Evening star., 1939-09-23
Neutrality Fight
Emphasizes Changes
In Thought Since 1916
Freedom Of the Seas
Then Crux Of Issue,
As Embargo Is Now
BY J. A. O'LEARY.

The impending congressional bat
tle over neutrality will be, in some
respects, a revival of issues that
stirred the halls of Congress %
years ago, but in its detailed fea-
lures 1t promises to present a de-
cidedly different formula for keep
Ing this country out of the war.
While the fight will center around
repeal of the arms embargo. the
new legislation being outlined by
administration Senators calls for an
aIl-inclusive cash-and-carry rule,
prohibiting shipment of any articles
10 belligerents in Americans ships,
h hardly to be compared with the
freedom of -the-seas doctrine of the
previous crisis.
Another major point Of discord
h 1916 that appears to be out OF
the picture entirely in this legisla-
tive battle Of 1889 is the question OF
whether American citizens should
travel on belligerent ships passing
through the war zone.
Warning Voted Down Then.
In 1915 debate resounded through
both branches of Congress over this
latter phase of the neutrality prob
lem, reaching climax when the
House, on March 7 Of that year.
sidetracked by a vote of 276 to 142
the McLemore resolution, which
would have requested President Will
son to warn Americans to refrain
from travelling on armed merchant
ships.
Consider the situation today, to
see how far the trend of thought
has changed in 20 years on that
particular issue.
The existing neutrality act con-
tains a prohibition against citizens
of this country crossing the ocean
on belligerent ships, except in ac-
cordance with rules and regulations
as the President shall prescribe.
And, even though the act contains
a proviso withholding the ban for
80 days in the case of homeward-
bound Americans who were in Eu-
rope when hostilities began, recent
dispatches indicate representatives
of this Government nevertheless
have taken the precaution of re-
minding citizens of the risk in
volved in returning on the vessels of
belligerents.
That the administration has no
intention of altering this recently
invoked safeguard against war
provoking incidents, is indicated
by this excerpt from President
Roosevelt's message to Congress
Thursday:
THE second objective is to prevent
American citizens from travelling on
belligerent vessels or in danger areas.
This can also be accomplished
either by legislation, through con-
tinuance in force of certain pro-
visions of existing law, or by procla-
nation making it clear to all Ameri-
cans that any such travel is at their
own risk"
Wilson Undertook Negotiations.
This issue came to head in the
House in March. 1916, while the Will
son administration was conducting
diplomatic negotiations with the
warning nations with a view to
settling the question of the rights of
Americans on such ships.
The proceedings indicate that
House leaders wanted to bring the
question to prompt vote because
the administration felt the mere fact
that the resolution was pending was
heinp internreted in foreipn canita1s
as sign that Congress was not
with the President. Addressing the
House before it voted in 1916 to lay
on the table the resolution seeking
to warn Americans off belligerent
ships, Representative Pou of North
Carolina said:
1T is well known that this Gov
ernment had insisted and was in
sisting that Americans had the right
to travel upon ships armed for de-
fensive purposes, inasmuch as such
right had been exercised for CEN
turies under international law rec
ognized by the civilized nations of
the world.
Warning by Two Powers.
AT the time of the introduction
Of this resolution two of. the great
powers now at war had informed
neutral powers of their determine
ton to attack without warning after
February 20 all armed vessels of
their enemies, even though such