Evening star., 1941-10-05
Hull
Continued From First Page }

Continued From First Page)
for revision of the Neutrality Act
to permit arming of American ships
and remove restrictions on their
travel in specified combat zones.
The Secretary said he had no in
formation to confirm the reports
that the L c. White was under Brit
iSh orders. but made clear that in
his opinion such a circumstance was
secondary-that this countrys right
of lf-defense would be affected
even if the vessel had been in a
British convoy.
The main point is, he said. that
if an aggreSSor is moving with
gun in his hand toward some peace
full person, it is time for that person
to defend himself, and the aggres-
sor has no right to invoke any law
to limit the defense actions.
An Unprecedented Situation.
He deplored a disposition to think
of international solely in terms of
local or regional wars. The situa-
ton now, he pointed out, is un-
precedented. with every indication
of an attempted conquest of the
whole earth. This, he emphasized,
gives every threatened nation the
inherent right of self defense. with
it's actions not limited by mere alb
stractions or artificial provisions Of
international law that were intend
ed to apply to usual conditions.
He pointed out that, in exercising
its right of Self-defense. this country
is committed to a policy of doing
everything in its power to furnish
supplies to Britain. and to partici-
pate in the delivery of the supplies
in every way found practical. This
policy is materially affected every
time a German submarine sinks a
ship carrying such supplies, he
added
If America should sit back and
say there was nothing it could do
to help Britain because some of the
supply ships are torpedoed, he con-
tinued that would be the end of the
problem. But, he said, we don't feel
that way.
Limits of International Law.
THAT is" inquired reporter,
I'VE do not limit ourselves to the
restrictions of international law?"
The Secretary replied that no in
ternational law prohibits self
defense
LaWleSs aggreSSOr countries often
have attempted to invoke some
question of law to limit the right of
a threatened country to defend it
self, he continued. But if that
were sound, he said. then no nation
would be allowed to defend itself
against an aggressor except to the
extent that the aggressor might
permit.
Mr.. Hull called attention to his
testimony before the House Foreign
Affairs Committee during consider
alton of the LeaSe-Lend Act in jan
uary when he pointed out that
Scrupulous observance of legal con-
cepts of neutrality by peaceful Eu-
AOpthAi IldO 1IOl
| their destruction. Until the ma
tions bent on world conquest are
defeated, he emphasized then, I'VE
| cannot and must not be diverted
| either by their threats or by their
| hypocritical proteSts-from our firm
determination to create means and
| conditions of self f-defenSe wherever
and in whatever form We find essen
! tial to our own security
The Secretary's views on the un-
! precedented nature of the Nazi
/ threat that makes it necessary to
assert the right of self defense above
usual conceptions of international
law are amplified in a brief article
| contributed by him to the first issue
of a new monthly magazine. Free
World, published by the Interna-
| tional Free World Association.
Expressing confidence that "s
better day" will come at the enc
of the war. Mr.. Hull asserts that
many people fail to grasp the mean
ing to this country of the world
wide crisis.
TOO many people assume he
goes on, that the present strug-
gle is merely an ordinary regional
war and that when it comes to ar
end the side which is victorious will
collect indemnitieS but otherwise
leave the defeated nations more OF
less as they were before the con-
f1ict began. This assumption woulc
prove entirely erroneous should the
aggressor powers be the winners
AS waged by them this is not an or
dinary war 1t is a war of assault
by these would-be conquerors. en-
ploying every method of barbarism