Evening star., 1939-10-17
British Opposition to
'Sofety Belt Resented
But Proposed 300-Mils Zone
I. DecIored Too Extensive
For Enforcement


To the Editor Of The Star:
It is very gratifying to observe the
willingness Of the states Of South
America to join with the States Of
North America to strengthen the bonds
Of fellowship and to keep war from
their shores. Nothing should be done
to harm this bond Of good will now or
in the future. Everything should be
done to encourage friendships between
and among all the people Of the two
continents and there should be some
way by which they can carry on trade
between each other without giving cause
for friction with any other foreign
country. There should be enough raw
materials in this hemisphere for both
the Americas and for any other country
that wishes to transact business In
any American country. The Inter-
American Conference at Panama has
proceeded upon two closely related lines.
The first. to build up trade between
the United States and the Latin Ameri-
can countries and the second, to safe
guard the peace and tranquility of both
shores against European belligerents.
OF course, we Americans realize that
France, England and Germany have
large investments in South America,
and they being the belligerents, nat
urally are suspicious Of any move by
the Americas to strengthen their bonds
Of fellowship especially at time when
the belligerents are fighting in Central
Europe, one pair to keep what access
to trade it has, the other to gain an
outlet on the seas, through which 1t
can compete with the other in foreign
and domestic trade routes. The ad-
miralty Of England has announced that
it upholds the 3-mile limit, as agreed
upon by the United States and Eng
land at q conference in 1924, and re-
jects In whole the present neutrality
zone policy agreed upon by the United
States and the Latin American coun.
tries, stating that it is "impracticable
Since the United States has not an
adequate navy, 1t would be wiser for her
to strive cautiously not to irritate Lord
Churchill by insisting that the neu-
trality zone be limited at 800 miles
from shore.
Neither the United States nor the
states Of the Latin American countries
should allow the recent ruling by the
British admiralty to scarce them away
from their arrangement to safeguard this
hemisphere. However, 1t does seem as
though the American cabinet here in
Washington should amend the extension
of territorial waters, the limit now being
300 miles from shore. This limit does
seem bit too expansive, and 1t Is one
that may get both North and South
America into trouble, especially with
France and England, II the present
Washington administration should insist
upon enforcing its plan, regardless Of
the asserted rights Of other foreign
powers. 1t may put us onto the spot of
either fighting . naval battle with the
French and British on the seas, or join
ing up with our old debtor nations and
fighting their mortal enemy, Germany.
If we insist upon our own established
rights to the seas as we did in the early
part of the last war, we may encounter
the same disagreeable situations with
England. It was then q case Of fighting
her or joining her, especially when the
British admiralty insisted upon seixing
and searching American merchant ships
and her mail en- route. Our relations
became more strained when the English
courts sustained the actions of the
British, and we were then told in no un-
certain terms that "infractions Of the
international law to the contrary, the
British had the right to stop merchant
ships en- route" These were not the exact
words, but they will do. If America and
her friendly neighbors to the southwark
are to keep at peace, it would seem that
30-mile limit would be more feasible.
If this doesn't suit the British war cabi-
net. then let both North and South
America join in an unlimited naval pre-
paredness program that will be Of such
proportions that other foreign powers
who seek to endanger American neutral
ity will be wary of taking action.
October IA. F.F,
Objects to Views of