Evening star., 1938-03-26
DEBATERS ASSA|L
i j. S. NEUTRALITY
Only G. w. U. Out of Four
Schools Favors Move as
Step for Peace.

Neutrality as an American foreign
policy was assailed on three sides in
q no-decision debate at George Wash
ington University last night.
Introducing a novel four-cornered
form Of debate, speakers from the
University of Puerto Rico, Cornell and
the University of Virginia attacked
the present neutrality act and pre-
sented variety of substitutes, most
OF which suggested some sort of agree
ment with England.
... John p Southmayd and Charles E.
Corker, speaking for G. W., outlined
the present neutrality legislation and
defended its provisions as a major
step toward peace for America. 1t
Is not perfect, they agreed, but is
nevertheless the best thing so far"
Under the procedure followed, the
debate was opened and closed by q
g. w. speaker, the other schools being
represented in turn by a round of
first and then second speakers. Sena-
tor Thomas Of Utah presided.
Sees No Guarantee.
Firing the opening gun, Mr.. South
fnayd lauded the neutrality law, but
insisted that mo legislation can be
enacted that can guarantee against
war"
AS first speaker for Cornell George
E. Maxcy cited the large trade and
investment stakes of America abroad
and developed his teams thesis that
the answer to the problem is in oppor-
tunist alliances.
We can't crawl into the shell Of
neutrality" he declared. We're too
big-too important
Juan Rodriguez then took the floor
TOR the University of Puerto Rico and
urged an alliance with England as the
solution to the preservation of peace.
o First Line of Defense.
England is the first line of defense
Tor the United States in the East" he
asserted. I'VE must be allied to her
both politically and economically"
j. H. Michael, speaking for Vir-
ginia, debunked both isolation and
collective action as impractical and
urged a middle-of-the- course
which would leave the United States
the freedom of action it had in 1914.
John A. Westmore of Cornell, lead
OF man for the second round of
speakers, ridiculed the presidential
discretion provided in the act for in
voking of neutrality. 1t is being in
voked in Spain but not in China, he
charged, and is therefore discrim-
tnatory.
I'VE must maintain policies that
are opportune and practical" he in
sisted.
Luis Berries of Puerto Rico inter-
preted the arguments of G. w. and
Cornell to support his theory Of
alliance with England while debunking
the Virginia freedom of action theory
Is impractical.
Alliance With England.
The cash and carry clause in the
neutrality law praised by G. W., he
said, was tantamount to tacit alliance
with England because no one but Eng
land had the ships and money to
come over here, pay cash and trans
port goods across the seas.
Taking up the Cornell argument for
opportunist alliances, he eliminated
nations one by one, leaving only Eng
land as the logical opportunist ally.
Freedom of action is incompa tible
with the present interdependence of
nafjnnS hn occopfnI ~. -
the Virginia argument.
Samuel K. c. Hopper of Virginia
suggested a temporary alliance with
England as golden mean and Mr..
Corker OF G. w. closed the debate sup
porting the neutrality act and urging
live and let live in international
affairs"
Questions From Floor.
Following the speeches. questions
were invited from the floor, the greater
part of which were directed at the
Puerto Ricans as strong advocates OF
. British alliance.
rs not an alliance with England
contrary to doctrines Of our fore
fathers?" asked one.
Maybe so." replied Mr.. Rodriguez
with shrug, $50 what?"
We'll, wouldn't we be getting the
small end Of the bargain in such an
alliance?" queried another.
"oh, no." retorted Mr.. Rodriguez
haven't you heard about the British
Navy?"