Evening star., 1936-01-07
NEUTRALITY URGED
DESPITE ITS COST.
Program to Make Difficult
U. S. Entry in Foreign
War, Says Nye.

Despite its monetary cost, America
Is behind neutrality program which
twill do, in a thorough way. the job of
making it more difficult, If not i'm
possible, for selfish interests to draw
America into more foreign wars" Sen
ator Nye, Republican, of North Dakota
declared last night in the National
Radio Forum. The forum is arranged
by The Star and broadcast on coast
to-coast network of the National
Broadcasting Co.
After stressing his opinion that fear
of losing trade drew us into the World
War, Nye emphasized real neutrality
hinders commerce and repels accumu-
lation of wealth and said:
To-day there is quite unanimous
opinion that our successful neutrality
in the future is going to be largely de-
pendent upon our will to write out OF
expectation the chance to profit IN
America from wars which other ma
tions are fighting.
Gratifying it is, indeed, to note the
general acceptance of this theory TO-
day. This acceptance is in itself
large guarantee that, public demand
continuing, this Congress will write
thorough and genuine neutrality policy
that merits the title of neutrality.
AS he urged quick action on his
mandatory embargo neutrality bill, he
condemned the "flip-f1op" policy OF ~
wears ago arising from the ATTITUDES OF
Col. House. Ambassador Page and Sec
retary of State Lansing. He warneo'
Experience reveals that resolve
alone without settled and deter
mined policy of neutrality, IS not
enough to keep us out.
The text of Senator Nye's address
follows:
THE question of how to make more
secure American neutrality during
hostilities between other nations is no"
enioying that large consideration TO
which it is entitled, consideration
available in only limited way last
August. when the issue was formally
brought before Congress under pressure
tn result in enactment of tide-over,
compromise neutrality policy. That
this compromise policy will now pc
enlarged upon by Congress is assured.
For this assurance credit belongs
to the voicing of public opinion ana
demand for genuine neutrality. Last
August. though public interest was
already large in the question, there was
still decided opposition to anything
sweeping in the way of neutrality
policy. Indeed, opposition was OF such
lya
get more than had been accomplished
in the compromise The administra-
ton was not at all friendly to the idea,
particularly as respected the demand
for mandatory policy. Now, however.
the administration has largely adopted
the ideas which were being entertained
by neutrality advocates during the
past year. This is reflected in the neu-
trality bill which was offered by the
administration last Friday. A continu-
ing public interest in the neutrality
question is now certain to win that
enactment of policy essential If we
would lessen the danger of our being
drawn into another foreign war.
Division of Thought.
There remains very definite divi-
sion of thought upon the neutrality
issue. The Washington Star, sponsor
of this National Radio Forum, defined
that division few days ago editorially
when it said: The convening of Con-
gress will bring new conflict between
those who believe in neutrality at any
cost and those who wish to make
money at any cost
Il fear that some people who profess
q desire for neutrality do not fully
realize what the costs of that neutrality
might be in certain eventualities. Not
until those possible costs are recog-
rlized and weighed along side the costs
involved in what follows absence of
policy can we be said to have intelli-
gent as well as large public demand for
a strong and genuine policy Of neu-
trality. Yet am confident that reali-
cation of the dollars and cents cost
of strict neutrality, will still find
America for policy that will do in a
thorough way the job of making it
more difficult, if not impossible, for
selfish interests to draw America into
more foreign wars.
Some have insisted that to write
o neutrality policy is quite impossible.
1t is difficult and impossible in doubt
ing minds only because those minds
cling to the theory that when other
nations are at war it ought to be pos
sible for America to at once be neutral
yet at the same time enjoy the profits
vrJi+1
at war. One could not debate the
neutrality issue with such minds
because experience so clearly re-
Veals that here again is one of
those cases where it is quite out of
the question for us to have Our cake
and eat 1t too. Neutrality is to be had
II we are willing to pay the price of
abandonment of expectation of profits
from the blood of other nations at war.
But it defies any man to write a neu-
trality program that would long en-
dure and succeed in keeping us neu-
trail II the policy contemplated a
business boom or even business as
usual in America while other nations
are at war and wanting supplies from
our mines, fields and factories.
Resolve Not Enough.
LET us not fool ourselves in this
matter Either We want neutrality or
We don't want it. If we want true and
genuine neutrality, we must at once de-
clare a willingness to pay for it even
to the extent of possible sacrifice CT
some Of the commerce that we enjoy
before war comes to others.
Twenty years ago we were as highly
resolved to stay out of Europe's war
as we are to stay out of the one that
seems to be in the making over there
right now. But experience reveals
that resolve alone, without a settled
and determined policy of neutrality,
is not enough to keep us out. War
20 years ago in Europe created markets
for and brought profits to some Amer
"-I