Evening star., 1939-10-17

we should keep the munitions which
We manufacture for our own defense
and that we should not ship them
abroad. The answer is: We do not
want these particular munitions. II
we should ever need munitions we
would want the most modern prod
uct Of the experience we are now
gaining at the expense Of the foreign
purchasers. II we should ever need
munitions we would want the Ca
pacity to reproduce and keep the
line coming. We would not want
to be dependent on stores Of obso-
lete planes, for example. There
fore, sale to the allies then and now
is an important element Of our de-
fensive plan.
Rule Of SeK-Defense.
I discuss neutrality only briefly,
because the law of self-defense
transcends other rules Of interna-
tional conduct.
Montesquieu, speaking to us with
venerable accent and profound wis
dom, says:
Reason is the spirit Of the
law; II there be no reason there
is no law"
We are familiar with the rule Of
self defense, which extends to what
ever limit Of action may be neces-
sary.
The reason for this in. domestic
law Is the same for international
law, namely, imperative necessity.
II we were neutral the obligations
on us as a government would not
require us to do what we propose
to do In the way Of embargoing the
intercourse Of our nationals with
other neutrals and belligerents.
Even though international law for
bids the supplying in any manner,
directly or indirectly, by a neutral
power to q belligerent power, Of
arms, ammunition and implements
Of warfare, or Of war material of
any kind whatever, nevertheless, a
neutral power Is not bound to pre-
vent the export or transit, by its
nationals, for the use of either bel
ligerents, of arms, ammunition, or,
In general, Of anything which could
be Of use to an army or fleet.
The rights of a neutral govern
ment are thus less than those of
its nationals.
Peace and Security.
In 1885 and 1887, in connection
with the neutrality legislation, and
during the campaign of 1898, as well
attitude, as a government, has the
I have stated my position publicly,
that 1t would have been better for
this Government to repeal the en-
barge acts and return to interna-
tional law. The foregoing is the
essential part thereof affecting the
pending issue. The record would
have been clearer for posterity. The
attitude Of America would have ac-
corded with her tradition, namely,
an attitude Of independence, though
not isolation. She would have been
free to adapt her action to the
changing circumstances. Since it
has become apparent that this can
not be done, and that the Govern
ment, as such, is about to adhere to
restrictive action which it is not
bound by international law to take,
we are not concerned with the neu-
trality or Immortality of the reso-
luton. We are concerned only with
the fact that 1t is in our interest
as sovereignty and for the peace
and security Of our nationals that
We adopt 1t.
BY the Embargo Act of 1887 our
attitude, as a government, has the
effect Of partiality to Germany. It
Is as effective in interfering with
acquisition of arms, ammunition and
implements of war by the allies as
q blockade successfully maintained
by Germany. Pro tanto, it is as
effective as q fleet of submarines
operating against the allies.
The folly in the act of 1897, which
caused few of us to vote against
1t. is now more widely recognized.
1t undertook to bind the United
States in advance of the event to
course Of action, the need and
the consequence of which we could
not foresee.
Held Deprived Of Rights.
Now, needing the defense value of
speedy victory by the allies, we OBJ
serve our embargo of 1887 operating
against the allies and in favor of
the aggressor.
We now see that we deprive the
allies Of rights belonging to them
by virtue of their geographical posi-
tion. AS we have pointed out, the
exercise of these rights by them
would tend to protect our institu-
tions and our peace. The early
success Of the allies is vitally neces-
sary to keep the unplumbed depths
Of ocean between the aggressor and
us.
To the extent that the proposed