Evening star., 1937-01-10
BY BENNETT CHAMP CLARK,

BY BENNETT CHAMP CLARK,
u. s. Senator from Missouri.
r BELIEVE the people Of the United
States are more interested in
keeping our country out of war
L than almost any other one thing.
In fact, I have never seen such
unanimity of sentiment on any one
question.
Most people realize that some sacri-
fees must be made if we are to do
this. Certainly all who have thought
about its possibilities do.
To accomplish it we must cheer
fully sacrifice the chance for quick
and big profits, the possible temporary
expansion Of our exports and resulting
employment at good wages for persons
who might otherwise engage in max
ing war exports. We must deprive
American ships of cargoes that would
pay excellent freight rates. We must
deprive American bankers and investors
Of profitable commissions and high in
terest investments. We must not per-
init American insurance companies to
underwrite war risks, no matter how
| attractive the rates.
In the long run, I am sure 1t will
be cheaper-that every one concerned
in America will be better off-even
flnancially-to say nothing about hu-
man suffering, loss of life and the
other horrible consequences Of our
being dragged into another war.
1t was profitable exports, the high
interest loans, the war risk insurance;
yes, even universal employment at
high wages and high prices for our
farm products which dragged us into
| the World War in 1917 and is also
largely responsible for the depression
and agony from which we are emerg-
ing.
Must Pay the Price.
We want something which is very
real and very dear to our people
peace-and We must be willing to pay
the price for it; though We can be
comforted by the fact the price rep
resents real bargain. The quick
profits Of war exports and other un-
neutral activities come home to roost
almost inevitably.
There are two schools Of thought
| about the best way to go about neu-
trality legislation. One is to permit
the President to exercise discretion,
not only as to what may not be ex-
ported following the outbreak of any
war which threatens to involve the
United States, but as to which nations
may and which nations may not re-
ceive war supplies decided to be con-
| traband.
My own belief, and I think that of
a majority of the Senate and House,
is that the less discretion vested in any
governmental agency the better. We
must have a fact-finding authority.
and that authority should be the Pres
ident. We must leave to his judg-
ment the decision of when a war
threatens to involve the neutrality of
the United States. That is a fact
hnding function. Some one has to
do it. The President is the proper
person.
But to give the President discretion,
Tor example, as to which is the ag-
gressor in this war which may arise
Is very dangerous power. Its exercise
would be an act Of war. Its exercise
would tend to drag the United States
into the conflict rather than keep it
| out
Terrific Pressure Likely.
Moreover, such discretionary power
would subject the President needlessiy,
to terrific pressure. Every possible in
fluence would be brought to bear on
him to hold that nation A was the
aggressor. and, therefore, We should
permit shipments to nation B. can
not exaggerate this, for I think the
pressure would be overwhelming and
intolerable. It will be bad enough
even on the question Of fact finding
Of deciding when a war threatens to
involve our neutrality.
Such permissive legislation, more
over. leads us directly into the League
| OF Nations by the back door route. If
we are going to join the League Of
Nations in the interest of world peace,
we should go in the front door.
We have perfect illustration Of
the folly Of this permissive policy in
the recent Italo-Ethiopian mess, when
Premier Laval of France and Sir
Samuel Hoare attempted to coerce
Italy by the threat Of cutting of her
supplies of oil. Mussolini replied that
such blockade would be an act of
war and intimated what might hap
pen to the British fleet in the Medi-
terranean. France and Britain backed
down, with considerable loss of pres
tige.
Permissive neutrality legislation
leads inevitably to sanctions, and we
know Just how dangerous sanctions
are.
The argument against any embargo
Of war supplies, especially arms,
ammunition and the implements Of
war-the language used in the pres
ent temporary LAWS that manufac-
turers thinking Of this profitable busi-
ness will thereupon locate their plants