Evening star., 1941-09-23

ing. But the supplies being shipped
under the Iease-lend bill are the
property of the United States Gov
ernment and if munitions can be
loaned, so can ships for transporta-
ton purposes and there's nothing in
the existing neutrality laws which
prevents vessels of our Government
from going anywhere they please
on the oceans of the world.
Inasmuch as the present admin
istration, rather than have a long
drawn-out battle with Congress, has
not hesitated to send over-age de-
stroyers to Britain in contravention,
as some lawyers analyzed it, of the
statues, it is difficult to explain why
any further grant of power would
now be necessary from Congress for
quasi governmental vessels to enter
combat zones.
Also, any proposal to amend or
repeal the neutrality laws now would
furnish the isolationists with the
very opportunity they have been
seeking to debate interminably the
broad issues of the war emergency.
The bill probably could get through
the House easily enough but it would
strike snag in the Senate, where
fiibuStering tactics undoubtedly
would be waged.
run and ScuttIe" Policy.
It is true that when the neutrality
legislation was passed before the
outbreak of the second World War
the President and Secretary Hull
pointed out that the hands Of the
executive branch of the Government
would be tied by the proposal in
the event of an international crisis.
Their predictions have proved true,
but at the time the bill was before
Congress the administration thought
1t wiser strategy to accept what the
Congress was willing to adopt with
out a fight. rather than make an
issue of 1t.
It Is true also that the present
neutrality laws have properly been
called run and scuttle" policy be-
cause. while arguing for our historic
rights IN the freedom of the seas, our
legislators have been willing to cut
off our commerce from the seas in
~
quence Of the policy has been the
passage Of such highly unneutral
law as the Lease-Lend Act. Had
the traditional rules of neutrality
been observed the American pro-
ducers and shippers might have sent
their cargoeS, as in the past, to bel
ligerent countries, depending on the
naval forces Of the United States to
protect them against unrestricted
submarine warfare as in 1917. AS
for the financing of these trans
actions, these, too, might have been
kept within the orthodox bounds of
wartime financing with possible
credit aid to American industry
through the Reconstruction Finance
Corp. for export or through outright
appropriations for defense plants.
Cumbersome Methods.
Likewise it has come to pass that
q ban on lending to foreign govern
ments by private investors has re-
suited in direct lending by our Gov
eminent to belligerent governments
and the shipping of munitions
banned in American flag vessels has
been transferred to ships of Latin
American registry which are now
being conveyed or protected just as
II they were American ships.
These roundabout methods Of get
ting America back to the traditional
position of our commerce in war
time are cumbersome and that's why
doubtless from a strictly legal point
of view the repeal of the neutrality
statutes is sought. Tt would also
tend TO strengthen Americas posi-
ton in the international forum. The
lease lend bill, on the other hand,
has as yet not been buttressed by in
ternational sanction. Until Americas
formal attitude on that measure is
developed as a justified evolution OF
international law-being justified as
q means of protective neutrality as
against country bent on world ag-
eression-the revision of the neu-
trality laws, merely for the sake OF
helping our position in the debate
on international law, would seem to
be putting the cart before the horse.
Decentralization Rights Reserved)