Evening star., 1939-06-28
Proposed Neutrality
Law Held Dangerous
Believes Distinction Must Be
Made Between Munitions
And Other Supplies
To the Editor of The Star:

To the Editor Of The Star:
In recent public statements regarding
the administrators proposed amend
ment OF the Neutrality Act to permit Of
the sale of arms and ammunition to
belligerent nations, administration
spokesmen such as Secretary Hull and
Senator Pittman have advanced the
argument that there is no logical differ
ence between the selling Of such articles
as high explosives and machine guns, and
the selling Of commodities like wheat,
cotton, motor cars, or typewriters. There
fore, they say unless we are prepared to
forego exporting our cotton and our
wheat, logic compels us to abandon our
present policy of regarding the sale of
arms to belligerents as unneutral and to
adopt instead policy Of selling arms to
belligerents just as we would permit the
sale to them of cotton shirting, wheat
flour, or canned peaches.
This argument, it is submitted is
specious, and dangerous nonsense. It
is based on premise which is false In
history and false in fact.
The fact is that arms and ammunition
are by their nature highly specialized
commodities, which are specifically and
primarily designed for the destruction of
human life and the destruction of prop
erty, and which are adaptable to very
little else. AS such they have a very
special status in commerce, a status
which Is fundamentally different from
That OF the ordinary objects of trade
which are useful in peace as well as
in war.
This fundamental difference of char
acter between arms and other objects
OF trade has been recognized throughout
the history of international law in the
form OF the distinction made between
absolute contraband and conditional
contraband OF war. A neutral shipping
arms to belligerent has always done so
at his own risk The arms he ships are
subject to seizure and forfeiture as abso-
lutte contraband Of war by other belli-
gerents. His government is unable to
protest such seizure without mourning the
charge that by seeking to protect the
unneutral conduct of one of its citizens
1t Is itself acting unneutrally. All the
more fully is this charge incurred when
the government itself is the moving
force in the shipment of arms. In such
cases government which seeks to arm
one belligerent as against another is
generally regarded as acting unneutrally,
and as inviting by its own act the posi-
bility Of warlike reprisal on the part of
the offended nation. AS in 1917, a nation
which fails in the performance of its
neutral duties may well find itself in
volved in war which a more meticulous
observance OF neutrality might have
avoided danger which will not be
escaped by trick transfers Of title which
deceive no one.
Against this, the right Of a neutral to
ship ordinary articles Of commerce to
belligerent nations has always existed
on an entirely different footing. In
theory such shipments are immune from
seizure provided it can be shown they
are not destined for use by the armed
forces OF belligerent. And in practice
neutrals have been successful in main
tanning this right, depending on their
military and naval strength and their
determination to assert their rights as
neutrals. Mr.. Hull himself has justified
recent loan to invaded China on the
ground that 1t would not be used for
belligerent purposes and has apparently
succeeded in imposing his point of view
upon Japan in this instance.
1t is true that in recent years the
development of war on total scale
has largely obliterated most outward
distinctions in the treatment of absolute
contraband and that of conditional con-
traband. Nevertheless the mere fact
that absolute and conditional contra
band are often treated alike in modern
warfare does not make them alike in
fact, or affect the fundamental differ
ence in their nature. Arms and am
munition are fundamentally different
from other articles of commerce, no
matter how the contraband lists of
warning nations may read. To main
tain that they are not Is to ignore both
history and common sense: as well say
that bushel of grain and quart of
rye whisky are essentially one and the
same thing. They are not the same
thing by nature and cannot be made so
by fiat with any profitable result.
Secretary Hull and Senator Pittman
presumably know this; to think other
wise would be to insult their intelligence.
But if they do know 1t, surely they should
not allow themselves to be used to con-
fuse our thinking at time when we
are weighing the grave issues OF war
and peace which are involved in the
administrations current attempt to
scrap neutrality as an effective national
policy Of the United States. A very
serious alteration of national policy is
under consideration. It should be de-
cided on the basis of truth and facts,
not upon glib demonstrations that black
is white. HENRY CARTER.
June 81.