Evening star., 1939-07-20

I read and reread the various articles
and to my limited capacity it still an
pears that the writer's, not content with
merely confusing the issue, actually COM
pletely reverse 1t. These arguments find
their elimination in the column of David
Lawrence of July II, which 1 would cal
a reductlo ad absurdum except for the
fact that since then the same line of
thought has been repeated ad, nausium,
the last appearing under the name of
Frederic William Vile on July IT. I
frankly admit it is beyond the realm
OF possibility that all of these writers
have suddenly gone crazy at the same
time, and am beginning to be worried
ABOUT my own mental state.
Now, I always understood that neu-
trallty could be defined as equal treat
ment of both parties to a war. Yet
am asked to believe that a law which
IN practice would permit the sale of
arms to one faction while denying them
to the other is neutrality I am further
asked to believe, that an embargo of
the sale of arms to both camps is un-
neutral and that thereby one side is as
sisted. I can't help but imagine two
groups of boys having SNOWFALL battle;
if make snowballs for the group from
the right side of the tracks am neu-
trail, but if I make them for neither
group, then am assisting the boys from
the wrong side of the tracks You
can judge for yourself just how simple
minded I am when I inform you that
this does not make sense to me.
OF course, the real issue being debated
is whether this Nation shall be neutral
or whether it shall actively assist the
so-called democracies. Mr.. Vile practi-
cally states this in so many words, but
again with the twist to which I object:
That is, the use Crather misuse) of
language which attempts to disguise ac-
tive aid to certain nations under the
term neutrality"
Mr.. Vile states that the refusal of
Congress to implement the Presidents
private war" on war; in his opinion, is
the same as hamstringing a President
while this Nation is actually engaged in
war-but this overlooks the fact that
the very question in issue is whether or
not the United States should endeavor
to prevent war by pledges of assistance
to one party to that war. I submit that
1t is not unreasonable to fear that such
unequal treatment of belligerents might
soon involve this Nation actively in such
a war.
OF course, secondary question is
involved as to whether or not discre-
tlonary powers should be delegated to
the President to determine when and if
action should be taken in a particular
case. I find it no stretch of the imagina-
tion to conceive of members of Congress
who honestly do not favor further dele
CATION of power to the Executive, espe-
cially power whose use might embroil
this Nation in a war. Personally, 1 am
against all dictatorship in any disguise,
and especially in the United States. If,
as has been imputed, certain members
of Congress have refused to bow to the
Presidents will because of Bipartisan
vendetta" it is also barely possible that
an equal number have followed his COM
mand for party reasons, so that indict-
ment does not hold water.
It seems to me, with my acknowledged
limited capacities, that the way to stay
out of war is merely to stay out of
other nations controversies entirely.
r. o. MARCHETTI.