Evening star., 1939-09-21

Velop the world in flames has been
averted. but it has become increas-
ingiy clear that peace is not as
sured.' BY April new tensions had
developed; new crisis was in the
making. Several nations with whom
We had friendly diplomatic and
commercial relations had lost, or
were in the process of losing, their
independent identity and SOW
ereignty.
During the spring and summer the
trend was definitely toward further
acts of military conquest and away
from peace. At late as the end Of
July spoke to members of the Con-
gress about the definite possibility OF
war. I should have called it the
probability of war.
Last January. also, spoke to this
Congress of the need for further
warning of new threats of conquest.
military and economic; of challenge
to religion. to democracy and to in
ternational good faith. I said: AN
ordering of society which relegates
religion, democracy and good faith
among nations to the background
can find no place within it for the
ideals of the Prince of Peace. The
United States rejects such an order
ing and retains its ancient faith"
Know What Might Happen.
"We know what might happen to
us Of the United States if the new
PHILOSOPHERS of force were to en-
compass the other continents and
invade our own. We, no more than
other nations, can afford to be sur
rounded by the enemies Of our faith
and our humanity. Fortunate it is,
therefore. that in this Western Hem
isphere we have, under q common
ideal of democratic government, a
rich diversity of resources and of
peoples functioning together in mu-
tual respect and peace"
Last January, in the same mes
sage, also said: I'VE have learned
that when we deliberately try to
leglslate neutrality, our neutrality
laws may operate unevenly and up-
fairly-may actually give aid to an
aggressor and deny it to the victim.
The instinct of self-preservation
should warn us that we ought not
to let that happen any more"
1t was because of what 1 foresaw
last January from watching the
trend of foreign affairs and their
probable effect upon us that I rec
commended to the Congress in July
of this year that changes be en-
acted in our neutrality law.
Peace Essentials UNCHANGED. >
The essentials for American peace
in the world have not changed since
January. That is why I ask you
again to re-examine our own legis-
lation.
Beginning with the foundation of
our constitutional government in
the year 1899, the American policy
in respect to belligerent nations,
with one notable exception, has
been based on international law.
Be 1t remembered that what we call
international law has had as its
primary objectives the avoidance of
causes OF war and the prevention of
the extension of war.
The single exception was the
policy adopted by this Nation dur
ing the Napoleonic wars, when,
seeking to avoid involvement, we
acted for some years under the
so-called Embargo and Non-inter-
course Acts. That policy turned out
to be a disastrous failure-first, be-
cause it brought our own Nation
close to ruin, and, second, because
it was the major cause of bringing
us into active participation in Euro
pean wars in our own War of 1912.
1t Is merely reciting history to
recall to you that one of the results
OF the policy of embargo and nom
intercourse was the burning in 1914
OF part of this Capitol in which we
are assembled.
The Neutrality Act.
Our next deviation by statute from
the sound principles of neutrality
and peace through international
law did not come for one hundred
(see TEXT, Page A-20