Evening star., 1939-07-18
Senator King Sees
International Law as
Best Peace Hope
Forum Speaker Opposes
Freezing Course Of U. S.
In Advance by Act

SshHl SPSeNS' SkfSS
Freezing Course Of US.
In Advance by Act
Senator William H. King, DEM
oerat, Of Utah discussed Neutrality
by Law and in Practice" last night
in the National Radio Forum, ar
ranged by The Star and broadcast
over 4 Nation wide network OF the
National Broadcasting Co. The text
OF his address follows:
Conflicting views are dividing the
American people with respect to the
course which our Government should
pursue in its international relations.
IT is insisted by some that the
present Neutrality Act shall be con-
tinued. Others insist that 1t shall
be strengthened, and by that they
mean that greater restrictions shall
be imposed upon our Government
and upon our nationals. Others
urge that the present Neutrality Act
has proven most unsatisfactory and
will endanger the peace Of our Re-
public; and. under these circum-
stances, the demand Is made that
the Neutrality Act of 1887 be re-
pealed and that our Government
chart its course by the principles
Of international law.
There are those who contend that
international law is inadequate to
meet situations which international
conflicts, particularly If they eventu-
ate in war, develop. In other words,
they insist that international law,
Notwithstanding its Importance and
pervasive influence, is silent IN pc
RODS of stress and storm and when
the fres of war are lighted.
Disapproved of Departure.
I was opposed to the Neutrality
Act of 1898, which was amended by
the act of 1887. I believed it to be
a departure from the traditional
attitude of our Government with
respect to the principles of neutral
ity. I insisted that 1t was not in
harmony with the principles that
were announced by Washington and
Jefferson, and by which this Ma
ton was governed in its interna-
tional relations during the inter-
Vening years.
The act, as I believed, not only
was restriction upon our Govern
ment, but it was an interference
with the freedom and liberty of our
nationals. 1 believed then, as 1 be-
lieve now, that it was unneutral
and would therefore prove not only
unsatisfactory, but might provoke
international criticism and possibly
international difficulties.
Certainly it was an attempt at
isolation, and was a surrender of
American rights for which the act
itself afforded no compensation.
Briefly, the act provides that the
President, whenever he shall find
that state of war exists between
two or more foreign states or that
civil strife of sufficient magnitude
exists in a foreign state, shall pro-
claim such fact. Thereafter, 1t shall
be unlawful to export arms, ammu-
nitions or implements of war from
the United States to any Of the
belligerents; to purchase, sell or
exchange bonds or other obligations
of any belligerent government; to
arm any merchant vessel of the
United States beyond the extent
necessary to preserve discipline
aboard such vessel; or for any cit
izen of the United States to travel
on any vessel of belligerent. 1t
was further provided that the law
should not apply to American re-
publics engaged in war against a
non american state, if the Ameri-
can republic was not cooperating
with non-American state in
such war
Restricted Arms Shipment.
The so-called cash-and carry pro-
visions of the act, which expired
on May last, prohibited the ship
ping in American vessels of articles,
specified by the President, in addi-
tion to arms, ammunitions or i'm
plements of war, and allowed their
export in foreign ships only after
all right, title and interest had been
transferred to foreign govern
ment or agency.
1t is to be noted that the act is
not to be operative unless and until
the President shall find that a state
OF war exists. In other words, it Is
entirely within the discretion of
the Chief Executive to determine
whether or not arms and munitions
may be sold to country engaged
in hostilities, whether or not cit
izen may purchase bonds of such
government or travel upon her ships.
The dangers that inhere in this un-
fettered diScretlon-With no stand
ard of any kind to guide the Presi-
dent in making the determination,
with no definition of what consti-
tutes a state of war with no re-
quirement that a state Of war be
recognized even though it in fact
eXists-become apparent.
Criticisms have been leveled
against our Government because of
its Interpretation of the Neutrality
Act, as we'll as the Interpretation
which has been placed upon its pro-
visions. 1t is believed by many that
under the principles of international
law different course would have
been required by our Government
in dealing with the Spanish situa-
ton and in its dealings with the
devastating and tragic war which
Japan has waged against China.
Certainly. conditions which have
existed since the Neutrality Act of
1887 have demonstrated the futility
of legislating in advance to meet
conditions in a turbulent and
changing world.
Either Alternative Risky.
The discretion resting with the
Executive, it is believed by many,
Is inimical to the interests of
the American people. and may re-
suit in placing the Government in
an unneutral position. The moment
hostilities occur in any part of the