Evening star., 1939-10-31
can carry everything else to bellig-

2 National Radio Forum.
can carry everything else to bellig-
erents?
If the act that passed the Senate
passes the House, then no goods can
be carried by American vessels to
belligerents in the war area. We
have got. to save the lives of our
citizens from destruction by war;
ring powers by keeping them off
belligerent vessels and by prevent
ing our own vessels from trading
with such belligerents or going into
combat areas Unless this is done
it is probable that we will be dragged
into the present and future wars.
If the Senate act passes the House
and becomes law, there need be
little fear for the lives of our citi-
zens or the peace of our country.
Is there any intelligent, peace
loving. patriotic citizen who would
be willing to see such act defeated
by reason of leaving out the en-
barge provisions or for any other
excuse whatsoever? Does not every
intelligent citizen know that our
first duty is to protect the lives Of
our citizens from destruction by
warning powers, and that the most
effective way to accomplish this is
to keep our citizens off of belliger-
ent ships and out of combat areas
and to protect the lives of our sea-
men by keeping our American YES
sells from trading with belligerents
and from entering combat areas?
Is this not the surest way to keep
out Of war? If this be so-and
know that all thinking citizens will
admit it is so, unless they are con-
fused by misleading and illogical
arguments and appeals to ground
less fear-they will pray for the
enactment Of the Senate act.
Three Arguments Presented.
Those who will have the embargo
act or nothing present three main
arguments.
l. That it is unneutral for our
Government to change the law dur
ing war;
2. That it is inhuman to furnish
weapons for the mass murder of
people by warning powers; and
3. That the repeal of the embargo
law constitutes intervention in the
present war and is the first step
that will inevitably lead us into the
war.
Now let us calmly consider these
arguments.
1t is the overwhelming opinion
OF international lawyers that the
change in a domestic law of a neu-
tral even after war has arisen is
not unneutral if in its changed form
it operates equally as between the
belligerents. A neutral may, accord
ing to the best Interpretation of in
ternational law, enact any law thai
1t deems essential for the protection
OF its citizens and for the protec.
ton of its peace, without regard tt
its effect on belligerents.
Much is made of the fact thai
nearly all of the 63 Senators wht
voted to repeal the embargo Law
voted for it in 1885 and 1887. I in.
troduced the acts. both in 1885 anc
1887, and supported them on the
floor of the Senate. I believed ther
that it might have a deterrent effect
on war. 1t has become obvious that
that conjecture was erroneous.
believed then that it could be ad.
ministered equally and justly as be.
tween all belligerents. Subsequen,
events have proven conclusively tt
my mind that I was in error as tc
such conclusion. The impossibility
of administering the law justly was
demonstrated in the conflict be.
tween Japan and China. China
having no munition works, had tt
have the manufactured arms anc
ammunition. Japan, having vas
munition works and ample cheal
labor preferred to acquire and die
acquire, the raw materials out O.
which arms and ammunition wer,
made. The embargo act did not in
clude in its list raw materials. Hat
the embargo been placed upo,
Japan and China, Japan could hav'
gotten everything she needed, whil,
China would have been deprived o
getting the only thing she coul,
use; that is, arms and ammunition
Arms Barred for Allies.
| And then the war broke out be
tween Great Britain, France an,
Poland on the one side and Ger
many on the other. The President
under the existing law, put in fore
and effect the embargo act agains
such warning powers. The act alb
solutely prevents France and Grea
Britain from obtaining arms. am
munition and implements of wa
from us. Germany, on the othe
hand, can obtain unlimited guam
titles of our arms, ammunition an
implements of war through Russia
Italy. Rumania or any other neu
trail European power. Russia
neutral. Italy is neutral. They cal
obtain all the arms. ammunition
and implements of war they desir
from the United States because tn
law only applies to belligerents, an
such countries are not belligerent
but are neutrals.
The distinguished Senator fron
Idaho, in his colloquy with me a
the time of his speech on Octobe
2, stated that Italy is in allianc
with Germany, and that our arms
ammunition and implements of wa
should not be permitted to go t
Italy. then called to his attentio,
;. the fact that the law only apple
to belligerents and unless the la,
is changed we cannot place the EN-
barge against Italy.