Evening star., 1939-02-16
Thomas Amendment
To Neutrality Act
Faces Senate Fiqht
Foes See Neutrality
Endangered by Power
To Broaden Embargo
BY CRESTON b. MULLINS.

BY CRESTON b. MULLINS.
Senate isolationists are expected
to wage bitter fight If any attempt
is made to have Congress act on the
Thomas amendment to the Neu-
trality Act empowering the President
to embargo materials other than
arms, ammunition and implements
Of war and, with Congress approval,
to select and penalize the aggressor
in wartime.
Senator Ebert D. Thomas. Demo-
crat, Of Utah introduced his amend
ment in a joint resolution Monday
accompanied by the report of
committee of experts appointed by
the Committee for Concerted Peace
Efforts, which co-ordinates the work
OF number of peace groups.
Nye Warns Of Campaign.
Senator Nye, Republican, of North
Dakota warned today that an. active
campaign will be waged against the
amendment If any attempt is made
to bring it to the floor of the Senate.
The Thomas amendment would
nullify the very purpose of the
Neutrality Act" he declared. ITO
call such a program neutrality is a
farce"
Senator Vandenberg, Republican.
OF Michigan also expressed opposi-
ton to any step which directly or
indirectly would involve designation
OF the aggressor.
Senator Thomas amendment is
regarded as Observation-Disclosures
move because of the Utahan's close
relationship to the administration
and the fact his amendment
embodies the substance of President
Roosevelt's recommendation that the
United States take measures short
OF war, but stronger than words, to
restrain aggressors.
Mr.. Roosevelt has expressed strong
dissatisfaction with present neu-
trality legislation because it
strengthens the aggressor and
weakens the victim.
When Senate hearings on neutral
ity will start is much of q mystery
as 1t was when Congress opened,
Administrative leaders seem in no
rush to act as long as the interna-
tlonal situation remains unsettled.
Experts Report Basis.
Senator Thomas based his amend
ment upon the experts report which
accompanied it, although he did not
accept their contentious en- toto.
The amendment in the first place
would empower the President to
prohibit by embargo certain articles
or materials used in war other than
arms. ammunition or implements of
war, going to belligerents or to states
where civil strife exists.
This change would affect a wide
range OF raw and finished products,
including scrap iron, copper, oil, cot
ton and automotive equipment of all
types.
The amendment also empowers
the President, with the approval
OF a majority Of each house of Con-
gress, In case of q war tx violation
OF a treaty to which the United
States Is a party, to exempt the
innocent state in whole or in part
from operation Of any provision in
the Neutrality Act-arms embargo.
cash-and-carry restrictions, pro-
hibition of loans and credits, pro-
hibition of Americans travelling on
belligerent ships, etc.
Subsequent to proclamation of
such exemption the President would
have power to change, modify or
revoke In whole or in part any ex-
emption issued under this section.
Is Hub Of Policy Dispute.
This proposal is the crux of all
the dispute which has ragged around
foreign policy ever since the war.
Thus, the Neutrality Act, If it had
contained such a paragraph as this,
would have enabled the Executive
to impose all the acts embareoes
and restrictions on Japan while ex-
empting China, If Congress concur
red.
Senator Thomas believes such an
amendment provides the simplest
and most effective definition of
aggression-going to war contrary
to treaty to which the United
States is a party.
The United States is a party to
scores OF treaties for which this
definition might be used, but chiefly
concerned are the Kellogg pact fol
pronunciation Of war, the nine
power treaty respecting China, and
the Argentine anti war pact
against recognition for territorial
| changes hv forco