The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-11-27
Eyes of World on
American Policy
To Avert War
BY HARRY w. FRANTZ
United Press StaR Correspondent

United Rfe8S Sv9W NVtreSpUAsUeHS
washington, Nov. 27-(UP)-Dis-
cussion Of the rules of neutrality at
the Buenos Aires Conference will be
of worldwide interest as rejecting
current expert opinion on this most
difficult chapter Of international
law.
The agenda provides for CON
sideration of the rules regarding the
rights and duties of neutrals and
belligerents," and the United States
already has indicated its special In
terest In deliberations on this topic.
The American government IN re-
cent years has taken world leader
ship In revising and undermining
concepts Of neutrality, generally In
the direction Of less sweeping de-
mands for freedom Of the seas"
than were upheld in the period OF
the World War.
Congress has supported executive
opinion in an abridgement OF the
rights claimed by the United States
as q neutral in time Of war abroad.
There are at least threeS statut1
guiding United States policy, and
discussion OF neutrality at Buenos
Aires probably will reveal whether
other nations consider it feasible to
adopt formulas of similar charac-
ter.
Date To Hague Conferences
The chief internationally accept
rules on neutrality date from peace
conferences held at The Hague in
1907 and 1909, and were adopted
before the general use Of military
airplanes, long-range coast-guns, or
the introduction Of oil-burning
steamers which made coal less
urgent war problem than formerly.
There are several theoretical rea-
sons why some Latin-American
countries might not see eye-to-eye
with the United States delegation
on some Of the major principles Of
neutrality.
First, the United States is rela.
lively more self-sustaining thar
other countries Of the Western
Hemisphere and for time at least
could survive a period Of isolation
Second, the national economy Of
many Latin American countries
rests in large degree upon the eX-
portation of a small number Of
basic commodities, and Interrupt
tion or curtailment of external
trade would soon cause severe In
ternal hardship.
Third, If the American republics
generally adopt policy of re-
strnining the purchase OF their
products by belligerents, the net
effact might be to encourage a
greater self sufficiency of Euro
pean countries, to the disadvan-
tage of Latin American peacetime
commerce.
Effect Might Be Great
On the other hand, common
policies with regard to neutrality
among American republics woulc
give them a powerful voice ir
event of future major struggle
in Europe, and could prove an ef'
fectiye agency for peace. Such
common view also would encour-
age the world at large to seek
some internationally acceptable
rules to govern relations in time:
OF conflict.
United States policy regarding
neutrality has presumed war to b.
q contagious disease and therefore
sought to avoid its contraction BY
a deliberate restraint OF commerce
tourist travel. money-lending Of
other operations that would create
interests for American citizen:
other than those of peace.
The principal United States en-
actments on neutrality are:
The act passed by Congress OF
Aug. "a, 1885, prohibiting expor
of arms, ammunitions. or nipple
ments of war" to any port OF
belligerent state, or to any neutra
port for trans-shipment TO. or To-
the use of, a belligerent country.
On Feb. 20, 1885, Congress ex'
tended the life of the act to Ma.
1, 1887, and declared that, follow
ing the proclamation Of the Presi
dent of a state Of war, 1t would b'
unlawful for any person to pur'
chase, sell or exchange bonds, Sc
curties, or other obligations Of thu
government OF any belligeren
country or to make any loan o.
extend any credit to such govern
ment. This did not forbid ord1nar.
commercial credits.