The Washington times., 1937-08-04

BOake Carter
Dangerous Neutrality
Our Foolish Idealists
The American Mistake

A LREADY we are getting into
"A deep and dangerous water
over our neutrality act passed
last spring.
Many people have been ham,
mering at the Administration to
clamp down the principles Of
this act and have the President
declare a state of war as exist
ing between Japan and China.
Senator Key Pittman, chair
man of the Foreign Relations
Committee, rebukes thes
critics. He says the act was
created to promote the safety
of the United States and not
with the object of helping or
hindering some other nation at
war.
He points out that invocation
of the act would encourage
Japan to Immediately clamp a
blockade on all Chinese ports,
without any formal declaration
of war on the part of Tokyo.
Japan would pass the buck and
say: Hasn't America de-
clared a state of war exiStS?"
The United States would then
be out on the end of a limb and
would have to assume RESPONSE
bility before the world, with all
the probable grim consequences,
of having declared a war was in
progress in the Orient.
Instead OF being neutral we
would be completely destroying
our neutrality.
There Is not the slightest
doubt that both President Roose-
welt and Secretary Hull are on
the right track in moving most
carbohydrates the Neutral
ity Act that is now in effect.
Those who demand the Presi-
dent rush forward impetuously
are foolish idealists who have
not studied closely the fallacies
of the Neutrality Act.
1t is not the President who is
to be cenSured, but the Neutral
ity Act itself.
Before its passage many real
lists warned that it would land
us in hot water Immediately it
was put to the test of a crisis
somewhere in the world, because
it was discretionary legislation
and attempted further to abro-
gate unto ourselves the mad
principle of saying when we
think war is on somewhere in
the world.
In the first place, what right
have we, as one unit among all
the nations of the world, to
patronizingly declare when we
consider other people are at
war?
Reverse the procedure. Sup
pose the United States and
Mexico experienced strained re-
lations again, to such point
where we sent punitive expedi-
tons into Mexico, and Mexican
troops fought against our own
soldiers. What would be the
sentiments of Americans, If
Great Britain, suddenly, with
great JUNCTION and loneliness,
rose to announce to all the world
that she, Great Britain, con-
sidered the row between the
United States and Mexico was
formal war?
Probably the American answer
would be Who the hell do you
think you are?" and that answer
would be a justifiable one. In
like manner Japan would be
fully justified if she exploded
with similar answer If the United
States took it upon herself to
inform the world that there was
formal war going on between
Japan and China.
Our mistake lies in outlining a
policy which attempts to tell
somebody else what he is doing,
instead of a policy which tells
our own nationals what they
may or may not expect.
y Il
Today, Americas neutrality
hangs precariously in the bal
ance as it did in the days Of
1914, when We had no neutrality
policy worth talking about.
Under the present act the
President is virtually barred
from declaring a state of war