The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-05-27

tolloW up the lead puts it mildly,
 When or If the neutrality act is ditched or modified, you can bet @ hat 1t will mean that tho United States Is on tho verge of war, for this act has been the foundation of the Hull foreign policy, the one measure which more than anything else has kept loss of American lives and American ships at an absolute minimum thus far.
 To get the background for this bedrock of American foreign policy, you have to 90 back to lo35, when the famous arms embargo was pass- cd, following diSclosures of the Nye munitions committee Investigations and the general belief that the pow der and cannon haWkers were 0 bunch of-well, trouble makers.
 Statutes dealing with Keeping America out of war were amended in 1886 and 1897 but the arms em. bargo provision was retained. Then In 1030, the administration began to feel that the arms embargo might be dangerous, that the situation in Europe was changing to such an eX. tent that 1t might be desirable for the United States to export arms, just to help keep 1t out of war.
 SIX PATHS
 TO PEACE
 The idea first began to take root in January Of 1889, but it was the end of May before Secretary of State Hull sent q letter to Senator Pittman and Congressman Sol Bloom, then chairman and acting chairman respectively of congress slonal committees on foreign rela- tionS, recommending repeal Of tho arms embargo and adoption Of program to keep the country out of war.
 1. To prevent American ships from entering combat zones. 2. To restrict travel by Americans in com bat areas, 3. To provide transfer of title before goods were exported to belligerents. {. To control loans and credits to nations at war. 6. to regulate collection of U. s. funds for belligerents. c. To continue licensed control of arms export and import.
 Tn June, the House passed legiS- lation covering this program, but retained the arms embargo con- trary to Hull's wishes. Tn July, the Senate decided to do nothing until next session. The President and Hull protested but the Senate adjourned without action.
 On September 1, Germany invad- cd Poland. Congress was called in special session on September il, and on November 1, Congress passed the new program, the neutrality act of l030, dropping the arms embargo.
 Lease-Lend passage cut right through the neutrality act. Loans to belligerents by American private capital are still prohibited by the Johnson act, but the granting of seven billion dollar government loan or gift to Britain SO far surpasses anything private capital might do that the Johnson act is to oil in. tents and purposes nullihed.
 WHAT REPEAL
 WOULD MEAN ...-
 There the matter stands today Only one American ship hos been sunk, and that was by mine In Australian waters. The neutrality net, as much IS anything except our own unDreDarednegg, has kept us out Of war
 What would repeal of this neu- trality act mean7 Principally, that American ships could take war supplies right to Britain. As mat terS stand now, U. S. naval vessels can still be ordered to convoy or pa- trol duty, right to British ports, if the President, as commander of the fleet, so orders, for war vessels are not covered by the neutrality act It is even moot question as to wheth. CT U. s. Maritime Commission ves- sels, being the property of the gov- ernment, could not be transferred to the navy and used for carrying supplies to Britain. Certainly, the ships themselves can be transferred to Britain and haul anything Brit ain wants or needs.
 There is today no pronounced sentiment in Congress for repeal of the neutrality law, If repeal of the act could be achieved, the chances are 1t would be by only narrow margin. Best guess, therefore, is that this talk of repeal is largely a couple of fellows getting out on a limb to help sell the country on the seriousness of the situation.