Evening star., 1936-02-23

IEIIEIIIL - - peace VI picFCut-
Senator yandenberr. ing commercial
entan 6 lement,
attempts to "tie the hands of the
President in dealing with foreign
affairs"
What truth is there in the charge?
Will its mandatory" character
which stipulates merely that the en-
bargoes and penalties which it imposes
shall be applied impartially to all
foreign belligerents by the President,
In proclaiming American neutrality,
and to all states that subsequently
become belligerent-will this unduly
narrow executive discretion or cripple
his capacity to safeguard the legiti-
mate rights and interests of the
United States?
Vandenberg Thinks Not.
Senator Arthur Vandenberg of
Michigan, a vigorous advocate of
effective neutrality against war and
a prominent member of the Senate's
prolonged munitions investigation, out
Of which the impulse to strengthen
American neutrality has chiefly arisen.
says no" In discussing the issue on
the day following the sudden action
Of the Senate in passing the bill as
already passed by the House, by large
majorities, he said:
Il cannot see why the President
should wish to have any more author
ity or responsibility in this weighty
matter than he already possesses. The
problem before us is to keep the
United States out of war-not to in
volve us in war in the guise of neu-
trality, or in the far-flung dangers OF
attempting to police the world. We
have not elected to do that"
Then the charge of wishing to
restrict the authority of the President
is not true?" he was asked.
1T is certainly untrue" he replied,
"that the advocates of what is called
mandatory neutrality legislation in
Congress are desirous of narrowing his
authority or weakening his capacity to
deal with foreign crises. We realize,
of course, that the peace of the United
States cannot be guaranteed by con-
gressional fiat. But we can do some
thing-we have now done something
to reduce the likelihood of war. Be-
cause we have not gone 100 per cent
Of the way, there is no reason for
pessimism or encouragement. In my
judgment, We have now gone 80 per
cent of the way toward guaranteeing
peace. so far as Congress can do it.
Under our scheme of things, the Exec
utive has no general authority to i'm
pose embargoes upon the expectation
of American goods and services, in
cluding potential munitions and war
materials Congress must do that, if
it is to be done. 1t is better so. for
the recent chapter of the munitions
investigation has disclosed how power
full were the pressures exerted upon
President Wilson in 1915 and 1916,
first to countenance reversal of Sec
retary Bryan's wise injunction against
the opening of credits and loans to
European belligerents, then to abandon
i strict neutrality, unoficially, and.
finally, to become an avowed ally of
the fighting allies. Our purpose is to
prevent a repetition of that calamity,
by prohibiting the chain of economic
events that led inexorably to it, If we
can"
War Sequence Revealed.
"Is that the principal lesson to be
learned from the munitions investi-
cation, in your opinion?" he was asked.
II think So" replied the Senator.
/ 1--WE know now in detail, because we
have canvassed the record of the
bankers as we'll as the principal NUM-
. tions merchants, the sequence Of
events that led us into the European
war in 1917. We know. also, that war
profits are bitter illusion, for it
simply isn't in the cards to make
@ money out of war, or out of the wars
of others, in the long run. Economic
:def1ation and disaster follow inevitably
upon the vast expansion and reckless
imitation of war production. It ties
us to the chariot wheels of the bellig-
erents, whoever they are, while we are
nominally neutral, and it impoverishes
us as belligerent. It is, therefore,
no sacrifice of our real interests that
we are making when we propose to
abandon, or prohibit, the profiteering
Of war and the neutral war trade. This
new neutrality bill will protect us from
ourselves and from the subversive war
trading which we have misconceived
to.be national asset"
"Then you think that we are not
giving up anything of Importance in
proposing to declare that American
merchants who wish to do business
with belligerent nations must do it at
their own risk?"
Distinction in Purpose Seen.
'Let me reply" he answered, "as I
sreplied to Senator Murphy on the floor
of the Senate the other day when he
asked whether the proponents of
effective neutrality legislation were
proposing to abandon the so-called
freedom of the seas. That is not a
sacred shibboleth. We are not pro-
posing, moreover, to abandon the prin-
ciple of legitimate freedom, but rather
the exploitation of the principle and
the misery of others for a temporary
and illusory material advantage.
see a clear distinction here"
"The new neutrality places the en-
phasis, then, on neutral duties rather
than neutral rights, is that SOP"
"YeS," he said, "if we want to as
sure peace and not war in reafiirming
our neutrality, we must assume GER
tain new duties as citizens, and as a
neutral government asserting its right
to remain neutral. We cannot aid or
abet warfare. We cannot afford to
permit this country to become a base
of supplies for belligerents. The mis-
take in our traditional neutrality
policy, as see it now, is that too fire.
quently we have put emphasis upon
commerce and commercial rights
which may or may not be tenable and
legitimate"
s,"The only substantial divergence of
opinion in Congress concerning this
4