Evening star., 1937-03-14
BY JOHN c. HENRY.

From their very beginnings the ma
tions of the world have talked OF
peace and prepared for war.
Today they do likewise with an in
tensity that is alarming to those who
reckon the final costs in blood and
gold. And playing the game accord
ing to the same rules is the United
States, whose people 'love peace and
hate war, and covet no other nations
territory" but who force through rec
ord military appropriations while its
pacificists clamor for neutrality by
mandate
Bounded by the great oceans and
increasingly concerned with the vary
ing health of our International COM
merce, Americas policies of neutrality
have revolved principally around a
traditional insistence upon freedom
of the seas" To protect this free
DOM We have fought wars, most re-
Gently that of l9l4-l7.
War, but No Guarantees.
From that war, as from others, re-
suited nothing in the way of guar
antees that the principles we have
reputedly cherished would be more
scrupuously observed in the future
than in the past. Despite this expert
ence little thought was given the ques-
ton OF revising our neutrality beliefs
during the decade following the war
and as late as January, 1882. the SEN
ate ratified the Havana convention OF
1928 in which was contained many Of
the old rules of maritime law.
Something Of departure in pra actice
had occurred, however, in 1881, when
the United States co-operated closely
with the League of Nations in con-
Slderation of Japan's action in Man.
churia and this was followed in August
1882, by the public contention of Sec
retary OF State Stimson, and advocate
OF cooperative action by nations. that
the Kellogg pact OF 1923 had DESTROYED
the basis upon which previous doc
trlnes Of neutrality were predicated.
Principle Endorsed in Politics.
In the Fall of that year both major
political parties indorSed the principle
OF consultation among nations and
this shifting Of opinion was climaxed
IN May, 1888, when Ambassador Davis
told the Disarmament Conference at
Geneva that if reduction of arma-
mentS were effected by general inter
national agreement this country would
consult with other states In case of a
threat to peace. Furthermore, and of
increasing significance, he told the
conference that in cases of agreement
as TO designation of an aggressor the
United States would refrain from anv
actlon tending to defeat" collective
measures taken by other states to re-
store peace Application of such A
policy would make the principle ~
freedom Of the seas distinctly Sill
oorolnate in determining Americas
conduct toward belligerents.
In the Spring of 1884, public inter
est IN the question of overhauling our
neutrality policy was sharpened some
what by magazine article written
by Charles Warren, who as Assistant
Attorney General had been in charge
OF enforcement of American neutrality
laws and obligations from 1914 to
1917 An excerpt from Warren's
article follows:
In order to avoid friction and COM
plcatlons with the belligerents. it
(unlted States must be prepared to
impose upon the actions of its citizens
greater restrictions than international
law requires. 1t must also be prepared
to rellnqulsh many rights which it has
heretofore claimed and asserted. and
to yield to contentious by belligerents,
hitherto denied by it, with respect to
interference with the trade and travel
OF its citizens on the high seas II the
interests of the belligerents seem to
them so to require"
Arms Probe Gave Impetus.
In the same Spring. war clouds
began to pile up on the European hori-
zon and questions Of neutrality became
news
Additional impetus followed through