Evening star., 1939-10-11
Embargo and Condor

Now that the motion by Repub-
lican Senator Tobey of New Hamp-
shire to divide the neutrality bill into
two parts has been roundly and
properly defeated, the path is clear
for resumption of debate in the
Senate on the fundamental issues of
the arms embargo controversy. 1t is
regrettable fact that the discussions
on the floor to date have not been so
fullAand free and frank as they might
have been. There is, indeed, an
uneasy and resented impression
throughout the Nation today that
the matter of embargo repeal and
the broader question of American
neutrality in the European war have
not to date been argued on their
merits in the Senate or on the air
waves. This reaction does not arise
from popular doubts as to the sim
cerity of those participating in the
debate. 1t is born, however, of
growing conviction that, for reasons
which do not seem adequate to the
public, the collateral and technical
and legalistic aspects of the embargo
and neutrality problems are being
dWelt upon almost exclusively in the
debate-while the actual and COM
pelling reasons which inspire the
proponents and opponents of the ad-
ministration-spons Pittman bill
are being touched upon too lightly.
1t is refreshing, therefore, to have
Senator Austin, Vermont Republican,
supporting the Pittman repeal meas
ure, come out openly, in statement
to the press, with the courageous and
fortnight assertion that he favorS
abolishment of the embargo for the
simple and logical reason that repeal
would be IAN act of self-defense be-
cause it is designed to aid Great
Britain and France" He pointed out
that Americans must do everything
we can to hasten the victory of the
allies" because Of any senti-
mental desire to help our friends pull
their chestnuts out of the fire, but
for the very practical and properly
selfish reason that an allied victory
over Hitlerism will mean the elimi-
nation of a very serious threat to
American security. I'm order to pro-
tect our interests" Senator Austin
said, I'VE must make it possible for
Great Britain and France to get sup
plies. We do not need to ask
whether this bill is neutral. We only
need to know that it's an act of self
defense"
Nor should disarming candor of
this type be limited to the pro-repeal
advocates. If those opposed to the
administration bill were to voice on
the Senate floor the thoughts to
which some of them have given ex-
preston in cloakroom huddleS or out
side the halls of Congress, they would
probably confess that they find
themselves in broad agreement with
Senator Austin. But they think that
this country is faced with more
serious threat than the possibility of
having to enter the war eventually
to protect it's own interests. They be-
lieve that the President has already
so clearly demonstrated his bias In
favor of France and England that
repeal of the arms embargo would
despite his repeated and unqualified
assurances to the contrary-be a
signal for him to jump into the war
at once. Thus, with America at war,
they contend that the President
would achieve what amounts to die
tatorial powers. Their conclusion
reached by such Fictitious argu-
ment-is that even German victory
over England and France would not
be so grave threat to American
democracy as would an internal
Rooseveltian dictatorship, and hav-
ing arrived at that conclusion they
are opposed to arms embargo repeal
as precursory to the abandonment of
our national democratic freedom.
The Star agrees thoroughly with
the pro-repeal viewpoint expressed
yesterday by Senator Austin and it
disagrees strongly with the anti-re-
peal arguments set forth above but
as yet not discussed on the Senate
floor. The Star believes that such
views have been too long obscured
on both sides of the controversy; that
they are the very crux of the neu-
trality issue and that in a matter of