The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-09-22

l
why I ask you again to re-ex-
anime our own legislation.
Beginning with the foundation
of our constitutional government
in the year 1889, the American
policy In respect to belligerent
nations, with one notable excep-
ton, has been based on mterna-
tional law. Be 1t remembered that
what we call international law has
had as its primary detectives the
avoidance of causes of war and
the prevention Of the extension OF
war.
The single exception was the
policy adopted by this nation dur
ing the Napoleonic wars, when,
seeking to avoid involvement, we
acted for some years under the So
called embargo and non-inter.
course acts. That policy turned
out to be q disastrous failure -
first, because 1t brought our own
nation close to ruin, and, second,
because 1t was the major cause OF
bringing us into active participa-
ton in European wars in Our own
war of 1912. It is merely reciting
history to recall to you that one
of the results Of the policy OF en-
barge and non-intercourse was the
burning in 1914 Of part of this
capitol in which we are assem-
bled.
Our next deviation by statute
from the sound principles OF neu-
trality and peace through inter-
national law did not come for one
hundred and thirty years. 1t was
the so-ca1led neutrality act OF
l935-only four years ago-an act
continued In force by the joint
resolution of May /, 1887, despite
grave doubts expressed as to its
wisdom by many Senators and
Representatives and by officials
charged with the conduct OF our
foreign relations, including my
self. I regret that the Congress
passed that act. I regret equally
that signed that act.
American Neutrality
On July fourteenth Of this year,
I asked the Congress in the cause
of peace and in the interest Of
real American neutrality and Sc
curity to take action to change
that act.
| I now ask again that such &C
ton be taken In respect to that
part of the act which is wholly in
consistent with ancient precepts
of the law of nations - the en-
barge provisions. ask it because
they are, in my opinion, most VIE
tally dangerous to American neu-
trality, American security and
American peace.
These embargo provisions, as
they exist today, prevent the sale
to q belligerent by an American
factory of any completed imple-
ments of war, but they allow the
sale of many types Of uncompleted
implements of war, as well as all
kinds of general material and sup
plies. They, furthermore, allow
such products of industry and ag-
riculture to be taken In American
flag ships to belligerent nations.
There in itself - under the pres.
emit law lies definite danger to
our neutrality and our peace.
From a purely material point Of
view what Is the advantage to us
In sending all manner of articles
across the ocean for final process
ing there when we could give en-
ployment to thousands by doing 1t
here? incidentally, and again
from the material point of view,
by such employment we automat-
ically aid our own national de-
tense. And If abnormal profits APP
pear 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.
Present Paradox
Let me set forth the present
paradox Of the existing legisla-
ton in its simplest terms: If, prior
to 1885, a general war had broken
out in Europe, the United States
would have sold to and bought
from belligerent nations such
goods and products of all kinds
as the belligerent nations, with
their existing facilities and geo.
graphical situations, were able to
buy from us or sell to us. This
would have been the normal prac-
tice under the age-old doctrines
of international law. Our prior po-
sition accepted the facts Of geog-
raphy and of conditions Of land
power and sea power alike as they
existed in all parts Of the world.
If a war in Europe had broken out
prior to 1885, there would have
been no difference, for example,
between our exports Of sheets of
aluminium and airplane wings:
Il today there Is an artificial legal
difference. Before 1885 there would
have been no difference between
the export of cotton and the ex-
port Of gun cotton. To-day there
is Before 1885 there would have
been no difference between the
shipment of brass tubing in piece
form and brass tubing in shell
form. Today there is. Before 1885
there would have been no differ
ence between the export Of a
motor truck and an armored mo-
tor truck. Today there Is.
Let us be factual and recognize
that q belligerent nation often
needs wheat and lard and cotton
for the survival Of its population
| just as much as it needs anti
aircraft guns ana anti-submarine
depth charges. Let those who
seek to retain the present em-
barge position be wholly con-
siStent and seek new legislation
to cut of cloth and copper and
meat and wheat and a thousand