Evening star., 1941-09-17
Armed Neutrality

With the Navy under orders to shoot
Axis raiders on sight in American
defensive waters, it Is natural that
speculation should arise as to the fu-
ture of the Neutrality Act. The orders
for a shooting patrol of the sea lanes
to Iceland have given a new meaning
to armed neutrality" phrase
which came into popular use during
the historic pre-World War debates
over the proposed arming of mer-
chant vessels. The Neutrality Act
not only forbids the arming of such
ships but prohibits them from en-
tering war zones proclaimed by the
President. The purpose of these
provisions, of course, was to avoid
incidents" that might precipitate
war. But the incidents have oc-
CURED anyway. Two of our unarmed
merchant vessels have been sunk
and one of our deStroyers has been
attacked by German submarine.
Increasing demands are being made
in non-isolationist quarters for re-
peal of the Neutrality Act or, at the
least, modification of 1t so as to per-
NIT our ships to defend themselves
when attacked. 1t has been indi-
Gated that President Roosevelt will
not move for any change in the laws
in the immediate present. He may
not care to risk another battle in
Congress at this time between ad-
ministration forces and the small
but vociferous isolationist minority.
The armed neutrality fight of 1917
whirled around another small fac
ton of last ditch isolationists,
whom President Wilson finally de-
nounced as little group of willful
men, representing no opinion but
their own" President Wilson asked
Congress for the right to arm our
merchant ships soon after Germany
launched her policy Of unrestricted
submarine warfare The anti-war
group in the Senate cited in opposi-
tion a ruling by Chief Justice Mar
shall in 1915 that any armed mer-
chairman was an open and de-
clared belligerent" and an act of 1919
forbidding the arming of ships
against a power with which the
United States was at peace. In the
midst of the early congressional dis
cussions the notorious Zimmerman
note, disclosing a German plan for
enlisting Mexico and Japan in a war
on the United States, was made pub
lie. In the resulting wave of indig-
nation, the House passed the armed
ship bill by the overwhelming vote of
403 to 13.
With the session about to expire on
March 4, 1917, the late Senator La
Toilette of Wisconsin led a successful
filibuster against the measure. Join
ing him in opposition to the bill were
Republican Senators Norris of Ne
braska, Gronna of North Dakota,
Cummins Of Iowa, Kenyon of Iowa,
Clapp of Minnesota and Works of
California: and Democratic Senators
Stone of Missouri, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Commit
tee; O'Gorman of New York, Kirby of
Arkansas, Lane of Oregon and Yard
aman of Mississippi. As the session
expired, seventy-two of the ninety
six Senators announced they would
have voted in favor of the bill. It
was then that Mr.. Wilson issued his
bitter criticism of the little group"
The Wilson administration found a
way to arm merchant ships, anyway.
The Department of Justice ruled that
the Marshall decision did not prevent
ships from arming for defense solely
of crew and vessel, not Of cargo. But
even the arming Of our merchantmen
did not prevent their sinking by
U-boats. Incident upon incident fol-
lowed, until America declared war on
Germany. President Wilson con-
ceded in his fateful war message to
Congress that the policy of armed
neutrality had been a failure.