Evening star., 1939-09-16

signed it as a - M
ompromise e
measure and to David Lawrence.
avoid further pickering about inter-
national affairs at the time. The
State Department has stood stead
fastly for the principle that the
President, under the Constitution,
should retain discretionary power to
conduct the foreign relations of the
Government In 1887, Senator
Borah himself was among those who
supported an amendment to give the
President discretionary power to de-
eide whether or not to apply the
cash-and-carry proposal when it
was offered in the Senate.
Mr.. Roosevelt, on signing the
present neutrality law, which was
first adopted in August, 1885, in the
closing days of session when ade-
ouate debate was curtalled because
of the threats of filibuster. said in
a public statement that the wholly
inf1eXible arms embargo provisions
might have exactly the opposite
effect from that which was intended.
In other words, the infleXible pro-
visions might drag us into war in
stead of keeping us out"
Hull Opposes Restrictions.
The President, therefore, though
accepting the patchwork legislation
because he could not help matters
then, pointed out how dangerous it
would be to apply the statute in
critical situations. Subsequent leg
islative debates turned on the idea
that America would be kept out of
war if more and more restrictive
law were adopted. This view has
been persistently opposed by Secre-
tary Hull. Many Republican author
tiles on international questions have
taken the position that the State
Department is right about 1t and
has been all along.
The impetus fer the present neu-
trality legislation arose out of the
investigation by the Senate Num-
tions Committee at whose hearings
In 1884 it was sought to prove that
President Wilson yielded to the i'm
portunities of the war profiteers and
led the American Nation to war to
save Wall Streets investments. This
sort of argument up to that time
came only from the Socialists, who
have been trying to smear every ad
ministration as "supercapltallstlc," )"
but when United States Senators,
though in the minority, adopted that
view, a public sentiment was created
which those who knew the facts
about Americas entry into the war
did not take the time or trouble to
refute, even though it was an ab-
surdity to them.
Disproved by Aggression.
Today the results of letting the
erroneous impressions spread by the
Senate Munitions Committee stand
without protest are apparent in the
propaganda widely circulated that
money alone brings on wars. The
possibility that the ambition of die
tatorS and their cruel tactics in
threatening or using force may have
had something to do with the start
of wars was not admitted to be in
any sense controlling. Now that a
European war has been begun as a
consequence of a plain act of ag-
gression by Hitler, and a refusal to
negotiate peace except on a basis
of complete surrender, the world
knows that the causes assigned by
the Senate Munitions Committee
have been proved wrong, and that
wars come for reasons other than
the protection of munitions makers
or investments.
Mr.. Roosevelt in discussing cur
rent neutrality issues with the press
this week, advised that the news
paper correspondents read interna-
tional law cases for the last 100
years, as compiled by John Bassett
Moore, the noted authority on the
subject, in thick volumes used as
text books in the colleges. There
will be found a whole series of prece-
dents on neutral rights, with refer
ence to blockade and articles that
can be conf1scated 1t is a matter
of historical record that originally
theory that belligerents must con-
fine their hostilities to their own
territories or adjacent areas, but
now it has swung around to the real
istic conception that belligerents
may fight anywhere on the seven
seas, and as close to any neutral
country as they like, irrespective OF
sr,l,a ,fro1 o1~ iy,ly
Weakens U. S. Assertion.
A strong assertion of the rights
of neutrals may be expected from
the United States, but such re-
affirmation of American rights will
be weakened if Congress continues
to deviate in the future as 1t has
since 1885 from the established prin-
ciples of interna tional law and GUS
tom.
The basic principle of interna-
tional law is that neutrals may ship
non-contraband articles and be as
sured Of safe passage. Opinions
have differed as to what is contra
band. and cases carried to arbitra-
ton tribunals for damages and COM
pensation have never accepted the
doctrine that the word of a bellig-
erent country is final on that point
Neutrals usually insist on a wide
list of articles, and belligerents in
slst on narrowing it, but rarely ever
has any nation imposed on itself an
embargo on foodstuffs and imple-
ments of war. Americas s 1885 posi-
tion was unique and was challenged
very little at the time because it was
not believed world war was forth
coming.