Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-10-09
Neutrality
Policy
Reversed
Foundation Of Act Has
Disappeared
BY HUGH S. JOHNSON

WHATEVER else may be said
about il. there was some
consistency III the neutrality
legislation when our policy was
to keep out of the war in Europe
and. to that end, ii forbade the
risking of American lives, prop
erty and dollars in combat
zones.
But when that policy was
completely reversed in the Lease
Lend Act and the President was
authorized in his sole discretion
TO risk both American property
and dollars in unprecedented
amounts whenever and wherever
on the broad service Of the
globe he decided. the Neutrality
Acts became obsolete.
They now only serve 10 create
an added danger of risk 10 the
sacrifice we are making.
Once the foundation in which
they rested is pulled eat- fTefa
under them il is hard 10 see any
difference between their out
right repeal and some piecemeal
monkey business this side of
that.
Aiming merchant ships Is an
eXpedient Of very little value.
1t now takes too much technical
equipment and crew 10 make ii
very effective against SUBJ
marines and especially against
combined submarine and air
craft attack. We haven't got
either the equipment or the
trained men TO make more than
a gesture at effective armament.
While the presence Of a couple
of cannon on board might make
a submarine little more wary,
il would also make il much
more apt to attack without any
warning whatever.
4 NYWAY, there is a good deal
"A Of hokum about getting
congressional authority TO arm
merchant ships. 1t is pretty well
understood in Washington that
we have already armed several
and that the most recently tor
pedoed merchantmen was one
Of these.
The first real question is
whether American flag ships
shall be permitted 10 sail into
combat areas That also has
been done. The suggestion OF
Senator Pepper that we can get
around the prohibitions Of the
Neutrality Act on-that by sim
ply having the President IN
proclaim his own proclaimed
combat zones and say that what
palpably is combat zone Is
really not one, is nothing short
of immoral.
If we are going TO lift this
ban let's do il honestly-by re-
pealing that provision Of the
Neutrality Act.
Then comes another question,
/ far more vital. After we have
| lifted the han and an American
flag ship. conveying contraband
of war, is sunk while trying TO
crash an area under actual
blockade, does that mean we
are automatically at war?
Technically IL would not, I'M
der the old doctrine Of interna-
tional law. What it would mean
today the Lord only knows II
would depend a good deal on
popular reaction and what the
real foreign policy of this gov
eminent is. If that policy IS 10
get into the war now-or as
soon as popular opinion is suffi-
GENTLY hysterical, it would
doubtless mean war, traceable
straight back TO the repeal Of
the Neutrality Act.
But, that is. really quibbling
over a technicality. If this
government wants 10 60 10 war
now. it can find other means of
drumming UP the necessary
emotions or no repeal.
TT IS hard 10 see what we have
Il 10 gain by getting into the
war now. We are not yet ready
for il. More important still it
is hard 10 see what Britain has
to gain by our getting into war
now. That is more important,
because we seem TO do about
what Britain wants. But, why
should she want this now? We
are sending her all the supplies
we can deliver and have prom
ised her far more with the APP
parent consent OF most of our
people.
But. if we get into this war
ourselves, our shipments abroad
will be much m ore closely
scanned and our people will de-
mand a far greater share for
our own defense and armament.
On these considerations. II