Evening star., 1941-10-14
Neutrality Revision
Debated in Forum by
Supporter, Opponent
Representative Arnold
Argues for Armins Ships;
Vorys Fights Move
Continued From Page B-180

dsC o-1Oo
as a whole, is even forbidden to dis
cuSs the Presidents message on the
subject, and is limited to hearing
four administration officials, with
no right to question them publicly;
then the rest of the United States
is given one day to be heard; then
one days discussion is to be per-
mitted in the House. Then the bill
is to pass. Just like that. You say
lit can't happen here? 1t is hap
pening now. In the name of free
dom of the seas" freedom OF dis
cuSsion on land-our land-has been
Scuttled.
Taken by itself, this proposition
of arming merchantmen does more
harm than good, as far as protec-
ton goes. l know something about
this myself. from personal expert
ence I was in Aerial Coast Patrol
Unit No. l in 1916, as pilot in the
Naval Air Service in the World War
I was on convoy duty and anti
submarine patrol over the North
Sea and along the American coast;
l crossed the ocean in an armed
merchantmen.
No armed merchantmen ever sank
a submarine during the World War;
while IS armed merchantmen were
sunk.
Have We enough arms to arm our
merchantmen effectively? I'm bas-
ing my answer on Information OBJ
tanned outside of any secret COM
mittee hearings, so as not to violate
any condolences and the answer is
No. The very highest sources said
only a few weeks ago that we had
no extra arms for our merchantmen.
| We get a different story now, but
either they were fooling then, or
they are fooling now. Just any old
guns won't do. Where are the gun
crews coming from? To be able to
hit anything, they must have had
long training. Are We going to rob
our growing tWo-ocean Navy and
tie up real fighting ships in order
to make phoney fighting ships out
of tramp steamers? Depth bombs
are anefficient way to attack sub
marines. but you can't drop depth
bombs from slow merchantmen, or
it will blow off its own stern before
it gets away.
Armed Ship is Warship.
We are told our merchantmen
must be furnished anti-aircraft
guns. How are they going to get
within reach of German aircraft
unless they 60 into waters now for
hidden them? But we are not al
lowed to bring that up.
The danger that comes from
arming merchantmen is that under
the rules of both international law
and common sense, there is no dis
tinction between an armed mer-
chantman and warship. An armed
merchantmen is a warship-and a
very poor one, but subject to attack
by all the rules of war and common
sense, by any belligerent.
We are told that arming mer-
chantman, with any old arms, i'm
proves the crews morale, because
they think they are safer, even
though they are not. oppose
morale building, based on deception.
I oppose this whole propaganda
plan of making the public think
they are in danger, when they are
not, in order to push through law
to make sailors feel safe, when they
are not.
The day this law goes into effect,
every American ship, whether 1t is
actually armed or not, comes OF
the international song-bird list. But
this bill goes further 1t relieves
the owners from liability under sec
ton 16 of the criminal code, which
is, by the way, section % OF the
neutrality code, and thus apparently
authorizes the owner Ito cruise or
commit hostilities against the sub
jects. citizen or property of any
foreign state, with whom
the United States are at peace"
Does this permit piracy, or privateer-
ing, or is this a circuitous, slick way
of declaring war?
The truth is-arming merchant
men is poor way of driving away
submarines; conveys and patrols
are better, but they won't stop sub
marines. The most efficient way to
stop submarines Is to capture their
bases with an expeditionary force.
Once we start the inefficient way,
we will be drawn toward the ef1-
cient way.
The truth is, we cannot discuss
arming merchantmen intelligently
with horse e-blinders on. We've got
to look to both sides and all around
this question. because much more
is involved and is intended to be
involved.
Means Further Repeal.
No one believes that in the fall OF
1941, with titantic battles raging
and with the world in turmoil, our
whole foreign policy is to be-we
will arm our ships and keep them
in safe waters. Every one knows
that an Overwhelming vote for arm
ing ships will be hailed by the press
of this country as meaning also two
other things: First, approval Of the
shoot on sight" order; second, ap-
proval of sending the armed ships
into waters where arms are going to
be needed. AS surely as night fol-
lows day, an overwhelming vote for
arming ships will be followed by q
proposal striking down the rest Of
our neutrality laws, which means
our peace laws.
Here is what said two years ago
during the neutrality debate:
What we do in so-called neu-
trality bill is to pass laws forbid
ding American citizens from doing
things that experience has shown
tends to get us into war. 80 Since
1918 we have had vadious kinds of
such neutrality laws. We still have
in full force and effect neutrality
laws. including arms embargOeS,