Evening star., 1939-09-27
Denies We Should Aid
France and Britain
Wants Emboreo Retained and
'Cosh-ond-C Cory
Measures Added

To the Editor Of The Star:
In hese~restless days OF voluminous
writing, of claim and counterclaim,
charge and countercharge; when opin-
ions conscientiously sought and sincerely
reached stand at hopeless odds with
others whose claim to merit is no less
valid. and none, however well supported,
can aspire to stand free from denuncia-
ton from some quarter; surely no new
addition to the mounting torrent of
words can have more than fleeting in
nuence. nor can any one analysis pre-
tend to disentangle the complexities Of
all the problems with which the war
confronts us.
Still, the questions now presented
touch all the country closely. No one
OF us can stand immune from the effects
OF the course upon which we will at
length embark. And since we still func-
ton as a democratic Nation, it remains
the part Of the citizenry to take stock
OF what the issues are, to seek carefully
Tor conclusions, and, having found them,
to give them expression for whatever of
value they may hold
My own, for the moment, are directed
to The Stars leading editorial, Begging
the ISSUE" Of September Is. In that
editorial, as at other times, in further
ance OF its policy, The Star sets down
TWO principal grounds as calling for
the lifting Of the present embargo. OF
these, the second, though less strongly
urged, seems most clearly to state the
issue in the controversy: "' 1t also
would enable us incidentally to supply
the hard-pressed European democracies
with arms and ammunition"
These questions come to mind at once:
Do we want to supply these belligerents
With arms and ammunition? Do we
want, or do we need, to take any side
or lend any support whatever in this
struggle. now that Europe has come to
the day of reckoning for the tragic
errors OF the conference at Versailles?
DO we want to be party again to the
GRIPPING OF nation, the suppression of
people, to punish it for having fol-
lowed road which its present antago-
nlsts, with open eyes, laid out for it?
These are the dominant, not the in
cidental, questions. 1t is the question OF
the relative dangers of this country's in
Movement under this or that system of
neutrality which must appear as Sec
ondary, IN discussion of the embargo.
Whatever may be the merit of the con.
tentlon that the present law holds dan
gers which should be corrected. that
result can be accomplished fully as effec-
lively through the amendment of the
embargo act as through its repeal Few.
any, protective clauses can be en-
bodied in cash and carry" law. which
could not equally be inserted in the
present law, including regulations of
raw materials shipments. To insist unon
repeal OF the embargo as essential IN
our present security, then, is to confuse
the issue which is paramount TODAY: On
we want to help the allies in this war?
submit that We do not First, because
tne allles have already shown a signal
lack OF regard for efforts expended In
their behalf. The postwar spitefulnes.
OF the allies needs no refreshing In the
minds OF most Americans, nor does the
coolness with which a large nroportion
OF this countrys proposals were shoul-
dered aside at Versailles require any new
reminder. A single glance at existing
war debts concludes the case to estab.
nsh the more than possible proposition
tnat the allies have no more than the
vaguest notion of honoring the oblipa-
tions which they so readily assume in
exchange for the assistance which we
can give them.
secondly, the allies deserve no aid.
With Europe In their palms in 1919, thew
proceeded to so cut and dismember the
German nation and economy that for a
decade thereafter repeated attempts at
democratic government met with the
same despairing realization that the
problems were too big. too hopeless, for
solution by the means at their disposal
When at length in desperation the nation
sought another way, it had to turn to
Hitler. We don't like his methods. but
we cannot forget that he is typical Of his
kind and that it was the allies, in the
SASoooA oPASA1AOA VI VERSAILLES, VINO be.
queathed the Nazis to Germany.
Thirdly, there is no method short of
war by which this country can under
take to sponsor the success of one COM
batant in struggle of such proportions.
The position is eminently sound that,
once the mighty and terrible conflict has
begun, any deliberate act of Government
which, incidentally" or primarily, re-
bounds to the sole benefit Of one side, is
actually an act Of Intervention. More
forcefully yet is that truth brought home
when it is borne in mind that the act
OF assistance is in reality In no way
necessary to assure the security of the
United States, which can be protected
just as surely by the insertion, in most
cases, OF the identical protective clauses
into existing legislation. Then again. we
must consider what, once we have def
nitely committed ourselves to one side in
the conflict, will be the future of the
johnson Act, and indeed of the vitality
OF the cash-and-carry principle itself;
while the answer is admittedly no more
than speculative. certainly, in view of
our history, the question is one which
may furnish grave and reasonable
grounds for concern. As we consider
the tragic and fruitless result of our
yeyYfpa 1tfv y,o1ic1, of 1n1l sa,1