Evening star., 1939-10-03
Neutrality
Continued From First Page

declared, had effectively sealed
American armament markets to bel
ligerent nations. If the new DILL is
passed, he said, "the munitions
maker will get his compensation
He will make his profits" Senator
Borah continued, lifting a hand
above his head. Business will have
to move. But where will the buyer
get the money to pay the munitions
maker? He will get it where he
got the money to pay for the war
material purchased during the
World War, and that is from the
American taxpayer
"Could We Refuse to Send Armies
Borah asked whether, once the
United States had stripped away
the arms embargo, it would be pos
sible to refuse to send our armies
If the allies reached an hour OF
greater need"
II do not see how we could" he
added.
IF I believed this was war to
save democracy, war to save
civilization and we were justified in
furnishing arms, I would not stop
with credits. I would say NUM-
tions and implements of war were
little enough to contribute to such
q cause-give it to them.
For myself, and for myself only,
I look upon the present war. in
Europe as nothing more than an
other chapter in the bloody volume
of European power politics.
whatever may be the philosophy
Of Naziism, however abhorrent we
may write it down, it is not the
issue in this conflict and its cure
Is not war"
Repeal of the arms embargo and
adoption of q "cash-and-carry syS-
tenn" Senator Borah asserted, would
lead to the conclusion by the belli-
gerents that the United States was
taking sides in the European con-
flict.
"Baruch'S Idea"
II think it is generally conceded"
he said, that the author of the
'cash-and-carry' plan was Bernard
M. Baruch, that distinguished finan-
cier known well in two continents.
It was his resourceful brain that
conjured up the idea that we could
get money out Of war without get
ting hurt. He declared that cash.
and-carry was not neutrality, that
1t was clearly unneutrality.
How can it be claimed, how can
any one expect, belligerent nations
to regard the cash-and-carry propo-
sition under the circumstances as
anything but distinctly unneutral?
In view of the fact that we repeal a
law which prohibits the sale of arms,
munitions and implements of war to
all belligerent nations and, in lieu
of it, enact law which distinctly
favors one of the combatant nations,
this act of repeal will be regarded
and will be treated by all concerned
as an act of intervention. I can see
1t in no other light.
II do not contend that there may
not be changes made upon the part
Of neutral during the progress OF
war, but there cannot be changes
which affect unequally the belliger-
ent nations as they prevailed at the
time the original rule was estab-
lshed. To change a neutrality law
or rule, with the motive or with the
effect Of aiding certain belligerents
ID a distince violation of interna-
tiOnA1 law = =
Invites Attacks on u. S. Plants.
"You never could convince a bel.
fgerent, indeed. I do not see how
you could convince any peopl,
though not belligerents, that tt
change the rule in the respect which
we propose is not unneutral."
Senator Borah argued that re.
quiring belligerents to take title tt
their purchases before shipping
them-as the administration bill