Evening star., 1937-08-25
This t the second OF ttpo articles
on the neutrality act and the Far
Eastern CRISIS.
BY CRESTON b. MULLINS.

Shall the United States stand
strictly neutral between warning ma
tions, regardless Of the justice of their
cause, or shall the country set out as
a self-appointed policeman to punish
the sins Of nations?
The answer to that question rests
with Mr.. Roosevelt and his State De-
partment advisers. But from the
manner in which the neutrality act
originated and the events which
marked its enactment may be derived
some clue as to the tnclinations Of
the man who must decide.
Mr.. Roosevelt's regime has been
anything but isolationist. His friend
illness toward the League Of Nations
and toward the principle Of collective
security is we'll known. From the
start of his administration in 1898
his attentions have been directed to-
ward practical cooperation in the
settlement of world problems. But
being under no illusions as to. the
possibility, or even the desirability,
of bringing the United States into the
League, he has followed a course of
cooperation with the League, OF re-
moving as completely As possible any
distractions America might present
to the effectiveness Of collective peace
agencies.
U. S.-League Conflict.
The chief hindrance for the League
existed IN the conflict between Article
XVI OF the covenant and the tradi-
tional American policy Of maintain
lngs so-called rights OF neutrals," i"
which meant freedom of the seas. "
1t was the scuttling Of this doctrine,
as old as the Republic, which Mr..
Roosevelt undertook in order to per.
nit the League in case Of need, in
accordance with Article XVI, to cut
of all commercial and economic re-
lationships of aggressors and non.
members of the League. Enectual
sanctions under Article XVI required
that the United States not insist on
Its right to trade freely and openly
with all nations, belligerent or not
In Nay, 1888, Norman Davis, bid
ding for French support for a dis
armament agreement at the Geneva
conference, undertook for the Roose-
velt administration the pledge that
the United States would refrain from
aiding an aggressor, and:
In the event that the states.
IN conference. determine that q state
has been guilty Of a breach Of the
peace IN violation Of its Internal ational
obligations and take measures against
the violator: then, if We (the United
States) concur in the judgment rem
dered as to the responsible and guilty
party, we will refrain from any action
tending to defeat such collective effort
which these states may thus make to
restore peace"
Neutrality Statement Promised.
At the same time Mr.. Davis prom
Hed the conference statement from
the United States on its neutrality
policy as follows:
In the event that 4 decision is
taken by conference Of the powers
In consultation In determining the
aggressor with which, on the basis of
its Independent judgment, the Gov
eminent Of the United States agreed,
the Government Of the United States
Will undertake to refrain from any
action and to withhold protection
from its citizens II engaged in activi-
ties which would tend to defeat the
collective effort which the states In
consultation might have decided upon
agains the aggressor"
The important part of this state
ment Is the promise ito withhold pro-
lection from its citizens II engaged
in activities which tend to defeat the
collective effort which the states in
consultation might have decided
upon ="
Here was q specific offer within
the flrst three months Of the Roose-
velt regime to abandon long insisted
upon rights Of neutrak," chief of
which was the tnviolability Of neutral
trade in non-contraband with bellig-
erents and other neutrak.
Failure Of the disarmament confer
enoe the following year did not deter
the decision to cooperate with the
world peace machinery.
Announcement In May, 1884.
In May, 1884, it was announced that
American neutrality policy was in
process Of modification with posi-
bility Of legislation to secure the
changes. It was not until the Ethi-
opian war threatened in 1885 that q
makeshift neutrality bill was jammed
through Congress and not until May
OF this year that discretionary neu-