Imperial Valley press., 1937-01-26
News Behind the News
Neutrality Legislation Types Some
times We Mean 1t And Sometimes
We Don't Mean 1t :.
WASHINGTON. Most forecasts as to the

WASHINGTON - Most forecasts as to the
type of neutrality legislation which congress
win pass at this session indicate that Sometmes
We will mean it and sometimes won't.
Experts who have revealed their views on
the problem usually are convinced eitner tnal
there is no such thing as neutrahty or tnat, even
If there is there's little chance of this country
ever keeping completely aloof from big war
through legislation
There is SO much difference on these and
numerous other points that many OF the peopie
who feel most. strongly about keeping OUT VI
war are all mixed up.
Some of them feel that the United STATES
can't help having economic and polticai IN
terest in any big Others fear that the
fact no neutrality policy can operate impartial
" is always likely to drag us into trouble against
our will, because theren always be chance
that some nation will feel our policy is discrl-
minating against It,
One vociferous school of thought holds that
only mandatory legislation automatically en-
bargoing implements of war to belngerent ma
tions, along with other safeguards can keep
us at peace. ,
allow the president and the state department
considerable dscretion in invoking such safe
guards Even those shouting loudest for man.
datory' legislation admit the president should
have some discretion over embargoes as 10 war
supplies other than munitions.
Although one principle of mandatory leglS-
lation would be that whatever embargoes were
declared should be enforced against all belhger-
ents one need only recall our shipments OF
supplies to the Allies when Germany was block
AIDED; our consideration of embargoing oil In
the Italo- Ethiopian war, when only Italy would
have suffered; and the recent embargo on arms
to Spain, which injured only the Spanish gov
ernnient, to see another large avenue to pos
sibe complications.
One large group in Washington, without say
ing anything about it, wants no neutrality
which would tie our hadS in case England and
the British Empire were threatened with de-
struction There is much such feeling in the
state department where foreign policy has long
shown tendency to follow the British lead.
Some sentiment may enter into this atti-
tude but it's most of all based on the idea that
our biggest ace in the hole in foreign relations
is friendship with England, that we would need
the British fleet on our side if We ever had
war with Japan Gas most navy men are sure
we WILD. and that if England were conquered
our international position would be very weak.
As opposed to the mandatory neutrality ad-
yocates who say no president should be trusted
with the power to discriminate against one belli-
aerent even when laying down the same policy
as to both belgerents, groups favoring discre-
tonary laws variously argue that Congress can
nJc foresee the nature of emergencies likely to
arise in its absence that America shouldn't
give up its chance to be influence in world
effairs through threat of economic pressure,
Rressors and that shouldn't injure peace
time trade by persuading prospective belliger-
ents to develop other markets.
These are only few of the angles to the
neutrality problem. But they may be worth
remembering.