Coulee City dispatch. [volume] (Coulee City, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1937-05-27
||I|||||E|!;|S|E||5''$|;||''||;K|j3 = =
[; ;& Gia III 5 Al a a&ka&lA l N EsfR f5i{f:f=EE

Voollk11S JILL 4SoAASALt way
from the time he was Assistant Sec
.,. rotary of the Navy
Building in the Wilson adj
the Navy ministration, has
always been re-
garded as a friend of the military
forces of the United States. He has
never been a fanatic about his posi-
ton but has held consistently to the
view that the military services must
be protected against continuing po-
litical attack which would destroy
their usefulness. Likewise, Mr..
Roosevelt has constantly argued for
a policy of building up the army,
navy and marine corps.
Since he has been in the White
House, Mr.. Roosevelt has taken
care always to see that sound poll
cies of development were invoked
as regards the military services and
his interest in the navy in this di-
rection has been marked. In con-
sequence, the President has brought
about a program of building in the
navy that, examined from any an
gle, must be considered as having
established a splendid first line of
defense for our country. Whether
one favors a big navy or a small
navy, I think it must be admitted
that the navy is the first line of de-
Tense and so the President, being
fully acquainted with developments
throughout the world, has seen to it
that our navy shall be in a strong
position as first line of defense.
1t may be, as some critics of the
President contend, that the hun
dreds of millions expended under
Mr.. Roosevelt's policies constituted
too much of a fund in this direction;
that we have no need for a navy as
large as that now contemplated, and
that the creation of a large navy in
Dictated a policy of aggression by
the United States. My WI feeling
is that these objections are not well
founded. The turbulent situation in
international relations, both in Eu-
rope and in Asia, seems to warrant
a definite move on the part of the
United States to be equipped. In
other words, who is there that would
wish u nation again to be caught
without any worthwhile fighting
units ready for action as we were
in 1917? Further, although we are
a peaceful nation, we must avoid a
repetition of the 1917 conditions be-
cause we can not afford the waste
of money that characterized the
building up of our armed forces at
that time.
One reason for the comments that
I have just made on the navy and
President Roose-
Neutrality velt's policies is
Law the fact that we
have a new neu-
trality law. 1t was passed just a
day ahead of the expiration of the
temporary neutrality law that was
operative during the past year or
so.
This new law probably is as good
as any neutrality law that can be
written. It represents the work of
men in congress who are very Sc
rious in their desires to create ma
chinery that will keep us out of war,
or at least will slow down our en-
try into International conflict.
1t lays down prohibitions against
the sale of hundreds of items by
American citizens or American cor
porations to any nation which the
President may hold to be a "bel-
%ligerent" nation, which is the way
diplomats describe a nation at war.
The law has a further important
and interesting provision. 1t re-
quires that if any belligerent wants
to buy products in this country,
commodities that are not prohibited
by the neutrality law, it must come
to our shores and get them and
must pay for them before the boat
leaves. Thus, it has come about
that the new law is called the "cash
and carry" neutrality act.
That title sounds very satisfying.
1t sounds as though we will never
make loans again as we did during
the World war-loans never to be
repaid except in some minor in
stances-and that none of our ships
will become the targets of foreign
gunboats because we are transport
ing munitions of war. to any bellig-
erent. Surely, this phase of the law
will in a measure retard u en-
trance into any war and it will at
the same time reduce the excite
ment in this country incident to
the manufacture and sale of NUM-
tons of war because of the profits
accruing under such circumstances.
But, it strikes me that, after all,
this neutrality law is likely to be a
rather futile gesture. Having OBJ
served governmental action over an
extended period of years, I refuse
to kid myself. l will not say thai
the new neutrality act will keep us
out of war because, very definite.
ly, it will not.
Let us see why. There are q
thousand and one acts that a for.
eign nation can do to insult our ma.
tional honor or damage our citizens
and their commerce. These are
1o11ol Ssoxyorf,t oo4c UULo, ~ o,,orI