Evening star., 1939-05-22
Neutrality by Law


is becoming apparent, even to some
of the die-hard proponents of the
mandatory legislation principle, in
the SOLDERING light of four years of
congressional experimentation. The
keep-uS-out of-war cy law move
ment gained ground in 1885 when
the Ethiopian conflict aroused
fears of worldwide conflagration
The 1885 Neutrality Act empowered
the President to impose an embargo
on the export of implements of war
to belligerents upon the outbreak or
during the progress of war;" set up
National Munitions Board to license
munitions exports and vested in the
President discretionary power to
forbid Americans to travel on bel
ligerent ships except at their own
risk. President Roosevelt invoked the
embargo against both Italy and
Ethiopia, but the law did not permit
him to ban shipments of certain vital
war materials, such as oil. The hands
Of the Executive were tied in other
ways.
Early in 1885 Congress amended
the Joint Resolution of 1885 and ex-
tended it to May /, 1887. Instead Of
loosing some of the bonds handi-
Gaping the President in dealing with
unforeseen emergencies, Congress
provided for an automatic embargo
whenever the President found that a
state of war existed The 1885 act
also provided for an embargo on
loans to belligerents. Again neutral
ity legislation was found wanting in
an emergency-this time the unpre-
dictable civil war in Spain. The law
said nothing about civil strife and
the President was without authority
to carry out the manifest intent of
Congress against shipments of mu-
nitions to warning groups of any kind.
AS soon as Congress reconvened in
January, 1887, the President pointed
out the serious deficiencies of the
law and asked for specific authority
to deal with the Spanish war. This
was granted in a special joint reso-.
luton.
After lengthy debate in both houses
OF Congress, the present "perma-
nent" Neutrality Act came into being,
on May /, 1887. The permanent part
OF the law called for an automatic
embargo on arms and loans to bel
Ngerents as soon as the President
proclaimed that state of war ex-
listed. A supplementary "cash and
carry" section, which expired on May
last, authorized the President to
extend the embargo to virtually all
exports unless paid for ION the barrel
head" and shipped in foreign vessels.
The demise of this provision leaves
the President shackled with the man
datory arms embargo phases of the
1887 act-although, as Mr.. Roosevelt
80 aptly told Congress when he
signed the 1885 law, history is filled
with unforeseeable situations that
call for some flexibility of action" He
pointed out then that situations
could arise in which "the wholly in
flexible provisions might drag us into
war instead of keeping us out" The
argument Of the supporters of the
mandatory school has been that the
President should not have discretion
to get the country into war-the
right to declare war being vested ex-
clusively in Congress. While it may
be true that discretion could work
both ways, 1t is not to be assumed
that President could not be trusted
to use the privilege for the best in
terests of the people. And it is Ger
tainly easy to believe that exigencies
might arise in which inability of the
President to exercise discretion might
drag us into war, against his will,
the will of Congress and the will of
the people.
Before Congress thinks of adjourn
ing, 1t should settle this all-impor-
tant problem of neutrality. The
best way Of settling 1t would be to
recognize that neutrality cannot
successfully be legislated-to return
to the President the full right of
using his judgment in attempting to
keep America at peace with the
world. But the mandatory bloc in
Congress is strong, despite the loss
of some adherents. Threats of a
filibuster against discretionary legis-
lation have been made. There is
need for haste The best possible
compromise would seem to be repeal
of the present dangerously inf1exible
act and re-enactment of "cash
and carry" plan applied to munitions
and all other supplies to belligerents
Such a plan would be more workable
and safer if the President were per-
r1itted some degree of discrimination