Evening star., 1939-06-04
Hull Hopes to Steer Neutrality
Back to Traditional L. S. POLICY
Bloom Bill Abandoning Arms Embargo and
Garry Provision, Again Would Base
Stand on International Law
By CreSton B. Mullins.

Secretary of State Hulls proposals to
Congress for revision of neutrality leg
islation before it goes home. as embodied
in the Bloom neutrality bill now before
the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
puts the United States back on the path
Of its traditional policy of neutrality.
Stripped of the arms embargo and pro-
Vldlng for re-enactment of the cash"
portion of the 'cash-and-carry" section
of the law which expired May l. the
Bloom bill would go further than any of
the three neutrality laws enacted since
1885 to preserve American neutrality by
restricting the exercise Of so-caled neu-
tral rights and by guarding against un-
neutral operation of neutrality safe
guards.
Further than that, American neutral
ity would be founded once more on
principles of international law, thereby
bolstering the rule of law in relations be-
tween nations for which Secretary Hull
and President Roosevelt have contended
ever since they came to Office.
World War Brought jungle Law"
setback in the World War, not only in
that the belligerents from 1914-18 dumped
overheard practically every principle of
international conduct which they had
established in peacetime, but also in that
precedents of ruthlessness and inhuman-
ity were established which it will take
long time to undo.
partic1larlV was that rocoootc
the positions of neutrals The code of
duties and rights between neutrals and
belligerents built up since the 18th CEN
tury went for naught when Germany on
one side and Great Britain on the other
found themselves at death grips. Both
sides did not refrain from violating the
rights of the United States as a neutral,
the only difference being that Germanys
violation destroyed the lives and property
Of American citizens, while Britain acts
were far less ruthless and touched the
pocketbook, not the emotions, of the
American people.
Even the United States, after enter
ing the war, ignored the very principles
for which it had contended against both
Germany and Great Britain, so that all
the major belligerents were responsible
for the weakening of the legal structure.
The Covenant of the League of Ma
tions and the Kellogg BRAND pact did
not help much either, and provided the
basis for ceaSelesS attack on the belief
that any nation could remain neutral
when confronted with violation of this
new world law carrying the economic
and military sanctions of the League.
Alternative to World Anarchy.
Demise of the League and fragrant
violation of the Kellogg BRAND pact de-
stroyed whatever vitality there may have
been in the new law Of nations, so that
a return to traditional international law
is the only alternative to world anarchy
That is the direction in which Secretary
of State Hull moved in his letters to
Chairman Pittman Of the Senate For
elgn Relations Committee and Acting
Chairman Bloom of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee prefacing Mr.. Blooms
introduction of the joint resolution to
enact new neutrality law
Mr.. Hull expressed the belief in his
letter that the legislation which may be
enacted should conform, as far as pos
slble, to traditional concepts of interna-
tlonal law adhered to by this Govern
ment," and this note is struck again in
the preamble of Mr. Blooms resolution,
which declares the policy of the United
States is policy of neutrality in accord
ance with the rules of international law"
International law requires that ma
tions wishing to remain neutral and to
exercise the rights of neutrality must re-
frain from assisting either belligerent
and must not permit any part of its ter
rltory and property to be used as base
for belligerent operations. In return for
observance of these rules, the neutral is
permitted to maintain relations with
both belligerents, subject to belligerent
right to seize contraband in carrying out
an effective blockade
Implied in the law of neutrality is the
requirement that the neutral apply i'm
partially any domestic legislation affect
ing belligerents, and that the neutral
not attempt to weight the scales eco
nomically or politically in favor of either
belligerent.
1887 Act Unneutral.
The Neutrality Act of 1887 was highly
unneutral, therefore, precisely because it
would in fact, weight the scales in favor
OF one set of possible bellgerents. That
law contained the mandatory arms en-
barge and cash and carry section
which, in operation would have favored
the belligerent which was we'll supplied
with war material and the belligerent
which controlled the seas.
Although applied equally to all parties
to war, the arms embargo puts a pre-
MUM upon laWlessness and aggression
by depriving the victim of the right to
purchase in the United States the means
for his own defense. If arms embargoes
ever became universal practice the small
states, unable to maintain costly war in
dustries within their borders, would find
themselves gradually succumbing to
more powerful neighbors
The traffic in arms was long blamed
after the war as one of the most malig-
nant causes of war, and attempts to
legislate arms embargoes were made pc
riodically after Representative Burton of
Ohio introduced a resolution for this
purpose in 1927. The effort failed, how
ever. until May, 1884, when Congress
passed the Chaco Embargo Act As a