The Ypsilanti daily press. (Ypsilanti, Mich.) 1928-1962, 1940-12-27
INVITING TROUBLE


Bloom, chairman OF the House
Foreign Relations Committee, that
the Neutrality Act should be re-
pealed because that will return
the nation TO international law
What is international law? The
customary argument is that free
dom to sail the seas and trade with
any belligerent in war is inter-
national law. But you can get an
argument on that point as on any
other point. For example there
is the Hague treaty Estate Depart
ment. Volume TWO, Article STA
page 1851 which says The sup
ply, in any manner directly or in
directly, by a neutral power 10 a
belligerent power OF warships, am
munition or war materials of any
kind whatever. is forbidden.
What is international law Ac-
cording to John Bassett Moore,
foremost American authority on III
ternational law, the opening Of our
ports to armed merchant vessels
OF a belligerent is contrary 10 in
ternational- law According TO our
state department lawyers ii Is not
contrary TO International law
What is international law? It
Is not a body OF rules, or Of statutes.
II is growth OF customs. But
since there have been no interna-
tional courts vested with absolute
authority over sovereign nations,
there has been no body Of court
decisions as there has been in the
English cormou law-binding as
10 precedent International law
is a loose body OF ideas snd prece-
dents, often mutually conflicting
the character Of which has changed
almost constantly under the i'm
pact OF legal claims and counter
claims ana all sorts OF practical
circumstances
IN other words, international law
is nothing fixed, rigid or certain.
II is made and unmade every year
sometimes, as in wartime, almost
every day-by the pulling and haul
ing of day-to-day circumstances
IL the end, international law in
any given case is the compromise
point between what one nation
tries TO get away with and what
another nation will permit II 10 get
away with. The final arbiter IS
not law. but force.
In 1917 We were convinced that
freedom of the seas in wartime
was our right under international
law. None Of the belligerents con-
coded that law. The question was.
coulsrwe make our claim stick?
We fever did make 1t stick against
the British, because We were un-
willing TO 90 TO war with the Brit
ish to enforce II. We finally did
make 1t stick against the Germans.
but only by going TO war to enforce
H. The result of the enforcement
Of that particular phase of inter
national law" was 90 900 American
battle casualties.
II we desire, we can return 10
international law in 1910, as Rep
resentative Bloom and some others
want US to-. But before We can
make our version OF international
law stick against the German YER
sion, We shall have 10 fight Ger
many again to enforce It. II that
Is what we want to do, then we
can properly repeal the Neutrality
Act. But let's not repeal it with
the fatuous excuse that We must
return TO international law and
under the hypocritical claim that
We won't have TO go TO war to en-
force It. The moment we send
American ships into the war zone
those ships will be sunk by the
Germans, and as soon as the news
OF the Attacks cabled 10 the Amer
lean press, we shall be within a
week or two Of being at war with
the Germans.
VIII the Germans sink the ships d?
OF course they Will They will
have no choice. For them il ;
either keep supplies from getting
TO Britain, or curl up and lose the
war. II our advocates Of return
ing to international law" aren't
taking II for granted that our mer-
chant ships will be sunk, why are
they talking about providing naval
conveys for them?
--<