The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1936-01-31
GIVES
NEUTRALITY
BILL. STATUS
BY EDWARD B. LOCKETT

BY EDWARD B. LOCKETT
copyright, 1895. by International News
Service)
Moving slowly and with careful
elaboration, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee has smoothed
out many of the tangles incident
to legislation setting down a per
manent American neutrality pol
icy.
Nevertheless, the committee met
today to resume work with several
major controversies still unsettled.
Its chairman, Senator Pittman
CD of Nevada, would not venture
a prediction as to when the meas
ure would be reported to the
Senate.
The House Foreign Affairs Com.
mittee already has approved the
Administration program, and was
prepared to begin debate on the
measure soon. with final passage
assured. Consequently major ele-
ments of conflict were centered in
the Senate.
Pittman Gives Details
Senator Pittman outlined the
provisions on which agreement
has been reached, and in detail
sketched the contentious of both
sides in existing controversies, in
an exclusive interview with Inter
national News Service.
Sections nine and four of the
administration bill are providing
the trouble, said Senator Pitt
man, with most of the conflict
over section four. This grants to
the President power to limit the
export of articles and materials
other than guns, ammunition and
actual implements of war to the
average normal export totals
which went to the belligerents in
times of peace-when he shall
find that such restriction is nee
eSsary to American neutrality.
Outlining the controversy over
this, Senator Pittman said:
"This section is opposed on
the grounds that, Ia we should
place no restrictions on export
whatever, but leave the matter
to be worked out the best we
can when war exists; (b) that
1t grants too large a discretion
to the President, and (c) that
to make such restrictions dur
ing the existence of a war is
an unneutral act toward the
belligerents, or some of them"
CONVENTIONS ANSWERED
To these contentious, Senator
Pittman replied:
These contentious may be
answered, in my opinion, with
the following arguments: (a) A
government has a right to place
any restrictions upon its citizens
whenever such restrictions are
necessary to preserve the neu-
trality of the United States, and
the contention that such restrict
ion cannot be exercised during
foreign war is unSOu1d; d.
The peace of the United States
is of higher Importance to our
citizens than the ill feeling, in
convenience or criticis-, of any
warning power, and, (cl All
goods from the United States
would be declared cOntFaband of
war, as it was during the World
War, and there would be a bet.
ter chance of having belligerent
governments refrain from Seiz.
ure of our e. ports if they were
limited to normal peace-time
shipments"
When the controversy over this
provision has been settled, the
Nevada Senator explained, much
of the committees work on neu-
tral1ty legislation will have been
done with. However, there is
still some uncertainty, he added,
over section nine. In this case,
he went on, the trouble has been
to some extent alleviated by
proviso which was inserted at his
suggestion.
Rights Are Reserved
Section nine provides that if
the President feels exports to GER
tain belligerent countries may en-
danger neutrality, he may by
proclamation declare that all ex-
ports to these countries are at
the shippers risk. Senator Pitt
man explained:
"SOme have suggested that
this means that the United
States will not protect its citi-
zens' rights, so I have added a
prOviSO to this effect:
"The United States reserves
its rights on international law
as it existed prior to August /,
1914. And the proclamation
provided for in this section shall
not be deemed nor construed as
q modification, waiver, or aban-
dOnment of any of such right"
This proviso, Senator Pittman
argued, eliminated the reasons for
objections to the provision, and
he added that he felt this matter
was settled amicably now.
Except for these points, Senator
Pittman said there was substan-
tial agreement in the committee
on a permanent neutrality bill.
He said that if it is not reported
to the Senate and passed by Feb
ruary 30, when the existing tenn.
nnrarV law eYnirnS tho lottay. will