Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1939-06-09


good. But it seems that it can't.
The proposed neutrality legislation
is in the way. That is matter that
ought to be dealt with at this ses-
sion. The threat of filibuster in
| the Senate ought not to be allowed
to postpone the settlement of an
issue which every consideration Of
prudence demands should be set
| tied with the least possible delay.
What if there is a filibuster?
Congress is not up against an early
fixed date of adjournment as it used
| to be in the case of the old lame
| duck sessions abolished by the SAL
utary Norris amendment. 1t can sit
| the whole year If it pleases. No
| small group in the Senate. no mat
| ter how determined, could hope to
prevent consideration of neutral
| ity bill in the Senate if there was
equal determination on the part Of
the leadership to bring it to a vote.
There ought to be no hesitancy
| among the leaders in holding Con-
gres5 in session, if the public busi-
| ness requires, beyond the middle
of July. The heat? Washington
is not the only hot place in which
people have got to work for a liv-
ing. Congressman are paid $4,000
year each to transact the public
business. No man should run for
Congress who is not prepared to
make a full-time job of his pub
lie duties, heat or no heat in the
Capital city.
Every session of Congress pro-
duces lot of loose talk, in Congress
and out, about the desirability OF
an early adjournment. 1t it isn't
the heat that is urged as a reason,
it's likely to be the alleged bad eff
feet OF the session on business, or
the sacrifice" that a man makes
when he goes into Congress. There's
as much buncombe in one of these
contentious as the other. I doubt
If the first ever had any real
validity, and certainly it has none
now, when one of the main jobs be-
fore Congress is to pass a tax bill
that may have stimulating effect
on business The other notion-that
Congressman goes against his
material welfare when he accepts a
salary of $4,000 from the public
is too palpably a piece of hokum
to require any answer.
The pending neutrality bill en-
bodying the ideas of Secretary of
State Hull should be brought to
vote at this session, and, as this
writer believes, should be passed.
The bill represents no snap judg-
ment. but is the product of months
Of study by the State Department
and of protracted congressional
hearings. All the arguments for
it are well known; all the arguments
against it have been thoroughly ex-
plotted. The proponents of the
measure are entitled to insist upon
a showdown.
Delay is dangerous. Delay brings
us daily closer to the possible nee
eSSity of having to settle the neu-
trality issue in the midst of Eu-
ropean war. We could only settle
it then by action that would be con-
strued as definitely hostile by one
SiOc VI Vic Ollltl. Whatever We
do. one side or the other will be
advantaged; that fact is inescap-
able. We had better take now what
ever risks may lie in throwing the
advantage to the side of the demo-
cracies-if that is the will of Con-
gresham to take thu greater
risks involved in waiting until the
outbreak of war.
The advantage now, under the
arms embargo. is with the dictators.
The pending BILL by repeating the
embargo and permitting belliger-
ents to buy arms, like other COM
modities, on cash-and- carry basis,
would benefit France and England.
1t expresses, there is sound reason
to believe. the sentiment of the
people, and it writes a policy that
accords with the economic inter-
ests of the nation-a policy that is
almost certain to be made effective,
eventually. if war comes to Europe.
The time to pass the bill is now.