Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1939-07-13

especially by nations processing to be
friendly or pretending to be decent.
"The denunciation arose out of the
fact that the duly elected Represen-
tatives of the American Congress
failed to determine the question under
consideration in harmony with the
selfish interests of France. This at
tack upon the action of the House
was probably inspired and greatly
accumulated by reason of the public
speech of the French Foreign Min
lister, Bonnet, made at the very time
when the neutrality bill was being
considered, in which he insisted that
we abandon our traditional foreign
policy, urged that it was the duty of
the United States to become associ-
ated in the foreign affairs of Europe
and the conflicts of European nations
and to disregard henceforth the teach
ings of Washington and Jefferson and
their successors, and to follow the
leadership and accept the principles
of the noble precepts born of the
sublime deeds which now enshrine
Munich in everlasting forgetfulness.
"Mr. President, you can search his
tory in vain and you will not find
such utter disregard of respect and
decency upon the part of one nation
toward another processing friendship,
except perhaps in instances where
the nation has wholly forfeited all
self-respect or lost all regard for its
own rights, or is so powerless as was
Czechoslovakia to protect itself.
"Thus, we have this situation. The
representatives of the American peo-
pie are considering one of the most
important matters which could come
before them, the neutrality bill. BY
majority vote it is determined that
certain course of action should be
taken, and the official representatives
of a foreign country, its press, de-
nounce this action of the American
Congress and call upon our people to
repudiate the action of the Congress,
to reject the traditional foreign policy
of our country, and to accept the pol
icy of foreign power. And this
request is made in terms of autocratic
contempt.
"'What is the difference between
the dictators and the democracies in
Europe when international affairs
are at stake?
For illustration, what was the diff
ference in policy between the dicta-
tors and democracies at Munich?
wherein did they differ in their
foreign policy, or principles-and we
are not concerned with their interna-
tional policy? When the hour came
for the dictators and the democracies
to join in an international movement
of stupendous moment, that is, to de-
stroy, to literally murder, the one
real democracy in Europe, what was
the distinction in the principles ap-
piled by the dictators and the democ-
racies?
"Our policy is an American policy.
1t should be maintained for the in
for the best interests of the Amer
lean people and against all the isms
and schemes which would seek to
destroy it,
On the day following Senator
Borah's courageous speech a group of
AZ Senators issued to the newspapers
a statement that read as follows:
1--WE are unalterably opposed to the
repeal or modification of the present
neutrality law prohibiting the sale
or expectation of arms, munitions or
implements of war to nations en-
gagged in war. We are against any
discretion being lodged in the hands
of any Chief Executive to determine
an aggressor or aggressors during any
war abroad. We believe in the real