Evening star., 1939-07-18

DISCUSSES NEUTRALITY-se
who spoke last night in the Ne
element. Should 1t be invoked at
the moment the first shot Is fired,
or should there be an interval during
which peace negotiations may be
attempted or until 1t appears that
the war will be OF such proportions
AS to present a threat of involve
ment to America? If the act be
not invoked at once, a belligerent
might Quickly obtain sufficient arms
and other essentials before it is
applied. The delay will be regarded
by the other belligerent as hostile
and unneutral act toward 1t.
Another ground for my opposi-
ton to the act is that 1t offers an
incentive for aggressive nations to
declare war against other nations
that are less prepared and less
aggressive, for so long as there is
peace, arms, ammunitions and i'm
plements of war may be secured
from the United States. Walter
Lippmann states that by repeating
the Neutrality Act. I'VE shall take
away from them (referring to Ger
many and italy, the hideous in
ducement to start a war in order
to deprive their opponents OF sup
plies that they can obtain only as
long as there is no war"
Influences World Toward Peace.
In the troubled conditions prevail
ing throughout the world today, this
Republic, with its great material and
moral strength. should lead in the
progress toward international peace
and friendly cooperation among
the family of nations. Dedicated to
the high principles of justice and
freedom, 1t has ever sought the set
tlement of disputes by pacific means
The spiritual force of this democ-
racy has elevated the concept of
government in many lands, and its
devotion to peace has had its inf1u-
ence upon the world.
The act of 1897 is illogical, and
IN my opinion, should be repealed.
There Is no basis for placing an
embargo on the sale of arms. am
munitions and implements of war,
and not including in that embargo
other articles, as oil, food and
Clothing, that are as essential, II
not more so, to the conduct Of mod
ern warfare. Surely there is no
greater risk in shipping ornaments
than there is in Transporting other
articles needed in carrying on mill
tary activities. The arbitrary dis
tinction is unfair to certain nations,
and, again, places the United States
IN an unfavorable situation Indus
trial countries do not need arms
and munitions if they can import
the raw materials with which to
manufacture them; but, some coun-
tries that are primarily agricultural
are in dire need of the manufac-
tured articles themselves: and their
embargo while permitting the ex-
portatlon OF scrap iron and other
essential raw materials from which
theY are made, operates to the dis
advantage of non-industrial nations,
In this troubled world condition,
legislation in advance, concerning
our foreign policy, cannot be
planned intelligently. Our short ex-
perlence under the present act has
demonstrated the impossibility of
formulating rule that will guide
the United States in international
conflicts that may arise. We cannot
foresee who will be at war, or the
cause of the same. We cannot
divine the issues that will be in
volved, nor can we give expression
to what the public sentiment in
this country will be six months from
now, or one year, or five years.
Surrenders Conceded Rights.
The act of 1887 is a surrender of
conceded neutral rights even before
war breaks out. In the event Of a
conflict, having surrendered certain
rights, fear we shall have to emu
merate rights which we intend to
hold fast Belligerents are not con-
cerned in the details of local legis-
latloni They are at war, and admit
restraints MISUNDERSTANDING i'm
posed by the principles of interna-
tlonal law, as they have come to
be accepted through centuries of
warfare.
There is no justification for the
surrender of our neutral rights.
There is no requirement for such
self-denial. Dulles and Armstrong
in their work entitled Can We Be
Neutral?" have pointed out the
source OF a great deal of the con-
fusion in formulating a neutrality
policy. In restricting our shipping
and giving up other rights during
times of war. what is our purpose?
Are we trying to keep out Of war or
are we trying to prevent war? II
the former, then clearly We should
surrender these rights only when
there is danger to our peace in not
surrendering them; that is, during a
war when the belligerents have sub
stantial control of the sea. If this
is the purpose, it is obviously futile
to legislate on the subject in ad-
vance of knowing whether the peace
interests of the United States are
at stake.
If the purpose is to prevent war,
concerted action by several great
powers would be the only effective
curb. The futility of one nation at
tempting a partial or general en-
barge against belligerents in order
to prevent war has been demorf-
strated throughout history. 1t is
too clear for argument that II the
United States refuses to sell Ger
tain articles to countries ut war,
others producing the same articles
will gladly supply the warning ma
tions. The restriction on our own
trade is merely = deprivation for
the benefit of our foreign COM
petitorS. And 1t must be remen-