Evening star., 1939-11-06

Charles G. Ross. Of the speaker.
AS for the speech itself: 1t was
one of the best of the whole debate
in either chamber. 1t was so efec-
tive that it may have accounted for
some Of the votes that produced the
Unexpectedly large majority for re-
peal. That's about as high tribute
as could be paid it, for it's very rare
that speech on the floor of the
House or Senate gives even the ap-
pearance of having turned any votes.
Wadsworth said more in a few
minutes than most of those said
who spoke on the neutrality issue
Tor longer periods up to seven hours.
He talked eXtemporaneously, with.
out any oratorical frills or any pom
derous citations of expert views on
international law. He gave his own
opinions simply and clearly-and
he won the House.
Realistic Approach.
To hear him and observe the effect
on the House was like sitting in the
Supreme Court chamber and see
AAtS SAAN SNu4 OuI Vi UOL
| when a lawyer like the late Newton
D. Baker, after the legalistic ver-
bositles of lesser lights, begins to cut
to the heart of an issue with plain
English.
/ Wadsvorth's speech ought to be
read in full. 1t is possible here only
to glance at it. He confessed that
he was not wildly enthusiastic" over
the bill, but he believed that it
represented realistic" approach
to the problem of keeping out of
war. The note of realism-a very
faint note in many of the speeches
on the subJect-Was dominant.
Thus: This legislation is being pro-
posed largely because we are afraid
OF oul own emotions. We are afraid
that incidents will occur somewhere
which will get us angry and drive
us into war. 1t is precautionary
| legislation"
He made clear his belief that we
are not going into the war and in
so doing expressed a mood which
seemed to grow in Congress, day
by day, as the neutrality fight pro-
gressed-the feeling that "the
American people will never go to
war unless they have become the
victims of studied, persistent series
OF overt acts of violence. acts COM
mitted not merely by individuals,
by cranks. by radicals. but committed
at the behest of foreign govern
ment. Without such acts, a series
OF them. carried on to such extent
that their purpose has become COM
pletely recognized. think America
does not go to war"
Scorns Argument.
One of the arguments against
repeal-the suggestion that We
should be deferred by the fear Of
explosions and other outrages' that
might follow repeal-provoked the
speaker to scorn. If he said, I'VE
are ever to frame the foreign policy
of the United States upon the theory
that We cannot keep order in our
own Government, in our own coun-
try. then. by heaven, we would bet
| ter crawl into hole and pull the
| llOle III dlIeT us.
Finally there was this note, on
which the House came to its feet
with cheers:
Let us be calm about this thing
I think we have been a
little jittery in the last two or three
weeks. There is a realistic side to
all this. What we must do is keep
our heads steady and keep our feet
on the ground. Those high in au-
thority in the United States Govern
ment should refrain from scolding
other nations. Nothing is gained for
us or in the interest of peace and
liberty by exciting enmity. I think
Theodore Roosevelt expressed it
very we'll when he said, Speak
softly and carry a big stick"
So much for the speech.
The lesson from its reception is
not only that clear thinking and
| clear statement sometimes have
their reward even on the floor of the
frequently turbulent House of Rep
resentatives, but that sincerity. how
ever much it may cost Congress-
man in immediate political gains,
pays him large dividends in the
respect of his colleagues, political
friends and foes alike.
Vote Not Surprising.
The respect which is accorded
Wadsworth of New York, a conser-
vative, is akin to that accorded the
liberal Norris. They are both rec
ognized as men who stand by their
convictions. Nobody who knew
Wadsworth's views on the neutrality
issue was surprised when he Joined
the little band of Republicans in
the House-21 in all-who supported
the Presidents plan.
Memories wen back to 1926, when
WadsWorth, then two-term men,
Der OF the Senate and the chair.
man of the Committee on Mill.
tary Affairs, was up for reelection.
Wadsworth was wet; he was one
of the very few vets in high public
life (Ritchie of Maryland was an
otheD who didn't trim on the issue.
The Republican party of New York
State was dry. WadsWorth could
have won the united support of his
party. and so the election, through
minor compromise with the drys.
He refused to make it. They put
up a third candidate who diverted
enough votes from Wadsworth to
defeat him. He came back into Con.
gress. as a member of the House,
in 1888.
The House deserves a credit mark
for applauding Wadsworth. 1t con-
talns trimmers a-plenty, in one
degree or another. but they all know
and respect political courage when
they see it.