Evening star., 1936-01-12
NEUTRALITY BILL FACES
STORMY ROAD In SENATE
Discretionary Power of President and
Arms Embargo Ramifications Bring
Conflicting Views.

| The bill also declares it unlawful for
American vessels, other than purely
passenger ships, to proceed TO bellig-
erent ports, through adjacent zones
of danger. Since American ships
carrying only passengers would not be
excluded from these zones, the re-
Strictions against American paSSen-
gers at sea would not apply when they
were on American passenger ships.
The fines and penalties for viola
tions are much heavier in the Nye-
Clark bill than in the administration
measure.
In the administration bill there is
an entirely new proposed section OF
law. entitled modification or termi-
nation of treaties Explaining it a
few days ago, Senator Pittman said
it has been contended by some for
eign governments that existing COM
mercial treaties come in conflict with
the embargo features of the neutrality
bill While the administration does
not concede that construction, it has
been deemed advisable by trainers Of
the administration bill to grant the
President authority to negotiate for
modification of commercial treaties
to eliminate any possible conflict, or
to terminate such treaties if modiflca-
ton cannot be obtained.
The contrast between these new
conceptions of neutrality and the
principles that have obtained in the
past is shown by some of the docu-
ments written more than 20 years ago,
in the early stages of the World War.
Policy Set in Note.
One of these notes from the State
Department to Austria Hungary, in
1915. presents the policy and point
of view that formerly prevailed on the
questions dealt with in the neutrality
legislation of 1885. 1t summarizes
the principles of neutrality on which
this country had relied for many
years. Austria Hungary had raised
questions regarding the expectation Of
arms to its opponents and. after reply
ing to the specific questions, the State
Department note turned to the broader
phases of the issue as follows:
But, in addition to the question
of principle, there is a practical and
substantial reason why the Govern
ment of the United States has from
the foundation of the Republic TO
the present time 19l5) advocated
and practiced unrestricted trade in
arms and military supplies. 1t has
never been the policy of this country
to maintain in time of peace a large
military establishment or stores of
arms and ammunition sufficient to
repel invasion by Well-equipped and
powerful enemy. 1t has desired to
remain at peace with all nations and
to avoid any appearance of menacing
such peace by the threat of its armies
and navieS. In consequence of this
standing policy the United States
would, in the event of attack by a
foreign power, be at the outset of the
war seriously, if not fatally. embar-
rassed by the lack of arms and am.
; munition and by the means to pro-
duce them in sufficient quantities
to supply the requirements of national
defense. The United States has al
ways depended upon the right and
power to purchase arms and ammu-
milton from neutral nations in case
of foreign attack. This right which
; it claims for itself, it cannot deny
! 70 others.
Might Become Prey to Aggressor.
: "A nation whose principle and
policy it is to reply upon interna-
tional obligations and international
justice to preserve its political and
territorial integrity might become the
prey of an aggressive nation whose
policy and practice it is to increase
its military strength during times Of
peace with the design of conquest,
unless the ma ton attacked can. after
war had been declared, go into the
markets of the world and purchase
the means to defend itself against
the aggressor.
THE general adoption by the ma.
tions of the world of the theory that
neutral powers ought to prohibit the
sale of arms and ammunition to bel
ligerents would compel every nation
to have in readiness at all times suf-
ficient munitions of war to meet any
emergency which might arise and to
erect and maintain Establishments for
the manufacture of arms and am
munition sufficient to supply the needs
of its military and naval forces
throughout the progress of a war.
ManifeStly the application of this
theory would result in every nation
becoming an armed camp ready TO
resist aggression and tempted to en-
ploy force in asserting its rights
rather than appeal to reason and jus
tIce for the settlement of international
disputes.
'Perceiving as it does that the
adoption of the principle that it is
the duty OF neutral to prohibit the
sale OF arms and. ammunition to a
belllgerent during the progress of a
war would inevitably give the ad-
vantage to the belligerent which had
encouraged the manufacture of NUM-
tions in time of peace and which had
laid in vast stores of arms and am
, munition in anticipation of war. the
Government of the United States is
convinced that the adoption of the
theory would force militarism on the
world and work against that universal
peace which is the desire and purpose
of all nations which exalt justice and
Righteousness in their relations with
one another"
Cite Events of 1917.
Advocates of the pending embargo
type of neutrality legislation how
ever, cite Americas ultimate entry
into the World War IN 1917 as evil
: dence that neutrality cannot be MAIN
, tained without restrictions on trading
with belligerents.
1t is expected that within a week
or 10 days the question will be occu-
pying the center of the stage at the
Capitol.
In a preliminary comment on the
) subject a few days ago Senator ].
) Hamilton Lewis. Democrat, of Illinois,
!; emphasized the difficulty of avoiding