The Waterbury Democrat., 1945-01-23

Ing LuHC VI all our DunQ lSOlaLlOn- ist policies, the most disastrous was our attitude on the Spanish Civil War"
 Referring to the stampede of peace at-any-price organizations to Wash ington at the end of 1886, and their pressure to amend existing neutral ity legislation to prevent shipment of arms to the Spanish Republican forces who were seeking to put down the Franco revolution, Pepper read the Welles passage which says that when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked for State Depart ment advice on this situation, 1t re- ceived from the official spokesman for the Department this statement:
 You are trying to protect the neutrality of this country, to pre- vent this country from becoming in- Volved in war, and at the same time not sacrificing unduly the interest of our own people by the enactment of this domestic legislation. It is 8 tremendous step forward ."
 ARMS BLOCKADE
 AIDED FRANCO
 Thus advised, wrote Welles. Con- gress by an almost unanimous vote revised the neutrality legislation on January 8, 1887. and stopped further arms shipment to Spain. It was naturally tremendous advantage to Franco. The inference which Welles draws is that this worked to the advantage of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and helped bring on the European war
 Welles says that President Roose- welt recognized this danger and that when the Spanish arms embargo act came to him for signature, "he ex- pressed in writing the deep disquiet 1t caused him and the regret with which he signed it."
 When all these old bones were dug up after seven years and aired be- fore the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December, 1944, there arose some questions as to who this unnamed spokesman was. There was hunch that 1t might be James Cle- ment Dunn, who in 1886 and '37 was head of the division of western European affairs and was now the Presidents choice for Assistant Sec retary of State.
 Dunn declared thta the statement quoted by Welles was not his, but even that did not disclose the iden- tity of who might have given Con- gress it's steer on the Spanish situa- tion.
 The mystery, however, has now been cleared up. The statement came from the late R. Walton More, who was then Assistant Sec retary of State and from 1897 until his death in 1941 was Counselor to Secretary Hull.
 MOORE STATEMENT
 PRECEDED REVOLUTION
 The responsibility which Welles puts on Moore's shoulders is not, however, as great as might appear from the Welles book, for in tracking down the crucial policy statement to it's correct source, 1t has also been disclosed that Moore did not make the statement in De- cember, 1936, as Welles says he did, but in January, 1886. This was six months before the revolution broke out in Spain. Furthermore, Moore made this statement with reference not to the Spanish arms embargo act, but to another measure which was never passed.
 There is another point Of con- fusion in the Welles statement that the President was out of the country while the Spanish arms embargo policy was being adopted by Con- gress. The President, Hull and Welles had gone to the Inter- American Peace conference in Buenos Aires toward the end of 1936. But the Spanish policy had been determined and announced previously by the President and R. Walton Moore on August p and the President returned to Washington on December 16. So the President was in on the whole play. It was Welles who was out of the country. He stopped of in Rio on the way back from B. A.. and in the inter- vening years his memory played him 8 dirty trick. The Presidents message of regret was over the earlier neutrality act-not the Span ish embargo.
 This footnote may set the facts straight and may be Of more than historical interest if the situation iO Hprancn GrafY1 nnnI., ..a4a t..A