Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1940-09-05

While there nave Deen ndlly III
stances in which opinions have dill
fered on the way law could or
could not be construed, the language
of the statute which forbids the
President to do what he did In
transferring naval destroyers to Bril-
tain is so plain that anybody who
can read simple words can perceive
the way the Attorney General
twisted the words to suit his objec-
tive. Here is the language OF the
statute of 1917 which is still in full
legal effect:
During a war in which the
United States is neutral nation.
1t shall be unlawful to send out OF
the Jurisdiction of the United States
any vessel, built, armed, or equipped
as a vessel of war, or converted from
a private vessel into vessel OF war,
with any intent or under any agree
ment or contract, written or oral,
that such vessel shall be delivered
to a belligerent nation, or to an
agent. officer, or citizen of such
nation. or with reasonable cause to
believe that the said vessel shall or
will be employed in the service OF
any such belligerent nation after
its departure from the jurisdiction
of the United States"
Words Can Be Twisted.
Neither the President nor the At
torney General has any constitu-
tional power to suspend the laws of
Congress. But an Attorney General
can, if he wishes to take the risk,
twist the words of the law SO that
they do not in his opinion cover
the facts of the case. This is how
the Attorney General twisted the
words of the law. He writes to the
President:
This will not be true, however,
with respect to the over-age de-
stroyers. since they were clearly not
built, armed or equipped with any
such intent or with reasonable cause
to believe that they would ever enter
the service of a belligerent."
The Attorney General insists that
the law means that it is merely I'M
lawful to send out of the jurisdiction
of the United States only vessels
that we're originally built, armed
or equipped" with the intent or with
reasonable cause to believe they
would some day enter the service
of belligerent.
But the placing of the commas
and the plain meaning of the Ian
guage reveals that Congress said
fatty it was unlawful to send out of
jurisdiction of the United States
any vessel of war under any
agreement or contract" whatsoever
that such vessel shall be delivered
to belligerent nation"
A Supplementary Law.
Congress served notice last June
that it did not want any war ma
terials, even when owned by the
United States in whole or in part,
to be Exchanged, sold or otherwise
disposed of in any manner what
soever" unless the chief Of naval
operations certified that it was not
needed for national defense. But
this has nothing at all to do with
the propriety of selling or disposing
of any vessel of war wholly owned
by the United States and given over
by the Government of the United
States to another government. The
law of last June was intended
primarily to prevent transfers of
war material still in private hands
and contracted for. Since the desire
of Congress as expressed last JUNE
was so plain, it cannot be contended
that the statute of January, 1917,
referred to above was overlooked or
forgotten this year. The 1910 Sec
ton of the law was statute supple
mental to and not in substitution of
what was put on the law books in
1917.
The Attorney General endeavors
In his letter to the President to
argue that international law sane
tons what has just been done, but
he quotes from experts and au-
thorities who plainly showed they
were discussing the disposition of
private and not governmental prop
erty by a neutral government in
time of war.
Would Ratify if Requested.
Congress would have authorized
the transfer of old destroyers for
air bases if the President had asked
for it. Congress would ratify the
action tomorrow if requested. Other
wise a most regrettable precedent
may be established, namely, that a
President on the advice of plainly
mistaken opinion of his Attorney
General will have left in the record
a violation of the laws of the United
States. Future Presidents will not