Evening star., 1939-09-21
Text
Continued From First Page.)

ext
Continued From First Page)
and thirty years. It was the So
called Neutrality Act of 1935-only
four years ago-an act continued
In force by the joint resolution Of
May l. 1887, despite grave doubts
expressed as to its wisdom by many
Senators and Representatives and
by offlcials charged with the con-
duct Of our foreign relations, includ-
ing myself. I regret that the Con-
gress passed that act. I regret
equally that I signed that act.
On July IA of this year, asked
the Congress in the cause of peace
and In the interest Of real American
neutrality and security to take
action to change that act.
I now ask again that such action
be taken in respect to that part Of
the act which is wholly inconsistent
with ancient precepts of the law of
nations-the embargo provisions. I
ask 1t because they are in my opin-
ion, most vitality dangerous to Amer
ican neutrality, American security
and American peace.
These embargo provisions, as they
exist today, prevent the sale to a
belligerent by an American factory
of any completed implements Of war,
but they allow the sale of many types
Of uncompleted implements of war,
as we'll as all kinds of general ma
terial and supplies. They, further
more, allow such products of indus
try and agriculture to be taken in
American-flag ships to belligerent
nations. There in itself-under the
present law-lies definite danger to
our neutrality and our peace.
Automatically Aid Defense.
From purely material point of
view, what is the advantage to US in
sending all manner of articles across
the ocean for final processing there
when we could give employment to
thousands by doing 1t here? Incl
dentally. and again from the mate
rial point Of view, by such employ
ment we automatically aid our own
national defense. And II abnormal
profits appear In our midst even in
time Of peace, As q result Of this
increase Of industry, I feel certain
that the subject will be adequately
dealt with at the coming regular
session OF the Congress.
Let me set forth the present par
adox Of the existing legislation in
its simplest terms: If. prior to 1895,
a general war had broken out in
Europe, the United States would
have sold to and bought from bel
hgerent nations such goods and
products of all kinds as the bellis-
erent nations, with their existing
facilities and geographical situa-
tlons, were able to buy from us or
sell to US. This would have been
the normal practice under the age
old doctrine of international law.
Our prior position accepted the facts
OF geography and Of conditions of
land power and sea power alike as
they existed in all parts of the
world. II a war In Europe had
broken out prior to 1895, there
would have been no difference, for
example, between our exports Of
sheets of aluminium and airplane
wings; today there is an artificial
legal difference. Before 1885 there
would have been no difference be-
tween the export of cotton and
the export of guncotton. Today
there is. Before 1885 there would
have been no difference between
the shipment of brass tubing in pipe
form and brass tubing in shell form.
Today there is. Before 1885 there
would have been no difference be-
tween the export Of a motor truck
and an armored motor truck. To-
day there is.
Seeks Greater Consistency.
Let us be factual and recognize
that belligerent nation often needs
wheat and lard and cotton for the
survival of its population just as
much as 1t needs anti-aircraft guns
and anti-submarine depth charges.
Let those who seek to retain the
present embargo position be wholly
consistent and seek new legislation
to cut of cloth and copper and meat
and wheat and thousand other
articles from all of the nations at
war.
I seek a greater consistency
through the repeal of the embargo
provisions, and return to inter-
national law. I seek re-enactment
of the historic and traditional Amer
ican policy which, except for the
disastrous interlude of the Embargo
and Non-1ntercourse Acts, has
served us well for nearly century
and half.
1t has been enormously said that
return to that policy might bring US
nearer to war. I give to you my deep
and unalterable conviction, based OF
years Of experience as a worker in
the field of international peace, that
by the repeal of the embargo the
United States will more probably re-
main at peace than If the law re-
mains as it stands today. I say this
because with the repeal of the en-
barge this Government clearly and
definitely will insist that American
citizens and American ships keep
away from the immediate perils of
the actual zones of conflict.
Repeal of the embargo and a re-
turn to international law are the
crux of this issue.
Did More Than Reverse Policy.
The enactment Of the embargo
provisions did more than merely re-
verse our traditional policy. It had
the effect Of putting land powers on
the same footing as naval powers,
so far as sea-borne commerce was
-