Evening star., 1939-10-03
An Inconsistent Argument

Senator Borah, in opening the
debate for those opposing the ad-
ministration's neutrality program,
appears to have fallen into curious
inconsistency.
At one point the veteran Senate
spokesman on foreign affairs, ignor-
ing the fact that the request for
repeal of the arms embargo and the
substitution of an effective cash
and-carry" plan for all commodities
was made by President Roosevelt
with the full support of many promi-
nent Americans whose loyalty to
their own country is not open to
question, charged that the cry for
repeal originated with the "war
hounds" of Europe. And yet, almost
in the same breath, he acknowledged
that European opposition to repeal of
the embargo is confined to Germany.
In other words, the Idaho Senator,
In addition to incorrectly represent
ing the fact as TO the origin for the
movement for repeal of the embargo,
was labelling the British and the
French as Europe's war hounds" J"
despite the overwhelming evidence
that this war was forced upon Europe
by Germany and Germany alone.
The main theme of Senator Borah's
argument was that this country is
less likely to be drawn into the war
under existing legislation than would
be the case if the administration S
program should be adopted. Despite
the fact that he was in the forefront
of those who successfully opposed
repeal of the embargo before the
war had started, the Senator re-
peated his contention that any such
change in our neutrality legislation
now would necessarily be regarded
by Germany as an unneutral act, and
stated his fear that the Germans, in
retaliation, might dynamite or bomb
American munition plants if their
products should become available
for export.
That argument goes altogether too
far in the direction of surrendering
American rights for the purpose of
pacifying Hitler. If we are going to
keep our munitions plants closed
from fear that they will be destroyed
by Nazi agents, we might just as well
be prepared to shut down our oil
refneries to protect them from the
same real or imagined danger Of
destruction. In a modern war, oil
is of little, If any, less Importance
than munitions, and it may be safely
assumed that Germany will look with
no more favor on it's export to France
and Britain.
Our foreign policy in the face of
this war should not be shaped pri-
marily in an effort to conform to
what we believe will or will not offend
Germany or any other nation. Our
purpose should be to take all reason
able legislative steps that are calcu-
lated to guard against the danger
that American lives or American
property may be destroyed, but these
precautions should not be carried to
the extreme of abandoning the exer-
else of purely domestic rights.
The Presidents program, in The
Stars opinion, would erect more
effective safeguards than exist under
the legislation now on the statute
books. That opinion apparently is
shared by a majority of the Senate
and, from all indications, by major
ity of the people. If it is incorrect, it
is incumbent upon the opposition
Senators to demonstrate that fact by
some more effective means than
pointing with alarm to what they
conceive to be the danger that the
Germans might bomb American mu-
nitions plants.