Evening star., 1939-10-04

administration bill was adopted.
Senator Connally, one of the
drafters Of the bill, warned that
only by repeal of the arms embargo
and substitution of the cash-and-
carry plan could this country hope
to stay out of the war.
In his address, however, Senator
Vandenberg pictured the arms en-
barge as the neutral position which
Congress has twice told the world
would be our conduct in the event of
foreign wars, AID added:
consciously y otherwise, but
mostly consciously, we are asked to
depart from it in behalf of one
belligerent whom our personal SYM
pathies largely favor and against
another belligerent whom our per-
sonal feelings largely condemn"
He asserted emphatically that re-
peal of the embargo would be so in
terpreted in Europe TODAY.
Assails Territorial Extension.
Senator Vandenberg also assailed
the suggestion that American terri
torial waters may extend hundreds
OF miles out to sea-whereas inter-
national law says they end miles
from our coast.
He pictured vessels of some bel
Igerent nations coming to American
ports, under the cash -and- carry
plan, loading up with arms or food
stuffs. He pictured the submarines
OF another belligerent lying in wait
for them, either just outside the g.
mile limit or anywhere within the
200 or 300 0miles out to sea into
which the President and the Amer
ican spokesman at the present
Pan-American Conference have in
dicated Qur interests may 60.
THE former is too close for COM
fort and the latter is too contro-
versial to be safe," said Senator Van
denbreg. "Is it possible that any
can seriously argue that cash-and-
carry is less hazardous and less
likely to inducements than no trade
III uuuItlOIlS dG I'LL:
War in Front Yard.
Under the cash-and-carry, he pre-
dicted, one of two things happens:
Either We invite the war into our
front yard, so to speak, miles off
shore, or we try by dictum to extend
the limit and proceed to quarrel
with these belligerents as to pre-
cisely where the kill may start"
Senator Vandenbergs basic theme
was that repeal of the present arms
embargo IS distinct retreat from
and change in our present neu-
trality.
Millions of Americans, including
many members of Congress, believe
rightly or wrongly-this action
not only breaks down our will to
peace, but also relatively faces to-
ward our involvment in this war.
Therefore millions of Americans
and many members of the Congress,
regardless of their belligerent SYM
pathies, earnestly oppose the inaug-
uration of such a trend. The pro-
ponents of the change vehemently
insist that their steadfast purpose,
like ours. is to keep America out
OF the war, and their sincere as
surances are presented to our peo-
pie. But the motive is obvious, and
the inevitable Interpretation of the
change, inevitably invited by the
circumstances, will be that we have
officially taken sides. Somebody
will be fooled-either the America
which is assured that the change Is
wholly pacific, or the foreigners
who believe it is the casting of our
die. Either of these disillusion-
ments would be intolerable. Each is
ominous. Yet someone will be
fooled-either those at home who
expect too much, or those abroad
who will get too little.
Issue "Above Politics"
Senator vandenberg agreed with
President Roosevelt that the issue
before the Senate was "above
politics" and that Americas atti-
tude was against military aggresors
and tryants. He applauded that
part of the Presidents address to
Congress in which he said: "Our
acts must be guided by one single
hard-headed thought - keeping
America out of this war"
"Hard-headedly I applaud the
objective" commented Senator Van
denberg. "Hard-headedly I dissent
from the proposed method of reach
ing it. To repeal the arms embargo
is to strike down q great indispen-
sible, insulating defense against oul
involvement in this war. I oppose
repeal because believe repeal makes
US relatively vulnerable, while the
embargo leaves u relatively I'm.