Evening star., 1941-11-08

persuaded a few &@
years ago that David Lawrence.
the way to avoid war was virtually
to close down all commerce during
a foreign war.
But the present statute has not
prevented complications The steam
er Lehigh,. for instance, was sailing
from a neutral port in Spain along
the African coast when it was tor
pedoed. 1t was carrying no cargo
but proceeding toward the Western
Hemisphere on its return journey
from Europe. 1t was on a lawful
voyage.
If, therefore, the United States
by passing neutrality statute OBJ
tanned no respect for its ships when
engaged in innocent errands-the
Lehigh having been torpedoed with
out warning-the reasoning Of many
Senators has been that nothing had
been gained by the deviation from
our traditional position.
Similarly, the rules of interna-
tional law and the agreement signed
by Germany with respect to sub
marine warfare specifically pledged
the German Navy TO abstain from
torpedoing without warning. Con-
gress now is answering the German
disregard OF American lives and
property.
Partial G. o. P. Support Seen.
The House must concur in any
action to amend the Neutrality Act
but the administration can count
on substantial margin for the pro-
posal to remove virtually all neu-
trality restrictions. The Republican
vote which was cast almost solidly
against arming of the merchant
ships may be diminished this time
and some support given to the new
proposal reaffrming American
rights on the high seas.
The main argument against the
reopening of the seas to American
commerce has been that this would
involve the United States in shoot
ing war. The German naval chief,
Admiral Raeder, however, served
notice several weeks ago that anv
American vessel carrying cargo to
Europe would be sunk without
warning. Here was fragrant dis
regard of international agreements,
for it meant that ships would be
sunk without first determining
whether or not they carried con-
traband.
The issue has been intensified
somewhat by the Presidents public
statement that American destroyers
have been attacked by the Nazis.
During the Senate debate, it was re-
vealed that the American war YES
sells were engaged in convoy duty.
This does not alter the Presidents
view that firing on any American
warship constitutes an attack, espe-
cially if the ship is travelling in the
waters of the Western Hemisphere.
which he regards as a defensive
area.
Outlaw Government.
The Government officially takes
the position that the transportation
of lease-lend cargoes to Europe is
a matter of self-defenSe for Amer
lea. The theory back of it is that
the Nazi government is an outlaw
institution bent on world aggression.
Under such circumstances, the
President, as commander in chief
of the Navy, has ordered American
warships to shoot any ships of the
outlaw government which might be
found in the Atlantic Ocean. Since
such war vessels usually appear in
the vicinity of merchant ships voy-
aging across the seas, the American
deStroyerS were ordered to hunt
down any Nazi submarines.
From the viewpoint of the United
States Government, patrol of the
seas always has been a defensive
operation which does not require
specific sanction by Congress. Even
in the present bill which revises the
neutrality statutes, the administra-
ton does not ask for authority to
conduct conveys by air or by sea,
and it is improbable that any re-
quest for such authority will ever be
made.
But it is an anomalous position
for American merchant ships to be
considered violatorS of a domestic
statute at the same time that the
President has formally ordered
American Warships to clear the
Atlantic of any Nazi submarines or
raiders. On the one hand the
United States is, internationally
speaking, reaffirming her rights to
the seas and, on the other, domes-
tically repudiating the same doc
IL CltIC lllio lAlIolloAClSAiSy
the administration has encouraged
Congress to revise the neutrality
laws. If it should lead to declara-
ton of war by Germany, the United
States Government is prepared for
such an eventuality.
It has not been believed here that
Hitler would need any additional
excuse for a declaration of war than
he already has, namely, the lease
lend policy. Hence the argument
that the revision of neutrality laws
would lead to war is not regarded
by the proponents of it as any more
persuasive than the far more seri-
GUS steps already taken, as for in
stance the loan of a billion to the
Russian government by the Govern
ment of the United States-some-
Nling which under past precedents
<tuld be regarded as unneutral and
as an unfriendly act toward Ger