Evening star., 1939-10-08
Germany Expected
To Protest i j. :.
Lifts Arms Ban
Answer Along Three
Lines Anticipated;
To Cite Precedent
n the Associated Press.

~ the Associated Press.
A rooted impression exists in
oficial quarters here that the Ger
man government will protest any
lifting Of the embargo on arms as
an unneutral act because 1t was
made after the outbreak of war.
In this case, the reply of the
American Government can be reli-
ably forecast.
It will follow three main lines
according to excellent sources, one
on international law, one on fact
and one on precedent.
Secretary HulIs Thesis.
The first will paraphrase, If it does
not quote, from the recent state
ment of Secretary of State Hull in
which he maintained that:
Most of the progress in develop
Ing rules of neutrality has been
made by acts taken during a war.
Belligerents change their rules fire.
quently during a war-the World
War was an example-and neutrals
should have the same right.
If neutrals were required to estab-
lish their position in advance of war
and stick to it while belligerents
changed the rules, only the belliger-
ents would determine the rights and
duties of neutrals and belligerents.
This would not be the case if the
change were made at the request of
one of the belligerents, but Britain
and France have not asked the
American administration or Con-
gress to lift the embargo.
Move Started in Last Congress.
The second argument will follow
the line that procedure for lifting
the embargo actually began before
the war. It started in the last
session of Congress when the admin
istration sought to have new neu-
trality bill passed which did not con-
tain the embargo.
A bill finally passed the House Of
Representatives, and it is this bill
which the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee has amended and sub
mitted to the Senate.
Before the last session closed, the
President sent special message to
Congress inclosing a statement by
Secretary Hull, in which he asked
for legislation at that session.
When the legislation was not
forthcoming, the President held a
special meeting with the leaders
of the Senate in which they prom
ised him the next session would con-
slider a bill based on the administra-
tions ideas
Consequently. it is not true to say
that the Neutrality Act was changed
after the war started.
German Plea Recalled.
The third argument will hark back
to 1915. BY the spring of that year,
American manufacturers had already
begun to supply large quantities of
war materials to Britain and France.
Germany was growing concerned
over the assistance flowing to her
enemies from this side. On April 4
of that year, the German Embassy
presented the State Department
with note asking That an embargo
be placed on the expectation of such
arms.
The German government argued
then that international law permit
ted the protection of existing in
dustries through continuance of
arms expectation, but said this did
not mean the building of new in
dustries or the enlargement of exist
Ing ones for the same purpose
The United States did not agree
to the German viewpoint.
The precedent is important, in the
view of official quarters. because it
was Germany herself who was ask
ing the United States to change her
neutral position eight months after
the war had begun.