Evening star., 1939-10-30
Former Senator Urges
Repeal Of Embargo
Passage Of Pittmon Bill
Held Best Peace
Insurance

| insurance
| To the Editor Of The Star:
1t is very evident that, had Congress
never passed an embargo act, it would
not enact one now, and especially the
kind that is on our statute books today.
| Probably not half dozen Senators
could be induced to vote for it as an
| original proposition, for it Immediately
would be construed all over the world as
non-neutral act.
And it seems to me quite evident that
| the present act is non-neutral for it un-
| doubtedly inures to the benefit of one
country. This was not Intentionally
| done when the act was passed, but cir
cumstances have so completely changed
| IN Europe that our present law works
! to the advantage of Germany and dis
| eliminates against England and France.
In order to be perfectly neutral, we
! should do neither, but the present temper
| OF our people is for our Nation to be just
| as helpful to Britain and France as we
| possibly can without getting into war
| ourselves.
Before the passage of this law in 1885,
| everybody believed that we were entirely
neutral in all of our international rela-
tions, and, therefore, it is manifest that
| the Embargo Act is the only obstacle that
stands in the way of at least a partial
restoration of that status and feeling
1t seems quite certain that, with that
act repealed, we would be well nigh re-
stored to the condition that existed be-
fore it was passed, and hence it is alto
gether desirable to repeal it, unless we
encounter greater difficulties by repeal
ing it than now exist, and that has not
yet been demonstrated by any facts ad-
duced or any argument advanced by the
advocates of the existing law.
Both sides to the controversy are con-
Vlnced that international law has MOTH
ing to do with this proposition. We had
the right to pass the Embargo Act and
we have the right to repeal it, 1t is
wholly a domestic matter and we are
under no obligations to present the ques-
ton to any other nation before taking
action.
Under international law we have al
ways sold everything we had to sell to
other nations that wanted to buy, even
| in time Of war, and our right to do so
has never been questioned.
The Embargo Act was passed with the
very best intentions, but it now seems to
have gotten us into difficulty from
which we cannot be eXtricated unless we
repeal it and that repeal undoubtedly
could be effected without interfering
with international law, or with our re-
lations with any other nation, with the
possible exception of one.
To retain the Embargo Act is therefore,
to the advantage of just one nation and
to the disadvantage of many others.
Germany cannot complain if we want
to restore the condition of neutrality
that existed before this act was passed,
and England and France on the other
hand would undoubtedly be delighted to
have it done
1t is said that if We pass the proposed
law Germany will not have access to our
markets because she has no navy. That
| is unfortunate for her only. 1t is not our
| fault, but her misfortune, and there is
no requirement of international law and
compels us to prevent England and
France from taking full advantage of
their fortunate situation in this regard
With the embargo act repealed and a
cash-and-carry plan adopted, all nations
can come here and buy whatever they
have the money to pay for and carry it
away in their own vessels, subject to
whatever dangers naturally accrue in
time of war.
When member Of the Senate, voted
for the World War, but that problem did
not rise to disturb us at any time during
| that conflict, for, under the rules of in
| ternational law, as far as they could be
| observed in time of war, every nation
| had the right to buy or sell in any mar
| ket where the articles they desired
| could be obtained.
We were literally forced into that war
| because Germany engaged in ruthless
| attack upon our commerce upon the seas.
Her submarines sank many vessels, de-
stroyed many cargoes, and killed many
| Americans, and these outrages so aroused
| our people that Congress was compelled
| to go to war as our only recourse.
Now, the simple truth is that all of
! those outrages can occur under our pres
| ent existing law and doubtless will if it
remains on the statute books; whereas,
| if it is repealed, and if substituted for it
| the proposition now before the Senate
is enacted into law such losses cannot
occur for the simple reason that both
ships and property will be prevented
from sailing into danger zones where
such destruction can occur. In other
words, there is not a shadow of doubt
but that the proposed law would keep
American ships out of present regions of
danger.
Therefore, the present law, or any,
thing that. could be done pursuant to it's
provisions, is not guarantee against
our involvement in war, whereas the
proposed law necessarily would prevent
our being dragged into war by reason of
the destruction of our property on the
high seas.
Let it not be forgotten that no arms,
munitions or implements of war can be
carried on our own ships under any
conditions if this proposed law be en-
acted, nor could anything in any of these
categories be carried in foreign. ships
from our shores until all title to them
has been transferred to the foreign