Evening star., 1941-10-12
Gap Between Neutrality Law
And u. S. Policy Yawns Wider
Administration 'Subterfuges' to Reverse 1935.194O
Stand Make Clear. Cut Proposal to
Congress Desirable
Bv Felix Morley


In his endeavor to eliminate at least
some of the remaining Neutrality Act
restrictions, President Roosevelt is con-
fronting one of the most difficult prob
lens of his long executive experience.
The problem is not the easier because
the administration is now reversing the
position which it earlier assumed in this
issue. When the alo-Ethiopian war
broke out, just six years ago. MI. Roose-
welt did net stop with invoking the let
ter Of the neutrality law then on the
statute books. He went further by issu-
ing a proclamation saying: Il desire it
to be understood that any of our people
who voluntarily engage in transactions
of any character with either of the bel
ligerents do so at their own risk"
On October 10, 1886, Secretary Hull
supplemented this warning" by saying
that it was based upon the policy and
purpose of keeping this country out of
war-keeping it from being drawn into
war" That observation by the Secre-
tary of State came three days after the
Council of the League of Nations had
declared the Italian action to be viola
ton of the League covenant. 1t was
interpreted. both in Washington and
Geneva. as formal announcement that
the United States would not cooperate
in sanctions against an aggresscr and
was officially opposed to participation in
any program of collective security.
Freedom of Seas Renowned.
The attitude of isolation then assumed
was confirmed by the presidential in
dorsement, even though sometimes re-
luctant, of all subsequent neutrality leg
islation. Any lingering doubts as to the
character of American policy seemed to
be removed by President Roosevelt's
broadcast of September 3. 1899, the day
Great Britain declared war on Germany.
In this Mr.. Roosevelt said: Il hope the
United States will keep out of this war
1 believe that it will. And I give you
assurance that every effort of your Gov
ernment will be directed toward that
end
The record shows that between 1885
and 1910 the present administration
willingly renounced the doctrine of the
freedom of the seas. precisely because Of
the war clouds which during this period
steadily were gathering in Europe. If
Mr.. Roosevelt did not lead in that re-
nunciation, he certainly followed will
ingly.
Although possessed of secure major
1tT CnnCreSc r. oi,,ie
Ing the pre-war period never advanced
the preSent argument that freedom of
the seas is essential to the defense of the
United States. Even the lease-lend law
which nulliied some parts of the neu-
trality law, did not attempt to re-estab-
lish the right to transport war materials
into belligerent areas Indeed, the lease
lend bill was amended specifically at
Republican instance to insert the key
word title" after the word transfer. ''
The result is that the present legislation
authorizes the transfer of war material
to belligerent ownership in this country,
but not its transport in American ships
to belligerent shores.
Conflicting Principles
President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull
now are said TO desire complete congres.
Slonal reversal of the earlier policy of
rigid. mandatory neutrality 1t is un-
doubtedly high time that this issue should
be resolved, for between the policy of
all-out opposition to Germany, to which
the administration has committed itself
and that of barring American ships from
war zones, which Congress still upholds
there is an irreconcilable contradiction.
1t is certainly not indicative of a sue
cessfully functioning democracy when
executive and legislative policy are as
much at loggerheads as is the case with
regard to neutrality legislation today.
The pleasant assumption that the issue
has been bridged by the Lease-Lend Act
is fallacious For that legislation has not
altered the prohibitions against the arm
ing Of American merchant ships, against
the presence of these ships in defined
combat areas and against the transport
of ANY passengers or any articles or ma
terialS" to any belligerant state named
AS such by the President.
The inconsistency between statute law
and executive policy is now leading to
subterfuges which nobody can regard
with pride. Among them is the absurd