Evening star., 1939-09-28

visions of existing law. It pro-
hibits the solicitation and the collec-
ton of funds by or on behalf of
warning powers. 1t restricts the
use of our ports by submarines and
as base of supply for belligerent
war vessels. 1t grants to the
President the power to restrict the
use of our ports not only as to SUBJ
marines and other war vessels Of
belligerents, but even to armed mer-
h n tmen of belligerents. 1t
strengthens the control of the Ma
tional Munitions Control Board
over arms, ammunition, and i'm
plements of war. 1t provides that
the American Red Cross under safe
conduct granted by the belligerent
powers may charter American
vessels and carry officers and
American Red Cross personnel, med
ical personnel, and medical supplies,
food and clothing, for the relief
OF human suffering. This is the
proper way to carry such articles
and such aid to the nom combatants
OF belligerent countries.
Penalties Increased.
May call attention to the fact
also that we have greatly increased
the penalties for the violation Of
section two ta) with regard to
American ships, with regard to
transportation in and through COM
bat areas, and with regard to finan-
cial transactions We not only make
the owner of the ship liable to the
penalty. but in the case of a COR
poration or association or partner
ship, we make the officers and direc-
tors of such corporation, association
or partnership liable to such penalty.
In other words, we have put teeth
in our proposed neutrality law.
The only legitimate issue left is
as to whether we should repeal the
section Of existing law providing for
the embargo upon arms. ammuni-
ton and implements of war as de-
fined in the act. Now, under the
universally accepted principles of
international law from time i'm
memorial belligerents have been per-
mitted to purchase any kinds of
articles or materials in any neutral
country and all neutral countries
have recognized this principle and
do now recognize it except the
United States. The prohibition
against the export of arms ammu-
milton and implements of war is the
| only departure from international
law. The other provisions of existing
law and OF my proposed substitute
are domestic legislation and not
contrary to international law.
We enacted the embargo law In
the first place chiefly for the purpose
of preventing the summarizing of
our American vessels. We should
have known. then. and We certainly
know now, that belligerent govern
ments will consider it just as i'm
portant to prevent those other ma
terials not defined in the Embargo
Act from reaching their enemy as
the defined arms, ammunition and
implements of war. 1t is the de-
struction of the vessel with Ameri-
can citizens on board rather than
the destruction of the property that
| arouses a war spirit in the United
States. So we do not protect the
lives of our citizens by the embargo
on few manufactured materials so
long as we permit other contraband
material to be transported on Amer
lean vessels to belligerents.
Partially Charge Answered.
1t is urged by the proponents of
the Embargo Act that to sell arms,
ammunition, and implements of war
to belligerents is engaging in mass
murder. Aren't we equally engaging
In mass murder in China today by
permitting to be shipped to Japan
gasoline that runs their airplanes
and scrap iron out of which they
make their bombs with which to de-
stroy the innocent population of
China. Can any one logically con-
tend that oil and gasoline are not
equally instruments of war with pow
der and other explosives. And yet
| there is no prohibition against the
export to any country, belligerent or
not, of gasoline and scrap iron: in
fact, of all of the raw materials that
have named.
1t has been strenuouSly contend
ed that to repeal the embargo would
aid Great Britain and France be-
cause they are supposed to have
control of the sea and because Ger
many has no way of getting such
material into its country. But is
this statement true now with regard
to Germany? Russia may have
been at war with Poland, although
none of the belligerent powers have
so declared. That war is practically
over. Russia is not now at war with
any country. None of the belligerents
have declared that Russia is at war
with any country. Under the EN-
barge Act Russia, not being at war,
can legally import from the United
States arms, ammunition, and i'm
plements of war as defined in the
act. There is no law either inter-
national or domestic that prohibits
Russia from re-transporting these
goods or substitutes therefor into
Germany. Russia has gold with
which to buy such materials.
Italy is not in state of war with
any country. Under our Embargo
Act Italy may legally import arms,
ammunition, and implements of
war from the United States. There
is no law international or other
wise which interferes with Italy's
transporting such material or sub
stitute for such materials into
Germany. All, but it will be said
that it is contrary to the embargo
law to permit exports to neutral
country for re-export to belligerent
country. How can we determine
these facts during var. It's i'm
possible. But if we could determine
these facts what would there be to
prevent Russia and Italy from re-
tanning the arms, ammunition, and
implements of war that we sent, and
sending into Germany arms, ammu-
milton, and implements of war of