Evening star., 1939-05-02
Neutrality DELAYS

Expiration Of the "cash and carry"
provisions of the Neutrality Act
throws the Nation back to virtually
the same legislative situation which
existed before passage of the 1887
law. So far as statutory safeguards
against involvement in war are con-
cerned, we now have only an arms
embargo, restrictions against Amer
lean travel on belligerent ships and
loans to belligerent nations, plus pro-
hibitions against unneutral use of
American ports and licensing Of
arms shipments in and out of the
United States.
Although so much of the original
Neutrality Act remains, the lapsing
of the cash and carry" provision has
altered fundamentally the character
of our neutrality legislation. If war
were to start tomorrow, belligerents
would be entitled to buy American
goods, having them shipped in Amer
lean bottoms at the risk of American
merchants. Therein lies the danger
of American merchant vessels again
being sunk and American lives again
being lost in carrying on a trade
which is now perfectly legal, but
which might embroil the United
States in war.
Although there is no disposition in
Congress to enact stop-gap legisla-
ton, ostensibly because it might
handicap enactment of the Pittman
peace act" which would permit
"cash and carry" traffic in arms as
we'll as other goods, there is urgent
need to press the neutrality hearings
to an early close and to expedite the
Pittman bill to enactment in order
that the country be not too long
without the protection it would
afford.
In the face of a European situation
which may explode at any moment
as Germany puts pressure on Poland
and the Poles show increasing de-
termination to resist, war might
conceivably come suddenly, catching
America off balance and forcing
hasty enactment of neutrality legis-
lation in the midst of conflict, a
danger repeatedly warned against.
Senate and House committees have
held hearings now for nearly a
month, listening to parade of wit
nesses-some erudite, some idealistic,
some rejudiced-argue for one or
another Of the pending measures.
But so far the views of the State
Department have been carefully
withheld, unless Undersecretary Of
State Welles was voicing official
views when he spoke at Charlottes-
vile, Va, recently in favor of the
principle Of the Thomas amendment,
which would empower the President,
with the consent of Congress, to
designate an aggressor nation and
differentiate between aggressor and
victim.
State Department officials are
scheduled to appear before the House
Foreign Affairs Committee this week,
or early next, to set forth their atti-
tudes. Thereafter must follow final
committee action and debate on the
floors of Congress, with possible COM
promise conferences before enact
ment is possible. That the isolation
lists will make bitter fight against
abandonment of the arms embargo
or relaxation of mandatory provi-
sions, is certain: On the other hand,
Senator Norris has thrown substan-
tial weight behind the Pittman bill
with his Endorsement, a position in
which he is joined by considerable
number of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee.
Solicitude on Capitol Hill to meet
such a weighty issue with full factual
evidence, ample advice and expert
opinion is understandable and wise,
but If the neutrality statutes are to
be reinforced to forestall involvement
Of the United States If war breaks,
out, more determined action behind
the Pittman resolution is necessary.