Evening star., 1939-02-19

legislators more befuddled and torn by
indecision than when the law was en-
acted in the spring of 1887 and was
variously hailed as the dove of peace
or the dragon of war.
Amid anXieties to keep the United
States at peace with all nations is heard
little but talk of war, menaces of die
tators, warnings that we will defend
our own and our neighbors of this hemis-
phere, plans to strengthen the Euro
pean democracies, and the American
frontier on the Rhine"
Foreign policy has had thorough
airing in congressional debates on ma
tional defense incident to revelation of
the presence of a member of a French
military mission on a new bomber of
secret design and has been interspersed
with presidential pronouncements and
outpourings of other official and unoffi-
cial opinion.
Out of the whole emerges the one
certain fact that the United States
wants peace, but not any generally ac-
cepted plan for how that peace is to
be preserved in war-torn world. The
positive formula is as much a mystery
as two years ago, when Senator Pitt
man, co-author of the present Neutrality
Act, insisted upon denominating it a
Peace Act"
Presidents Attitude Defined.
The same lines are drawn in Congress,
the same arguments presented with the
same replies, but there is one difference:
Today the attitude of the Chief EXecu
tive is more clearly defined than in
1887, and whatever is laid before Con-
gress will spring from his more pre-
cisely stated desires.
Most significant of this clarifcaton
was Mr.. Roosevelt's message to Con-
gress January in which he confessed
that I'VE have learned that when we
deliberately try to legislate neutrality,
our neutrality laws may operate un-
evenly and unfairly-may actually give
aid to the aggressors and deny it to
the victim. The instinct of self-preser-
vation should warn us that we ought
not to let that happen any more
Mr.. Roosevelt coupled this unburden-
Ing with the equally pertinent statement
of policy that I'VE can and should avoid
any action, or any lack Of action, which
will encourage, assist or build up an
aggressor," and that there are many
methods short Of war, but stronger
and more effective than mere words. of
bringing home to aggressor governments
the aggregate sentiments of our own
people
Legislative Neutrality Futile.
All Of which adds up to executive con-
viction that legislative neutrality is fu-
tile and paradoXically defeats its own
and presidential purpose by strengthen
ing the international lawbreaker to the
injury of the victim, rendering thus no
service to world peace.
Such it is not the policy of Mr.
Roosevelt to do. An activist in world
as we'll as domestic affairs, he can no
more tolerate neutrality in the face of
international abuse and inhumanity
than he can tolerate it at home.
The Neutrality Act of 1887 was not
his handiWork. It was an anachronism
produced out of the welter of Nye COM
mittee Investigations, demands for isola-
ton, demands for participation in world
peace efforts, and the legal dogmas of
international lawyers. He accepted it
reluctantly and spurned it when he had
chance to use it.
1t was a law generated from fear and
misconception coupled with a resolution
to prevent the recurrence of American
involvement in the World War in 1917.
Both the 1885 Neutrality Act and the
1886 act which amended and renewed it
were passed under pressure of appre-
hension that the United States would
become involved in a European war
growing out of the Italian campaign in
Ethiopia.
The permanent law of 1887 similarly
was a product of fear that the Spanish
Civil War would enfame all Europe
and thus embroil this country. The
atmosphere of 1889 is no more copdu-
Give to cool consideration of foreign
policy 1t is still the expectation OF
imminent war that animates the coun-
try, and colors the debate on foreign
policy.
Wanted Normal Trade" Limits.
The neutrality law that Mr.. Roose-
welt wanted and presented through his
leaders in Congress in 1886 was never
passed. He sought the power to fix
normal amounts of trade in mate
rials used in making arms or conduct
ing war, beyond which all shipments
would have been embargoed
His plan was attacked as a device
to throw the weight of the United
States into the scales in favor of one
or another belligerent, and as time was
short before expiration of the 1885 act,
permanent legislation was put over until
1887
What Mr.. Roosevelt got in 1887 was
not of his own choosing. Neither of
the two principal neutrality bills argued
in the House and Senate was sponsored
by the administration, although pre-
sented by Senator Pittman and Repre-
sentative McReynolds. chairmen of the
two Foreign Relations Committees.
1t was with resignation to the isola-
zionist sentiment in the country and
Congress that Mr.. Roosevelt signed the
1887 law, carrying the ''cash-and- carry"
provisions. Congressional doubts of its
wisdom led TO two-year limitation on
its operation, and it is the expiration
May l of this -and-carry" section
which brings the subject before Con-