Evening star., 1939-10-16

| terlty. TheSe 10.
Charles G. Ross. cutions run all
the way from Senator Nye's i'm
passioned America, for Heavens
sake, do not take this first step"
to the same Senator's likening OF
Americas position, if we repeal the
embargo, to the position of Mac
beth, who started something that
seemed safe and simple, even if
somewhat criminal, and then discov-
cred that he had reached a point
where it was more bloody to go back
than to go forward"
The cleverness of Senator Nye and
his anti-repeal co-workers in find
ing new words for the same thought
cannot cover up the essential thin
ness of the argument or prevent its
repetition from becoming tiresome.
1t was refreshing, therefore, when
Senator Norris rose in his place the
other day to puncture one of Sem
ator Nye's rhetorical bubbles. Now
do not suppose there Is anybody
in the Senate more filled with the
milk of human kindness or more
eager to keep the United States
out of war than the Senator from
| Nebraska. Nor, since he and Sem
ator Nye have fought side by side in
many progressive causes, is there
anybody in the Senate more likely
to hear with forbearance any argu-
ment that the Senator from North
Dakota might care to present on
any issue. On this occasion, a SYM
pathetic interchange between Sem
ators Nye and Lundeen brought
Norris impatiently to his feet. He
saw in their remarks the possible
implication that everybody who is
in favor of repeating the embargo
clause wants to send American boys
to Europe" and it angered him. II
there was no such implication, he
wanted to know what was the ob.
ject of Nye's argument.
First Step" Argument Hit.
Nye said there was no suggestion
that anybody wanted to take the
United States into war, but he re-
| turned to the old assertion that to
repeal the embargo would be step
on the road to war.
Norris replied: THE argument is
continually made that our proposed
action constitutes to first step and
that it is going to be followed by
others that will lead us inevitably
into the war With that conten-
tion do not agree for one moment.
A Senator or any other individual
has a right to believe that if he
wants to believe it, but to say that
this is the first step toward getting
our country into the war is, to my
mind, making a charge which is
without any foundation whatever"
This is the answer, in nutshell,
to the main argument, or conten-
ton, that is being advanced against
repeal of the embargo. To put in
few words what Senator Nye and
others have spread over many pages
Of the Congressional Record, the
| contention is that the sale of arms
to belligerent nations will give us
stake in the war that will take us
into the war on the side of the
allies against Germany. Is this
overstating what the anti-repeal
orators are saying? Listen to Sem
ator Nye: "Frenchmen and Eng
lishmen know today that If we re-
peal the arms embargo we commit
ourselves. We did so before. I do
not know how we will avoid doing
so again"
If They Do. They're Wrong.
The answer is that Frenchmen
and Englishmen know nothing of
the sort. If they know, or believe,
anything of the sort, they have only
to look at the record of the Senate
debate to see how profoundly mis-
taken they are. Lord Lothian, the
British Ambassador, is naturally not
giving out interviews on the sub
Ject, but enough is known of his
capacity for observation and analy-
Sis to know that he is not telling
his government that repeal of the
arms embargo will commit this
country to war.
The argument of the Nye group
rests on premise composed of two
parts: The first that it was our war
trade, primarily if not wholly, that
got us into the last war; the second
that war trade will again draw us
In. History, 1t Is said, will repeat
itself. But the argument rests on a
distorted reading of history. The
war-trade theory which Senators
Nye and Clark and others have so
assiduously put forward is an over
simpliflcaton of the facts; read Prof.
Seymour on the other side. or 90
back to the files of American news
papers for the public's reaction to
Germanys unrestricted submarine
warfare. But even If it be assumed
that the Nye theory is correct, where
Is the ground for believing that we
are going to be gulled again as Nye
says we were in 1917? Finally, the
argument collapses under the weight
OF the fact that trade in arms will
be less than one fifth of our total
trade with the belligerent nations,
anc that nobody is seriously propos-
ing ban on the remainder-more
than four-fifths.
Senator Nye has gone so far as to
say that If he had to make the
choice he would prefer the existing
law with the embargo, without cash.
and-carry, to a law providing for
cash-and-carry but no embargo.
That is to say, We should be safer. in
his opinion, with American ships
sailing all the seas with American
goods, bought either with cash or
credit, just so we retained the arms
embargo, than we should be under
the pending proposal to take Amer
ican ships out of danger zones and
put all goods under cash-and-carry.
Anything, he says, to retain the
arms embargo! That is a position
that Is simply incomprehensible.