Evening star., 1937-10-10
By CREsTON B. MULLINS.


world peace agencies is the broad
question posed not only for the League
OF Nations and the coming nine
power conference, but for the Ameri-
can public as veil.
Whether we do, in fact, cooperate
IN forceful action-economic or po-
litical-to tame Japan depends chiefly
upon the extent to which the Ameri-
can people and their representatives
In Congress are willing to redeem the
assurance given by Mr.. Roosevelt
that the United States would be found
on the side of a concerted effort for
peace.
Skepticism Of Great Britain and
France in the ability of the American
President to lead his country into
paths which the American people
enunned for nearly two decades has
already become manifest, in spite of
the jubilant welcome accorded the
Presidents speech at Chicago and the
subsequent denunciation of Japan as
an aggressor by the State Depart
ment.
Fiasco Recalled.
Good grounds for such skepticism
exist, of course, in the decisive veto
which the voting strength of the
country slapped onto Woodrow Will
sons signat ture of the Versailles peace
treaty and the League of Nations.
It was the memory of that f1asco
which the German foreign Office.
through its official newspaper, hurled
back at President Roosevelt in reply
to his speech.
The repetition Of such q veto is
not beyond the realm of possibility
In the present instance, wherein the
overwhelming sentiment of the coun-
try is contrary to any action which
Is likely to involve the United States
In the Far Eastern mess.
In spite of general sympathy with
China and adherence for the bandit
methods of the Japanese military,
there continues to be. as there was
during the genesis of the neutrality
act last Winter and Spring. de-
termination by the vast majority of
Americans not to be drawn into
another war.
There is equal determination by
the Chief Executive, as evidenced in
numerous speeches and executions of
policy. to keep the United States at
peace, but, whereas the former looks
upon the question of peace in its
immediate aspect, that is, non-in-
volvement at this particular moment.
the latter aims by supporting the
peaceful elements in the world, to
prevent ultimate, more disastrous con-
nict.
Popular sentiment weighs chiefly
the threat of war in the single case
Of the Japanese aggression in China;
President Roosevelt and Secretary of
State Hull weigh the long-term pros
poets for peace or war and act on the
belief that later, when the forces of
aggression become more powerful, res
toration Of peace may be far more
costly in lives and money.
The issue at this moment, then, is
whether and how far this country
will stand by the offer its President
has made to the agencies of collective
peace-the League of Nations and the
nine power pact signatories - or
whether it will assume Britain's role of
1882 and renege after other nations
have decided upon forceful measures
to halt aggression.
If effect is to be given to the pro-
posal for a quarantine" of aggressor
nations much more than moral pres
sure may be required. as is indicated
by renewed bombings of Chinese
civilians in the face of condemnation
by the League and the State Depart
ment, together with the Japanese an
nouncement that its armed forces are
now prepared to crush China.
Present powers Of the President are
adequate to permit him to cooperate
passively with an initiative taken by
collective peace agencies. but active
cooperation with strong quarantine"
measures would necessitate supple
mentary action by Congress This
body, rejecting the Nations desire for
continued American peace. would be
reluctant to undertake a course which
might bring this country into war.
Hostile Voices Rise.
The existence of some hostility in
Congress to present American foreign
policy has already appeared from
Senators Nye and Borah. representa-
tive of large group Of isolationist
legislators in telephone interviews
with G. Gould Lincoln appearing in
The Star last week.
The authority OF the President to
put the United States into active CO.
operation with economic or political
measures against aggressors is def
nitely limited to his prerogative of
withdrawing the protection of the
United States Government from its
nationals and their interests abroad
and to the discretionary powers given
him under the neutrality act, which
permit him. under certain conditions,
to cooperate passively with sane
tions.
Being head of the executive branch
OF the Government the President is
responsible for the activities of the
Army. Navy and diplomatic service,
the three agencies of protection of
Americans abroad. Consequently. it
Is up to him to decide whether they
viii be used to maintain the rights
Of Americans in zones of warfare.
The President already has provided
. precedent for the withdrawal Of
protection by warning American
traders In the foreign field at the
start Of the Ethiopian invasion that
they would henceforth do business
with Italy and Ethiopia at their own
risk. This not only struck at in
creased sales Of raw materials to
italy. which was held the aggressor
by the League, but it diminished the
possibility of dispute with members
OF the League which might later have
been enforcing by military power
economic sanctions imposed by the
Geneva body.
Much the same sort Of thing might
happen in the Far Eastern conflict