Evening star., 1939-09-12
Thomas Urges u. 5.
Neutrality Without
Sacrificing Morality
Utoh Senator, Speaking
In Forum, Says Nation
Has Rights With Duties
Continued From Page B-5)

Continued From Page B-5)
plenty of water. You say this fight
does not concern you because you
are neutral and you stand on
your neutral rights and do nothing
From the standpoint of the law of
neutrality you have done no wrong,
but you have not been impartial.
You know that the withholding of
the water from the one has meant
his certain death and victory for
the other.
Therefore, impartial neutrality in
q practical sense is utterly impos-
sible. That which is impossible in
fact is very poor substance on which
to base rule of law. To the extent
that our neutral stands have been
based upon impartiality they have
been weak. When we have taken
the position that neutrality means
remaining aloof from war upon the
theory that nation that does not
fight has rights in the world that
belligerentS or war cannot destroy,
we have been strong in our neu-
trality and no one has made war
on us because of that stand. Ma
tions at war are busy with actual
enemies. They do not deliberately
attempt to turn neutrals into enc
mics.
Morality at Stake.
Let's keep our thinking straight.
Just because one nation attacks an
other and war begins, the warning
states do not thereby gain all the
rights to the whole earth. Neutrals
still have rights and they still have
duties One of these rights is to
protest Wrong-doing and advantage
taking wherever it exists. You can
not be impartial if one combatant
only commits the wrong. A referee
IN the prize ring must be neutral,
and his neutrality makes him i'm
partial as long as both fighters are
fair, but when one fouls the referee
must still remain neutral, he has no
right to take part in the fight, but
he need not be impartial and de-
clare the fight a draw just because
one man fouls. Without changing
one bit his neutral position he
penalties the wrong-doer. His neu-
trality is preserved but his impair
TALLY has gone. The rights of both
fighters and the referee are all pre-
served A neutrality that demands
an impartiality calls for dulling
of every moral impulse 1t insists
upon erasing the line between good
and evil. That is asking too much
That reduces a neutral to an un-
bearable impotence. A neutral has
a right to stand for something in
the world, not for nothing If neu-
trality means a crushing of world
morality it is better that we take
sides and fight, because fighting for
a right is better than passive sub
mission to wrong.
Neutrality is a matter of degree
Take, for example, the different
theories expressed today about
1taly's neutrality-is Italy's neu-
trality today to the advantage of
Germany, Italy's ally, or is it to the
advantage of Germanys enemies?
Thus, if we answer the question we
discover that neutrality must rest
upon some other reason than that
of a desire to be impartial. That
reason may be an entirely selfish
one on the part of neutral just to
avoid war. 1t may be, as many
have expressed the American neu-
trality to be, an action on the part
of great neutral, which will dis
courage war in the world. Our most
consistent stand is one based on
morality, morality which recog-.
nizes that we have rights which
even belligerents must respect,
morality which recognizes that even
belligerents have rights, which
makes it our duty to respect those
rights; morality, too, which en-
titles us to condemn wherever we
see wrong doing and even punish
that wrong doing if need be by any
action short of war. That, I am
sure, is the true American stand.
A condemnation of wrong-doer
has never brought war. When the
nations of the world. through the
agency of the League of Nations,
attempted to impose sanctions on
Italy in accordance with the theory
that economic pressure could stop
war, Mussolini started the cry that
sanctions meant war. But sane
tions did not mean war Mussolini
did not 60 to war against any state
that imposed those sanctions, but
Mussolini wiped out of existence
the little state Of Albania, which
refused to vote sanctions. Thus,
sloganized thinking and historical
fact are very different propositions.
inconsistencies in Act.
The test of the American Neu-
trality Act will come out of uncer-
tainties in administration of the
act, not from emotional reactions
about theory. If we should ulti-
mately find ourselves in war, that
action will come as result of emo
tional reaction, because of a sense
of outraged justice. That is an
emotional deduction. That will be
action of impulse without deliber-
eting over all the factors and
weighing all the costs. I do not
think that America will ever mod
ifv the Neutrality Act because she
will deliberately want to take sides.
If we get into that frame of mind
we will 60 to war without modifica-
tion of the Neutrality Act. But the
circumstances about the admins
tration of the Neutrality Act will
furnish the stimulus for the acts
modification. For example, when
We see the inconsistency of not al
lowing the sale of shell to bel
ligerent but allowing the shipment
Of all that goes into that shell.
when we see that we cannot sell
gun-cotton to a belligerent but that
we can sell all the raw cotton which
can be converted into gun-cotton,
we will readily see these inconsist-
encies in the act.
When the inconsistencies are dis
covered the stage is properly set
for a modification of the act. but