Evening star., 1939-10-14
Senators Question
Practieabi|ity Of
Lindbergh's Plan
SpIit-up Of Present
Arms Emboreo Seen
Difficult to Work Out
1y the Associated Press.

4S tHe ASSCCl6teQ fTeSS.
Col. Charles A. Lindberghs sug-
eestion that Congress split up the
present arms embargo. retaining it
for offensive weapons but exempting
defensive weapons, prompted many
Senators today to question the
practicability of such an idea.
Col Lindbergh made the proposal
last night as part of a four-point
neutrality program which he sub
mitted in the course of a radio
address. Previously former Presi-
dent Hoover had suggested that
distinction be made for embargo
purposes between offensive and de-
fensive arms.
The famous flyer also urged that
American shipping be kept out of
belllgerent waters and that credits
be refused to warning countries and
their agents.
At the same time. he presented as
matter of long-range policy the
Idea that the United States ulti-
mately must demand withdrawal of
Britain and other European powers
from the Western Hemisphere.
Senator Capper. Republican. of
Kansas said he thought the Lind
bergh speech was "a very good one
/ particularly approve his stand on
repeal of the embargo
Called Courageous Speech.
Senator La Toilette, Progressive,
of Wisconsin, an opponent of repeal
of the arms embargo, said he
thought Col Lindbergh had rem
dered a great patriotic service in
his able, courageous and frank
speech TO the Nation on the issues
involved in the momentous deciison
now presented to Congress and the
people"
While he made distinction be-
tween offensive and defensive
weapons which he admitted is diff
cult to work out and with which 1
cannot agree" Senator La Toilette
continued, 'the whole weight of his
argument supports the basic position
of those who are opposed to the re-
peal of the arms embargo and who
are determined that America shall
not intervene in the European war"
Senator Vandenberg, Republican,
of Michigan noted that Col. Lind
bergh appeared to be in substantial
agreement" with Mr.. Hoover, who
suggested this week that Congress
ban the sale of offensive weapons to
belligerents.
If the present embargo is to be
struck down and if war munitions
are to be sold on a cash basis" Sem
ator Vandenberg said, lit will be well
to explore the humane question
whether we do not wish at least to
forego an American bargain counter
which sells implements of mass
death for the women and children of
the EARTH
Question on Definition.
Other comment:
Senator Adams, Democrat, of
Colorado-"How can we define an
aggressive weapon? The best de-
fense is an aggressive offenSe The
best defense for France against Ger
many is to march across the Rhine"
Senator Burke, Democrat, of Ne
braska-I liked the part of his
speech emphasizing that this coun-
try should be prepared to give notice
that we have fundamental rights
that we are willing to defend with
the last drop of our blood. There
is no merit in a partial arms en-
barge. however If we really want
to help beleaguered nations we can't
sit here, godlike, and say: You can
have such and such weapon to de-
fend yourselves but nothing else"
Senator Gillette, Democrat, of
1owa-'1 think it would be folly to
try to draw distinction between
defensive and offensive weapons in
general legislation on neutrality"
Senator Minton. Democrat, of In
diana-"HoW would it be possible
for Congress to define the difference
between offensive and defensive
weapons?'
In his address over the Mutual
Broadcasting System network, Col.
Lindbergh recommended a four
point program:
l. An embargo on offensive weap-
ons and munitions.
2. The unrestricted sale of purely
defensive" armaments.
3. The prohibition of American
shipping from the belligerent coun-
tries OF Europe and their danger
Zones.
4. The refusal of credit to belliger-
ent nations or their agents.
Hemisphere Defense.
Turning to the question of hemi-
sphere defense, the famous flyer
said:
This Western Hemisphere is our
domain. Let there be no compro-
mise about our right to defend or
trade within this area. If it is chal-
lenged by any nation, the answer
must be war. Our policy of neu-
trality should nave this as its foun-
dation.
I'VE desire the utmost friendship
with the people of Canada. If their
country is ever attacked, our Navy
Will be defending their seas, our SOL
diers will fight on their battlefelds,
our flyers will die in their skies,
But have they the right to draw
this hemisphere into European war
simply because they prefer the
crown of England to American inde-
pendence?
Need for Freedom.
Sooner or later. We must demand
the freedom of this continent and
its surrounding islands from the
dictates of European power. Amer
1can history clearly indicates this
need. AS long as European powers
maintain their inflence in our hemi-
sphere we are likely to find our
selves involved in their troubles
And they will lose no opportunity to
involve U.S."
OINanl Anlde Enrnaare