Evening star., 1939-07-18

| SpNAA SSAAAoSA<At SAAo, SAkuA uk0ACy
has been primarily interested in de-
termining the rights of neutrals,
particularly with reference to mat
ters affecting trade and commerce.
This has resulted in announcing,
as an international policy. the free
dom of the seas. Our Nation has
been foremost in championing the
freedom of the seas, and I am un-
willing to favor a policy, adopted
in the act OF 1887, which, in effect,
is an attempt to seek isolation BY
the abdication OF our rights at sea,
II not on land.
1t Is apparent that we cannot be
isolated from all possible dangers
Of international conflicts. and no
policy Of alleged neutrality should
be adopted which narrows the rights
of our country or weakens inter-
national law. The rights Of neu-
trails and belligerents should. rest
on recognized principles Of the law
OF nations. This does not mean that
treaties should not be entered into
between nations for the purpose OF
promoting peace and widening the
opportunities for trade and COM
merce and cultural and economic
development.
1t Is impossible to determine what
course governments will pursue in
the near or in the distant future.
When the World War broke out,
neutral nations did not know, and
neither did the belligerents, what
the lines of battle would be, or
what instrumentalities of death and
destruction would be employed. The
announcement by nation of the
course 1t will pursue in the event
of an international conflict prob
ably would prove impotent in avert
ing war Or preventing the nation
in question from being drawn within
the field of international conflict.
If our Nation announced to the
world in advance what our policy
would be, and what inhibitions will
be imposed upon our Nation and
upon our nationals, it might prove
advantageous to aggressive nations
now preparing to enter the neld OF
war. A unitary declaration OF
policy may give belligerents an op-
portunity to formulate their plans
with reference to the announced
| policy of the nation making such
a declaration. Moreover, the unilat-
eral announcement OF 4 policy i'm
poses some restrictions, so that
when the conhagration comes it
would be prohibited from adopting
different plans and different reg
ulations when the exieencies OF the
situation demanded a change. To
alter the announced plan might
prove advantageous to one or more
Of the belligerentS, to the disad-
vantage Of other belligerents, and
thus subject the United States to
the charge OF favoring one belli-
gerent over another.
AS indicated. in the event OF an
international conflict, regulations
which one nation may promulgate,
hoping to prevent its being drawn
into the conflict, would not be ac-
cepted by belligerents II advantages
might be derived by ignoring them,
so that If We surrender, a. the law
of 1897 provides, some of our neu-
trail rights, we need not expect that
belligerents will be more constrained
to regard conceded neutral rights
or national territory.
Freezes U. s. Action
As have indicated, the act Of
1887 seeks to deprive Americans the
freedom OF action In the event OF 4
foreign war. 1t serves notice in ad-
vance that our Government will
draw no distinctions between the
vIolators of international law and
the victims of such violation.
opposed the act of 1887. believing
that 1t would encourage armament
at home, if not abroad, and that
the American people would be called
upon to increase their already heavy
appropriations for military and ma
val purposes This prediction has
come true, and the appropriations
for so-called preparedness, which
will be made by the present Con.
gress for the next fiscal year, will ex-
ceed $4,000 100000
It is believed that the American
people will not collaborate with other
nations to enforce peace Accord
ingly, we should not approve legisla-
tlon which ties the hands of the
Government and thus deny us an
opportunity to act for our own best
interests if and when the fires of
war spread throughout the world.
For the reasons stated, and others
that might be mentioned, the
neutrality legislation, in my opinion,
should be repealed, and we should
take our stand upon the foundation
and precepts of international law.
1t Is contended, however. that
these principles were violated dur
ing the World War, that treaties
and solemn pacts are ignored and
broken with impunity, and that
therefore international law is dead.
Assuming the above contention to
be true, if the alternative to inter-
national law-the Neutrality Act
offered a guaranty of peace, there
would be validity in the argument
eAA"o "c SiAoo@0 10y upO41 WIG Ncue
trality Act to keep US out OF war:
but since 1t is admitted that there
can be no guaranty of peace, it
becomes our duty to follow such a
course as will give the United States
the most security in its intention to
remain at peace. The grave COM
plications that are likely to result
from tying the hands of Govern
ment by declaring a policy in ad-
vance Of circumstances that cannot
be predicted. may not be minimi1ed.
I have adverted to a few of the
embarrassments that the United
States will face In the event of an
international conflict if our course
is charted by the act of 1887, and
these will tend to involve the coun-
try in war far more than situations
that may arise under the rules Of
international law.
World Law StiM Lives.
I cannot subscribe to the view
AN& - a.. Il