Evening star., 1939-10-06

be taken into consideration, not just
the effect of single section.
How can nation become an
intervenor by restraining itself?
How can a nation become an inter-
venor by insisting that its citizens
do not use the rights and privileges
which other neutral nations enjoy?
How, in short, could America be-
come an intervenor by relying on
the international law, accepted uni-
versally for neutral nations, and
even that restricted and limited by
the proposed restrictions of this
projected law?"
AS Senator Thomas spoke, two
opponents of embargo repeal, Sen.
ators Clark and Downey were ready
to take the floor for the other side
later in the day.
Senator Thomas also took issue
with the argument of the opposition
that 1t is wrong to change the rules
after the game has started.
Indeed, most of the progress in
the development of the law of neu-
trality from the end of the 18th
century to the present time has re-
suited from changes introduced
while war was in progress" the
Utah Senator declared.
Declared Domestic Legislation.
Senator Thomas emphasized that
the pending bill is strictly domestic
legislation, and added I'VE are con-
sidering this legislation with but a
single objective, and that is to keep
the United States out of war"
1--WE are retracting from what
international law grants us as being
our rights" he continued. With
the single exception of the arms
embargo, we are in this act making
restrictions on American citizens
greater than under present law,
emphasizing more strongly than
ever the duties rather than the
rights of an American citizen in
times of foreign war. A retreat
from right well within the realms
OF actual rights could never be
deemed changing the rules of the
game after the game has started.
Did any one ever suggest some
10 years ago, when young man
who became confused ran a foot
ball to his own goal line instead
OF that of his opponents, expecting
to make a touchdown--did any one
ever suggest that this boy was
breaking any of the rules Of the
game? A change by retreat is
never an enlargement of ones
rights"
Denies Arguments.
Referring again to the Borah
claim that embargo repeal would
violate international law and be re-
garded as Intervention, Senator
Thomas asserted:
Those two arguments I deny. I
do not wish to challenge the emf
nence of the authorities whom the
Idaho Senator has quoted. But I
want to emphasize there are just as
strong authorities on the other side.
International lawyers, international
text-writers and statesmen who
quote international law are no more
on one side than are the members
of the United States Senate in re-
gard to any Of these great branches
Of law"
Before the Senate met, advocates
Of repeal of the embargo had gained
another Republican vote-that of
Senator Barbour of New Jersey-as
opposition leaders continued to dis
pute claims of Substantial ma jori-
ty" for the legislation.
Senator Barbour, who had been
listed as doubtful on the embargo
issue, said in a statement that he
would vote for the administration
bill because he believed it was less
likely to get the United States into
war.
He gave these specific reasons:
'First, because it will help accel.
crate and develop our own very in.
adequate national defense;
Second, because 1t forbids Amer
ican ships and American citizens to
enter the war zones;
Third, because extension of credit
to belligerents will be either elimi-
mated or rigidly controlled;
And, finally, because this pro-
cedure promotes as impartially as
Is possible this democracy's safety
and peace, and does not deny arbi-
trarily to any one the opportunity
Of obtaining such supplies As 1t has
{see NEUTRALITY. Page A-S3