Evening star., 1940-02-25

What is Congress to do about helping
heroic Finland? Shall the Government
make loan to Finland. and is such a
loan likely to get us into war?
The answerAto these questions appears
to be that it depends on what kind of
loan the Government makes to Finland.
Whatever one may think of the some
what devious reasoning that has led to
Its conclusion. the Congress of the United
States has decided that although Amer
lean sentiment is overwhelmingly in ia
vor of helping the Firms, and although
the Firms are asking not only for food
but also for airplanes and munitions, a
military loan with which the Firms would
buy airplanes would, in all probability, be
a so-called overt act which very prob
ably wo.ld lead us into war.
On the other hand, Congress believes
. non-military loan limited specifically
to the purchase of food and non military
supplies would not lead us into war
Some of this devious reasoning has to
do with that curious fiction of modern
diplomacy and international law which
permits and, in fact, compels some of the
great statesmen of the world to deny that
there Is a war in China or war in Fin
land.
As the Senate Sees 1t.
Debate in the Senate on the bill to in
crease the capitalization of the Export
Import Bank, which really was a debate
on the advisability of $20.O00.00O non
military loan to Finland, illustrated the
divergence of views regarding the tech
nical and actual status of Finland as a
belligerent
Taking part in the Senate debate were
several members of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee who pride themselves
on their knowledge of international law.
One Of the most telling points made was
the citation of the testimony before the
committee of Green H. Hackworth, legal
adviser to the Secretary of State, that
he did not think the proposed non-mili-
tary loan to Finland would be violation
Of American neutrality.
Several Senators took the position that
an unrestricted loan would not be unneu-
trail because Technically Finland and
Russia are not at war, since each side
has carefully refrained from declaring
war. and neither the President nor Con-
gress has found and proclaimed that a
state of war exists
On this point Senator Brown said:
AFTER introducing my bill spent great
deal of time reading up on international
law. and I became convinced that such
an unrestricted loan might be interpreted
as an unneutral act AS an exercise of
pure logic, can conceive of an argument
which would prove that technically we
would not violate international law by
an unrestricted loan but this would COM
pletely disregard the realities of the pres
ent situation. Furthermore, was willing
to have the Export t-Import Bank proposal
substituted for my own bill because I re-
allied that Congress would not approve
. military or unrestricted loan"
pure Logic" on Loans.
The logical" view was reflected by
Senator Robert A. Taft. Republican, of
Ohio. during the debate, when he said:
Personally I am willing that money
be loaned to Finland. So long as the
Russians say they are not at war 1
think they are estopped from saying
to us that we should not lend to Fin
land. We would be perfectly willing to
lend if they were not at war with Rus
sia-if Russia had not attacked them.
Why should the fact that they have
been wantonly attacked make any diff
ference?"
Senator Wallace H. White. Repub-
ncan, of Maine also declared that since
Finland was not de jure at war, this
Government could make her unre-
stricted loans without violating interna-
tional law.
Other experts on international law,
some of whom are in the State Depart
ment, conceded that military loans
might be justified by pure logic" but
declared that such arguments stretch a
legal fiction pretty far" The official
consensus was that there is a difference
between governmental loans for hu-
manitarian purposes and similar loans
for military supplies. These experts
consider Finland an actual belligerent
although Soviet Russia informed the