The Skyland post. [volume] (West Jefferson, N.C.) 193?-1988, 1939-09-28
(By Staff Writer)

OSS11 III G1IC OOoC H(0AOAOAA W. SOS--
out the temper of Congress are
swinging toward the belief that
the outcome of the special ses-
sion which began on September
q will be a complete repeal OF
the whole Neutrality Act of 1887.
In any event, that part of the ex-
listing law to which the President
objects most strongly, the prohl-
bition against selling arms and
munitions to any nation at war,
will be wiped off the statute
books, appears practically certain.
That this would work to the
advantage of the British and
French and to the disadvantage
of Germany is conceded by the
supporters of both sides of the
controversy. That aid to the de-
mocracies against the dictator
ships is the purpose OF the Ad-
ministration is also conceded by
both sides.
But the President and the 9TH
ers who favor repeal of the pre-
sent law say that the United
States will be more truly neutral
if it makes no attempt whatever
by law to discriminate between
warning nations, but spreads its
war supplies on the counter and
says to all concerned "come and
get it." If Germany can't pay for
the merchandise Of death and
take it away, that's Germany's
hard luck and not our fault.
Taking Sides
The opponents of the repeal OF
the Neutrality law contend that
to let down the embargo on arms
shipments would amount to TAX
ing sides in a war which may
involve the United States in any
event, but would be much more
certain to involve us if we re-
moved the legal barriers to fur
nish weapons for either side.
The whole question, as Wash
ington observers see it, is cloud
ed by third-term politics. A con-
siderable proportion of the Sena-
tors and Representatives who be-
lieve that the United States
should not discriminate between
customers for war supplies are
opposing the plan to repeal the
arms embargo because of their
fear that public sentiment could
be swayed. by the ancient plea:
s'Never swap horses while cross
ing a stream, and so be inclined
to keep the Executive of the mo-
ment in power.
There is no possible doubt OF
the earnest desire of every mem
Der of the Government, Senators,
Representatives and the President
and all of his aides, to keep
America out of the war. The only
argument is how best to do that.
In his recent radio address,
Col. Charles A. Lindberg survey
ed the European situation unemo-
tionally and expressed with great
clearness the reason why Amerl-
ca should not let itself become IN
volved in European quarrels. He
was expressing his own personal
views, and neither advocated nor
opposed changing the present
neutrality laws. That his appeal
is being quoted by both sides IN
the present controversy in sup
port of their respective beliefs IS
IS good an illustration as any OF
the confusion of thinking on the
part of men who will have to
make the decision in Congress.
Avoiding incidents"
Numerous "diplomatic incl
dents arose in the early days OF
the World War from the deten-
ton by the British of American
ships carrying cargoes to neutral
countries, and the seizure OF ma
nv of such cargoes as contraband
of war.
The Administration is deter
mined that there shall be no such
ssincidents' in this war. No pro-
test has been made, for example,
against the action of the British
in taking several American ships
into port and searching them, and
the seizure of shipment of
American phosphates carried IN
an American ship but destined
for Germany.
President Roosevelt pointed out
in a press conference that the
doctrine of the right Of a nation
at war to seize merchandise in
tended for the enemy, even
though it was first shipped to
neutral nation, was an American
doctrine, first promulgated by the
United States in our own Civil
War, to justify the seizure of
supplies intended for the Con-
federacy, although they had been