Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1939-09-17
US. Faced With Threat of War
In Spite of Neutrality Policy
History Proves Rights of Belgerents Conflict
With Claims of Nations Not
Involved in Conflict
By RAYMOND p Brandt.
By Raymond p. Brandt.


sored the proposal Of the National Ger
n-American Alliance that Congress
clay an embargo upon all contraband
of war Saving and excepting foodstuffs
alone, and thereby withdraw from the
contending powers all aid and assistance
of this republic" Stones demands fore
Swallowed the present program OF the
Senate isolationist bloc that the present
arms embargo be retained, although 1t
works to the disadvantage Of the de-
mocracies.
In 5,000-word reply to Senator Stone,
William Jennings Bryan, then Secretary
of State, set fourth the Wilsonian posi-
ton, stating in part
Those in this country who sympathize
with Germany and Austria Hungary APP
pear to assume that some obligation rests
upon this Government, in the perform
ance of its neutral duty, to prevent all
trade in contraband, and thus to equalize
the difference due to the relative naval
strength of the belligerents. No such
obligation exists; it would be an unneu-
trail act, an act of partially on the part
of this Government, to adopt such a
policy if the Executive had power to
do SO. If Germany and Austria Hungary
cannot import contraband from this
country it is not. because of that fact, the
duty of the United States to close its
markets to the Allies.
THE markets of this country are open
on equal terms to all the world, to every
nation, belligerent or neutral"
Bryan Outlines Difficulties.
In his lengthy reply, Secretary Bryan
outlined the difficulties all neutrals en-
counter when they seek to protect their
rights" to trade with billigerents:
THE record of the United States in
the past" he wrote, "is not free from
criticism. When neutral, this Govern
ment has stood for a restricted list of
absolute and conditional contraband. AS
beligerent we have contended for
liberal list, according to our conception
Of the necessities of the case.
Some of the doctrines which appear
to bear harshly upon neutrals at the
present time are analogous to or out
growths from policies adopted by the
United States when it was billigerent.
The Government cannot consistently
protest against the application of rules
which it has followed in the past, unless
they have not been practiced as hereto
fore
States has, in the past, placed all articles
from which ammunition is manufactured
on its contraband list, and has declared
copper to be among such materials, it
necessarily finds some embarrassment in
dealing with the subject.
ut is understood that both rubber and
leather, together with WOOL have been
embargoed by most of the belligerent
countries. 1t will be recalled that the
United States has, in the past, exercised
the right of embargo upon exports of any
commodity which might aid the enemy's
cause
Roosevelt Policy Forceful.
President Roosevelt, during his seven
years in the White House. has made no
secret of desires to use methods short of
war to curb aggressor or totahtarian
nations. This attitude, of course, does
not come within the meaning of Impair
TALLY" demanded by the legal definition
OF neutrality. The genesis of the present
neutrality laws reflects this attitude In
1885 Mussolini was invading Ethiopia
with virtually no other excuse than that
an expanding Italy needed African colo
MES. Ethiopia had neither cash nor
ships to buy and transport American
munitions; Italy had the cash and ships
Thus an impartial" embargo laid. on
arms, munitions and implements of war
and such raw materials as oil acted
against Italy, an aggressor nation.
Later Japan invaded China. Applica-
ton of the arms embargo would have
reacted to the disadvantage of China,
which lacked frms and munitions, and
would have been much less serious
handicap to Japan. At that time the
cash and carry provisions were in
effect and Japan, having ships, could
have bought essential war materials had
the President put them on the cash
and carry" list. But since Japan had
not formally declared war on China, the
President was able to aid China by not
determining on his own motion that a
state of war existed between Japan and
China and imposing the arms embargo
except through moral suasion against
Japan. This was a technical evasion,
but one which the majority of Ameri-
cans approved.
There was more impartiality in the
administration attitude toward the
Spanish civil war when the American
government paralleled action with the
European Non-intervention Committee
to localize the conflict. But the United
States, Great Britain and France were
double-crossed by Germany and Italy,
signatories of the non-intervention pact.
Many observers insist that the Loyalist
government, even without the help of
Soviet Russia, would have defeated Gen.
Franco had he not received aid from
Hitler and Mussolini, or if the United
foto toi, Two,