstances
, as they arise.
At the moment, the President can
q point to the mandatory provisions of
I, the neutrality law and, having spoken
words Of warning and issued list of
p articles that cannot be exported, he
can sit back and await developments.
U. S. Held Leaning to League.
Geneva, however, feels that the
United States, while not saying so in
= any formal way, is nevertheless ready
> to stand with the League of Nations,
= or, to put it another way, is prepared
: not to place any obstacles in the path
. of effective economic sanctions, en-
: bargoes or penalties as they may be
imposed by the League.
: incidentally, the value of the League
+, as collective instrument was never
4 better illustrated than in the effect
: on French policy today.
Unquestionably, Paris Is lukewarm
} toward sanctions and there Is a con-
siderable pro-Italian sentiment in
France. But it's the League itself
which is at issue and If France aban-
dons the League or shows any signs
OF weakening its powers in an emer-
gency she may some day regret 1t
when Germany Is at her doors and
she looks imploringly across the Eng
lish Channel to Britain for aid.
Helpful Move.
A statement that the United States
would not attempt to violate the
sanctions or penalties imposed by the
League would be helpful at the mo-
ment to world peace. And the
precedent for this action might well
be taken from the new neutrality law
itself. For the League members will
become acknowledgements when they
impose economic penalties on the ag-