Evening star., 1939-10-06

81. ~ courses. 1t can
0'A : either, as the
Charles G. Ross. pending bill pro-
poses. offer any Of its goods for sale
to the belligerent nations on the
same terms to all-these terms be-
ing, in the proposed law, that the
purchasers take title to the goods
before they leave this country and
carry them away in other than
American ships. Or, alternatively,
the United States can clamp down
an embargo on the shipment of all
kinds Of goods to the belligerents.
The adoption of either of these
courses would be fully defensible in
international law, fully logical and
fully an act OF neutrality.
What the opponents of the pend
ing bill are urging is not the logical
Alternatives complete embargo
but an embargo running only
against arms, ammunition and i'm
plements of war. Herein is the fatal
inconsistency in their position. For
the distinction between arms, am
munition and implements of war on
the one hand and all other goods on
the other hand is unsound.
Virtually everything that may be
shipped to belligerent is or may
become contraband. AS the Presi-
dent pointed out in his speech at the
opening OF the special session, wheat
and lard and cotton are likely to be
as essential to the survival of a ma
ton at war as guns and shells. Nor
Is there any valid distinction, when
1t comes to exports to warning ma
tions, between completed instru-
ments OF war and the materials that
go directly into their making.
To use the Presidents simple
examples of the paradox which
marks our existing legislation and
| which the opponents of embargo re-
peal would continue, there is no real
difference between the export of
cotton and the export of guncotton,
between the shipment of brass tub
ing in pipe form and brass tubing
/ in shell form, between the sale of a
motor truck to a belligerent and the
sale Of an armored motor truck.
Stand Is Inconsistent.
The point need not be labored; 1t
has been frequently and effectively
made. To be consistent, those who
are standing against the effort to re-
wise the neutrality law would have
to accept the challenge of the Presi-
dent to bring in bill banning the
sale OF every kind of commodity to
belligerent nations. All goods or no
goods-the rule should be one or the
other.
One certainty in this neutrality
hight Is that the material interests
of this country and its traditional
policy-the former alone, if YOU
please-carry sufficient weight with
Congress, all other considerations
aside. to block any effort that might
be made to impose an all-inclusive
embargo. Only from one Senator on
the lsolatlonist side-Senator Nye-
has there been any serious sugees-
ton that the isolationist views be
pushed to their logical conclusion.
Now in the attitude of those anti
repealists. the overwhelming major
lty OF them whose recommendation
stop short of this logical goal there
/ is realism that might we'll be ap-
Piled to the whole neutrality con-
troversy.
1t was an entire lack of realism
which led the House at the last ses-
sion to adopt an amendment to the
J then pending Bloom bill drawing
hypocritical distinction between
arms and ammunition on the one
side and implements of war, includ-
ing alrplanes, on the other. 1t was
said in defense of this amendment,
which would have left arms and am
munition under the embargo but
permitted the sale of airplanes, that
somehow the country would be
"comforted" to know that "lethal"
weapons of American make were not
going to be used in the wars of
Europe.
More CLOSING on Pending Bill.
"A similar tendency to gloss over
the facts is observable in much of
the discussion of the pending bill.
On the part of the pro-repeal Sena.
tors, this shows itself particularly
in the gingerly manner in which
they refer to the material benefits
to the United States from repeal of
the embargo. They seem to fear
That the country will think them
animated by sordid motives If they
mention the profits in war trade.
What is the good of ignoring the
fact that there will be profits-or the
hope Of proflts-from the sale of
arms. just as there will be, and now
Is from the sale of other commodities.
1t would be indeed shameful thing
to repeal the arms embargo with
material benefit to ourselves as the
controlling motive. But there are
other motives that dominate; even
those IN the Senate who are most
bitterly opposed to repeal concede
the high purpose of the revisionists.
1t happens that the opportunity
for profits and for putting some Of
the army of the unemployed to
work will be collateral benefit Of
repeal. That is fortunate circum-
stance, just as 1t Is fortunate that
repeal will run to the advantage Of
France and England against Hitler.
Why not, then, frankly admit the
expectation of profits? There's no
reason to be ashamed of it.
Not only is there no reason to be
ashamed Of it. There's every reason
to be grateful when a prospective
incidental benefit, involving no sac
rif1ce Of idealism or convictions,
offers us the chance of bettering our
economy and in so doing strengthen
ing the United States for whatever
tests 1t must face.
Wunderbirds Hike
The Wanderbirds will sponsor Q
S-ypH1}A h{kn .u~~ DELL r,,- NR>.,~k>l-