The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-01-17
NEUTRALITY: FORWARD OR
BACKWARD?

CONGRESS, in framing permanent neutrality
~ law. seems anxious to have its apple and eat it,,
toto achieve perfect neutrality yet insist up
holding freedom of the seas"
President Mckinley, in 1898, and Congress by
Joint resolution in 1904 defined freedom of the
seas" "the principle of the exemption of all pri
vate property at sea, not contraband of war, from
capture destruction by belligerent powers"
Later on Secretary of State Root was to accept
this definition, but he held that it important
that agreement should be reached as TO what con-
sttuted contraband. For he recognized--as we
found out in the World War-that contraband lists
might include practically everything.
This tendency says Charles Warren, assistant at
torney general in the Wilson Administration, might
well deprive any rule regarding property the high
seas almost entirely of its effect.
Which, of course is very true So patent truth
Is it, and so potent, that Rep. Maury Maverick of
Texas makes it an important part of his neutrality
bill He would embargo ANY munitions of war,
article declared to be contraband of by it, or
by any foreign nation with which such beigerent
foreign nation is engaged in armed conflict"
Thus narrowed down, like the angels which
danced on the head of pin our freedom of the
seas" would be small indeed. About all we could ex-
port would be the hot air confined in otherwise
empty holds. Like it not. contraband is not what
we, ourselves, choose to put our list such, but
what the other fellow with big navy writes down
his
for international war. it existed before the
World War. So did neutral rights. But they
were smashed right and left by both sides in that
struggle-so much so that President Wilson might
have called Britain to terms had he not felt Ger
many to be the greater offender.
Congress should look forward not backward. It
can stick to the ancient doctrine of freedom of the
seas, with all it implies set up modern new doc
trine of neutrality.
No neutrality law can make us immune from at
tack from being dragged into conflict. But we
can materially narrow down the chances. Vountar-
lily we can give up some of our so-called rights in
time of world conflict we can go along as We did
before and plunge the precpice with the rest.
There can be no question, however, of our aban-
doning our neutral rights, popular notion to the
contrary notwithstanding We can give up some of
them, even many of them, but we will still have
many more left.
And whatever we decide to retain, that must we
be prepared to defend Mighty nations fighting for
their lives are scant respecters of others rights If
by violating such rights they believe they can win.
they will do Sd Thomas Jefferson was a great
pacifst He gave our first neutrality plan. Yet we
we're drawn into two wars with Europe-undeclar
one with France and regular one with Britain--in
his day.
Which brings us back to Congress. It's job is to
eliminate all possible dangerous practices in world
war times in order to afford us maximum security.
But, we repeat. what rights we retain we must de-
fend. To think otherwise would be to live in a
fools paradise. AS witness China