Evening star., 1939-05-14
Another Neutrality Plan

Another Neutrality Plun
From the welter of hearings and
discussions over the increasingly
perplexing problem of neutrality
legislation comes a new proposal
designed to keep the United States
from being drawn into another
international free-for-a all. Prompt
ed by the automatic eXpira ton
nearly two weeks ago of the cash
and carry section of the 1887
Neutrality Act, Senator Gillette,
Democrat, of Iowa has introduced
a resolution to repeal the mandatory
arms embargo provisions of the pres
ent law in favor of a presidentially
restricted trade = at your own risk
policy He would let the cash and
carry" principle remain in the grave
yard of inferred legislation. but
would retain the existing ban on
financial transactions with warning
nations.
In so far as the Gillette resolution
now binding the President and his
co-administrators of our foreign pol
icy, it is step in the right direction.
AS matters now stand, the President,
If he finds that state of war exists
between two or more nations, is per-
mitted no discretion with respect to
embargoes on arms, ammunition
and implements of war" consigned
to belligerents. He can make no dis
tlnction between aggressor and vic
tim, either as to munitions ship
ments or war loans, although a
situation obviously might arise
whereby the withholding of aid to
victim would contribute to aggres-
sion, fan the flames of world unrest
and precipitate confagration from
which 1t would be difficult for any
nation, however peaceful, to escape.
Senator Gillette's plan, prepared
with the knowledge of State Depart
ment officials but lacking their for
NAL Endorsement, would tend to re-
store proper balance between the
legislative and executive arms in the
handling of foreign affairs. The
President would be vested with power
to designate certain areas of the
oceans as combat zones" into
which American ships and nationals
could venture only at their own risk.
There are certain to be vigorous OBJ
jectionS raised to this phase of the
proposal. however, on the ground that
the torpedoing of an American YES
sci with resultant loss of American
llves-regardless of the foolhardiness
of the ships misSion-Would be likely
to arouse war passions of the Amer
ican people with disastrous results
to neutrality. 1t was to avoid just
such embodiment that Senator Pitt
man advocated resurrection of the
cash and carry requirement, which
the President in his discretion could
invoke to prohibit American vessels
from trading with any belligerents.
The provision would permit exports
If paid for in advance and shipped
in foreign bottoms.
If the Gillette resolution does
nothing more than to revive tagging
interest at the Capitol in the move
ment for neutrality law revision, it
will have rendered the country real
service. Although the present law,
by reason Of its inflexibility, is a def
nltely dangerous instrument, there
seems to be an unfortunate tendency
in some quarters to let the whole
matter rest pending further develop
ments abroad. What would seem to
be a far wiser and more realistic
course would be to clear our legiS-
lative decks of any and all legislation
prohibiting American trade with for
eign nations at war except such trade
as shall be on a strict cash. h-and-carry
basis. With such a step taken, the
danger OF this country's embodiment
In a foreign war through our COM
mercial interests would be min
imized, at the least possible cost to
those interests consistent with the
broad insistence of the nation that
we desire to remain at peace. Should
1t then seem that the general and
properly selfish interests of the
United States call for further lin
itation in the form of economic sane
tlons against any individual nation,
forbidding even caSh-and carry
trade, that step should then be re-
sorted to in complete awareness of
its implications.