The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-05-13


 Perhaps it is forgivable, there fore, if we summarize herewith .an argument we have had with one whom we admire and respect, an F argument as to whether or not the secretary of state is violating the Neutrality Act and a treaty by permitting the shipment of arms to Germany.
 Let it be stated in advance that the authors of The Merry Round ordinarily do not, con- slider 1t any business of theirs to argue about State Department Policy. They endeavor to be reporters, not debaters. But they do make it their business to report important matters taking place in any branch of the government, including any violation of the law by any government official, when they are absolutely convinced that such has taken place.
 And after several days of vig- orous debate, plus public denials by the secretary of state, we still are convinced that he has been violating the law in allowing arms to be shipped to Germany.
 Reasons Why
 There are several reasons for this conviction, and here are some of them:
 A. The question of possible treaty violation was called to the attention of the State Department one week before publication of our arms charges. (Mr. Hull an-. nounced publicly that we had. taken him by surprise.) However, his associates had ample advance notice, and their rather involved and hastily prepared legal ex- planation was submitted by us to lawyers in other branches of the government and to interna tional experts on the outside, who re- main convinced that the law is being violated.
 B. Inside word now is that be- cause of present embarrassment there will be a shake-up in the State Departments legal staff. c. MT. Hull himself got a little mixed up in his explanations as to why it was legal for the United States to ship arms to Germany. Crossed Reasons r'a
 In all he gave three different reasons at different times.
 1st, MT. Hull used the explana- tion supplied him by his legalists, namely that although the Treaty of 1921 with Germany provided that Germany should import no arms, there was no obligation to prevent the United States from selling her the prohibited goods. Thus although Germany is violat- ing the Treaty of 1921, the legal ists argued, the United States was not.
 In citing this, MT. HulPs ex- perts apparently ignored the fact that the Neutrality Act is quite clear that export licenses shall not be issued by the State Department in any case "where eXportation of arms, ammuni- ton, or implements of war would be in violation ... of a treaty to which the United States is a party"
 In other words, Congress did not specify that either one coun- try or the other might violate treaty, but only that the treaty should no be violated at all.
 When this was called to MT. Hull's attention, plus a statement made by him in 1884 that he would look upon the sale of arms to Germany with grave disap- proval," he shifted his position.
 (2nd) At this point MT. Hull maintained that Germany had scrapped the arms provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and since these were the same provisions embodied in our separate treaty with Germany, the United States was justified in ignoring them, (3rd) On the day foilowing,. MT. Hull brought out g new excuse, namely that the arms shipments to Germany were infinitesimal in amount Ca total of $1, ,689, ,O95.11 in about two years) and that this was not worth worrying about.
 If this logic were followed
 through, Germany's ability to
 buy arms in the United States
 would be limited only by her ca
 pacity to pay for and take de-
 livery of them.
 American Graves
 Real fact is that MT. Hull in all past public statements has been one of the greatest cham /: pions of the sanctitys of treaties. He has maintained that they are