Evening star., 1936-02-27

they felt that the menace OF the sub
marine war was weakening the credit
of the Allies; they desired to maintain
the credit of their creditors; and they
pushed Wilson too far. That is the
story"
But If the Leagues sanctions
aginst an aggressor could have been
Loyalty supported by the Leagues own
members, do you think that they
would have been effective?" he was
asked next.
"Quite possible" said the Senator.
mo nation can long afford to defy
the world, or sacrifice its foreign trade.
And make bold to say that II the
British government had imposed an
effective embargo upon its own great
oil and iron exports to Italy-and
companies in which the British gov
ernment owns a controlling interest,
such as the Royal Dutch Shell Petro-
leum Co., and the Irak Co., have con-
tinued to do a profitable business with
the Italian government through all
this controversial the British gov
ernment had stopped this, and then
proposed to the United States that we,
also, should reduce our exports of war
materials to Mussolinis aggressive
government, make bold to say, sir,
that the United States Senate and
Government would have been prompt
to respond"
Feared Trade Concession Loss.
There is, unfortunately, one fur
ther difficulty" he added. "Our new
trade reciprocity treaties offered GER
tain greatly desired tariff concessions
to certain governments which are
members of the League. They feared
that we might revoke these concessions
if we we're asked to renounce any
trade with Italy, for inasmuch as we
are not member of the League. we
are under no legal obligation to do So"
What. then. do you think of our
moral obligation to refrain from as
sisting an aggreSsor- government, and
of the efficacy of the neutrality act
passed last week?" I inquired.
II think that We have great moral
obligation to refrain from assisting
a belligerent government; and do not
believe that the new act will effec-
lively restrain our exporters from do
ing so, because the temptation to drive
a profitable business outweighs long
term moral considerations of national
policy"
You do not think that even the
prohibition of war loans and abnormal
commercial credits for war purposes
will effectively restrain American
commercial interests from doing busi-
ess where business can be done, with
a belligerent?" was the next query.
Il fear not" replied Senator Lewis.
Even though the President warns
exporters that they will do business
at their own risk with belligerentS,
I think that they will continue to do
it and lcok to the Government to
protect them if they get into trouble" !"
Can you suggest anything further
that We could. and should, do to pre-
vent it, or reduce the danger?" he was
asked.
New Code Held Necessary.
1.-THE American people" he said
solemnly, "are not neutral today. If
they mean to be. if they intend to
act on the lesson of the last war.
realizing that there is no profit in war
or the war trade. ultimately. but
rather immeasurable loss, as Sena-
tor Vandenberg said to you, then we
shall have to develop new code of
neutral conduct and invite other gov
ernments to agree to it. Otherwise
we may expect to throw good gov
ernment and good money after bad
abroad. We lost about $25, ,000, 900 900
externally in the World War, and
nearly $35, 900 ,000,0 internally. That
is what the war cost us, and we are
not yet through paying for 1t. Com
pare those figures with the profits of
the neutral war trade"
What would your proposed code
contain?" I inquired.
THE first principle should be a
solemn remuneration of all territorial
acquisition by violence" he said.
That would be ratification of the
so-called Stimson doctrine in law"
he was reminded.
ut would" he said, land we must
go further. The new weapons of war
fare make the old rules of warfare
on the sea and in the air obsolete and