Evening star., 1939-06-14
Discusses Principles
Of True Neutrality
Strict ImportioIity Towcrd
Motions at War Held
Essential Element

Motions at War Held
Essential Element
To the Editor Of The Star:
Our present neutrality act is the child
OF an isolationist mother and an inter-
ventionist father. At the time of its
birth. on May l, 1887, 1t showed little
of the characteristics Of either. At the
present time, after nearly two years of
growth, the isolationist traits that stand
out like freckles on a pale-faced girl are
those which would prevent the United
States from carrying on any trade in
arms with belligerent countries, which
would prevent our ships from transport
Ing arms to either belligerent, which
would tell our citizens that they are not
to travel on belligerent merchant vessels
except at theix own risk and which
would declare that American merchant
men are not to be armed during a period
Of international or civil strife.
The interventionist moles are even
more noticeable than the isolationist
freckles. When we examine them, we
see that the President has been given
the powers to decide whether or not a
state OF war Cor civil war; exists be-
tween two or more foreign nations, and
to bar at his discretion the submarines
or armed merchant vessels OF the bellig-
erents from the ports of the United
States. Furthermore In the event OF an
attack by foreign power on any Amer
lean nation the act specifically states that
none Of these provisions is to be oper-
ative.
Following the discretionary powers
given him by the act the President has
decided that for the time being at least
China and Japan are not legally at war.
He has made this decision, not because
ne wishes to remain neutral In the
struggle, but because his sympathies are
with China. He feels that If he invokes
the act, 1t would work to the detriment
OF China and to the aid of Japan. For,
he argues, Japan alone has the ships
which would be necessary to TRANSPORT
whatever goods were purchased here ac-
cording to the cash and carry" pro-
visions OF the act. In effect, then, the
President Is aiding China to secure
munitions OF war in this country and
to ship them in American ships across
the Pacific. Claiming to be neutral he
mas not acted with any degree Of i'm
partiality or friendship for both sides.
Inc concepts OF isolation and interven-
ton are poles apart and in fact con-
tradict each other. In international par
lance isolation connotes q withdrawal of
one nation from the internal affairs and
external disputes Of other nations. It
means maintaining a strict neutrality in
any war that may break out between
tnese other nations. Intervention, on
the other hand, means interference by
one nation In the internal affairs and
external quarrels Of other nations. It
means picking out and opposing the ma
ton which Is the aggressor and at the
same time helping the victim" of the
aggression. As We have seen above, both
OF these contradictory characteristics are
present In our neutrality law.
With such contradictory traits evident
IN our neutrality law, 1t is our purpose
IN this letter to dig into the BACKGROUND
OF American international law and to
find out what neutrality really is and
Just what it means.
International law, of which neutrality
Is very important chapter, springs
from the customs of nations, from
treaties, from cases settled In the courts
and from the writings of authorities on
international affairs. To learn Just what
neutrality has meant to the United
States let us turn to these four sources
and see what they have to say about
neutrality.
For discussion Of the customs of
nations let us turn to Emmerich de Vat
tel. the French publicist whose work.
The Ldu OF Nations, has been the veri-
table bible Of the United States Supreme
Court since the foundation of this Re-
public on any question Of international
law. In his chapter on neutrality Vattel
states that neutral nations are those
which take no partin a war, and remain
friends OF both parties, without favorine
either side to the prejudice Of the other.
so long as neutral nation desires
to be secure in the enjoyment of its
neutrality. 1t must show itself in all
respects strictly impartial toward the
oelligerents; for II 1t tauors one to the
prejudice Of the other, it cannot CON-
plain II the latter treats it as an adher-
ent and ally of the enemy Its neutrality
10ould be hypocritical neutrality of
Uhtch no state would consent to be
the dupe." Qtaics mine)
The early spokesmen Of the State De-
partment formulated this policy in their
writings and speeches. John Quincy
Adams, as Secretary of State, wrote that
the state Of neutrality recognizes the
cause Of both parties to the contest as
7nst-that is, 1t avoids all consideration
OF the merits Of the contest" In the
negotiation Of treaties dealing with neu-
trality the State Department has held
to this traditional American view of
neutrality. Up to 1898, thirty-seven trea-
ties dealing with some phase of neutrality
had been negotiated by the department.
All of these were based upon the funda-
mental thesis that neutrality means q
strict impartiality in the treatment of
the belligerents.
American courts have held tn Vattels