Evening star., 1936-02-23


important legislation" said the writer,
seems to turn upon the question of
how restrictive shall be the embar-
goes imposed on American exports of
potential contraband of war and
essential war materials-such as iron
and steel, oil and chemicals-and
how much discretionary authority in
embargoing them ought to be con-
ferred by Congress upon the President.
What is your view as to these ques-
tions?"
ut is clear" replied Senator VAN
denberg, "if anything is clear in this
difficult matter-that one nation, by
its own fiat cannot rewrite interna-
tional law. Yet our example Is i'm
portant, in the general confusion of
the age; and what We do is some
times followed by others, as in the
case of the munitions investigation
which has prompted the British and
other investigations of the economic
factors involved in the enlargement
of the national defense and in the
promotion of war scares and arma-
ment races. So, in this matter of
neutrality, it is for us to give the
lead; and I am satisfied that we
are giving it now in this bill; and
that We must continue to give it, by
a continuing study and development
of the new neutrality against the
menace of war"
Then you are anxious to prevent
America from contributing to what
is called the international anarchy
and particularly to avoid giving aid
and comfort to belligerent aggressors.
The problem is how to do it, and how
far to go in the embargo policy, is it
not?"
Supports Quota Idea.
eyes" he said, you have put your
finger on it. There is, for example,
something to be said for the CASH
and-carry idea. I think that there
is very much to be said for the
normal, peace-trade quota idea (lim-
iting neutral exports of commodities
useful in war to the average amounts
sold belligerent countries during a
preWar period). I have not finally
made up my own mind-and Congress
has not finally made up its mind
as to this. We do not wish to con-
tribute to the international anarchy.
But it is dangerous to change the
rules of neutrality when conflict
is in progress. We ought, perhaps,
to have gone further than we did last
August, before conflict actually nroke
out. The rules of a modernized neu-
trality ought to be written and agreed
to before warfare occurs and not
changed afterward."
THE trouble is, Senator" the in
terviewer said, that nobody is sum-
GENTLY interested to work out the rules
in advance. No nation will revise and
proclaim them, in keeping with the al
tered facts and forces, until war oc-
ours. And then all the rules are vio-
lated"
"Well," he said, "it may be up to us
to defend them"
Danger of New War Imminent.
"Since we now confront an armed
chaos and the imminent danger Of an
other terrific war, isn't it time to do
intelligent about it?" he
was asked.
High time!" he agreed. "But we
need more time to think through the
problem and to make up our minds
what to do. I see no reason to be dis
couraged, or to feel that the game is
lost. We have come long way in
our thinking. We may have to go fur
ther in the direction of abridging the
commercial war system. We shall cer-
tainly have to defend our new neil
trality vigorously. I am satisfied, how
ever, that, if this present law had been
on the statute book in 1916, President
Wilson would have had much less diff
ficulty in keeping this country out of
the World War;"
do you think it would have been
effective insurance against ware" was
the next question.
IF our citizens had been prevented
then, or officially warned. from taking
passage on such belligerent merchant
ships as the Lusitania, if those ships
had not been permitted to carry arms,
ammunition and war machinery from
the United States to the European
belligerents, we should have been pro-
tected from the chief emotional ex-
citement to war;" he replied. "And if
our bankers had been prohibited from
opening war credits and loans for the
benefit of the belligerents-as they are
now by prohibited by this neutrality
act of Congress-we should have been
preserved from the chief economic in
ducement to participation in that
wasting conflict"
Rules Must Be Written.
But you think that is is unnecessary
for us to collaborate now in the So
called sanctions against an aggressor,
in the name of peace?" he was asked.
"The first necessity is to write the
rules of neutrality before a conflict
occurs, and not to change them," he
repeated with emphasis. "That is why
neutrality should be mandatory; for to
leave the matter in doubt, or to leave
it to the discretion of the President,
is to leave the issue in state Of un-
certainty or fiux, and subject to change
under emotional stress"
But what about a belligerent who
is a declared aggressor against the
peace Of the world?" the interviewer
persisted.
"It Is impossible to participate in
these sanctions without participating
in the League Of Nations" replied the
Senator, "for the first step would lead
to the second, inevitably; and the
theory Of it is punitive war rather than
peace through neutrality. Moreover