to keep us out of war has moved the administration to support the plan now presented, it is expected to keep our citizens from traveling on ships of belligerent nations, and our ships and citizens out of danger zones; and provides the "come and get it" policy with respect to all goods destined to a warring power.

About the only substantial opposition to the proposals appears to come from certain of the die-hard "isolationists" who object to this elimination of the present mandatory complete embargo against sales from this country of any arms or munitions to a warring power, even though bought at our water's edge and transported in foreign ships. Spokesman for this point of view is Senator Borah who asserts that the proposal to allow such sales on a "cash and carry" basis would "make an arsenal out of the United States" and "would not serve the cause of peace or humanity in any way."

The Senator's view seems extreme and unconvincing. There is reason, on the other hand, to believe that a policy under which England and France, for instance, with their control of the seas, might be able to gain needed military supplies in this country would be a contribution to preservation of peace in Europe-certainly more so than maintenance of a policy which assures the axis powers that the democracies would be promptly cut off from any such supplies in America in the event of war. And the indications are that the great majority of the American people look at it that way.

[From the Mercury Herald, San Jose, Calif., May 31, 1939]

NOT PARTISAN ISSUE

Representative Fish, Republican Member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, views with alarm Secretary Hull's proposal to eliminate from the new neutrality act the mandatory embargo on sale of munitions to nations at war. The effect of it, he says, would be to "make the United States the slaughterhouse and arsenal for arms, munitions and implements of war, and particularly for Great Britain which controls the seas."

Foreign_relations should not be made the football of partisan politics. Leaders of both parties should squarely face the facts presented in the international situation and devise constructive measures to safeguard the Nation's interests.

The inescapable facts are (1) that the three dictator nations forming the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo alliance proclaim force to be the instrument of their foreign policy, repudiate treaty obligations and international law, and menace world peace by their lawless conduct; that all nations, including the United States, realize this to be true and are spending billions to increase their armaments to protect themselves against the aggression of the dictators; (3) that the storm center is in Europe, and world peace depends on whether the peaceable nations of Europe can unite and make their armaments so strong the dictators dare not risk an attack on them.

On this state of facts it is self-evident the United States is secure against attack if the peaceable nations of Europe are militarily strong enough to curb the dictators. To prohibit the sale of munitions to the nations protecting us against the Nazi-Fascist menace would therefore

be an act of folly. The way to prevent the United States from being a "slaughterhouse" is not to declare an embargo, but help pile up the munitions of the antiaggression bloc.

[From the Times, Los Angeles, Calif., May 31, 1939]

A SOUND PROGRAM

The bill which will probably enact Secretary Hull's neutrality proposals into law-since they are said to have full administration approval appears to be soundly considered, in spite of objections to it immediately voiced by Senator Borah and Representative Fish. The Senator and the Representative complain that sale of munitions even on a cash-and-carry basis will "turn the United States into an arsenal."

These objectors might well be asked what are munitions and what not. If there is any moral distinction between selling the raw materials to be made into munitions and the finished product it would be hard to draw; the most innocent of materials may be turned into the deadliest of weapons or explosives.

To shut off a flow of materials necessary or useful in wartime would require the embargoing of all exports, regardless of character. Such a quixotic gesture on our part would entail an immense sacrifice.

Furthermore, it would cog the dice in favor of the well-prepared and war-disposed nations, which could get along without supplies from this country, and penalize nations which might be defending their very liberty and existence against aggressive attack.

There is no argument in favor of an embargo on munitions which does not apply with equal force to an embargo on all commodities.

This phase of the neutrality law has been debated for years and always comes out at the same place. It is time to admit that discrimination between various classes of exports is illogical.

The refusal of loans or credits to belligerents is a method of restricting war exports indirectly which may or may not work out well in practice, but which may deserve a trial. It appears to be based in principle mainly on our bad experience with the war debts, rather than on moral grounds.

The prohibition of travel by Americans on ships of belligerents and the prohibition of visits by American ships to dangerous areas are theoretically objectionable as interfering with individual freedom, and as abandoning the historic American doctrine of freedom of the seas. It would serve all purposes if such travel and such visits were made at the risk, of the parties concerned. In practice, that will probably prove the effect of this provision, which appears impossible of practical enforcement.

Other provisions of the act speak for themselves. On the whole, it seems about the best neutrality bill obtainable, and a considerable improvement over the existing statute.

Secretary Hull's coincident warning that a policy of isolation is both impossible and dangerous for the United States is correct in its main thesis. For good or ill, the United States is a part of the world. We need not take sides in every quarrel, but if we fail to act when the quarrel intimately concerns us, we may be gravely damaged and have

no recourse.

[From the News, Denver, Colo., May 31, 1939]

KEEPING OUT OF WAR

There are two ways in which neutrality legislation can help to keep America at peace:

1. By helping to prevent a European conflict.

2. By reducing the chances of our entanglement if such a war cannot be averted.

It seems to us that Secretary Hull's proposals for amending the neutrality act are suited to both objectives.

As the act now stands, if fighting starts in Europe tomorrow, the President must forbid entirely the exportation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war to any of the belligerents. But the sale and delivery of oil and cotton and steel and a thousand other things, just as vital as machine guns, would not be restricted. And the torpedoing of American vessels bearing foodstuffs and fibers could point us down the road to war just as surely as could the sinking of cargoes of airplanes and cartridges.

Mr. Hull would place all exports to belligerents-whether tanks or shoes or wheat-on a cash-and-carry or come-and-get-it basis. He would forbid American ships to enter zones of conflict. Warring nations would have to send their own vessels to our docks, place their cash (no credit allowed) on the barrel head, take title to the goods, and haul them at their own risk. Our industry and agriculture would suffer a minimum of dislocation.

That seems simple and fair. Actually, of course, in a general European conflagration, such a law would favor England and her allies so long as they controlled the seas and had the cash. But then it is utterly impossible to write a neutrality law that will give an even break to both sides. And surely even Fritz Kuhn is not so stupid as to think the American people would long tolerate a law that catered to the axis at the expense of the democracies.

As the neutrality act now stands, if Hitler launched his bombing fleets tomorrow against London and Paris and Warsaw and Bucharest, President Roosevelt would by law, have to forbid delivery of the hundreds of fighting planes already ordered in this country by France and Britain. (True, the President might fail, as he has done in the case of China and Japan, to recognize that a state of war exists. Some authorities think he could properly do so, on the ground that the act infringes unconstitutionally the Chief Executive's historic authority over the conduct of our foreign relations).

But if Germany were convinced that he actually would apply the embargo, her estimates of her chances in a quick war would be enhanced. If, on the contrary, Congress notified the world that our policy to all would be "come and get it," then Germany would have to revise her calculations. And to that extent the Hull proposals would tend to preserve peace in Europe.

Suppose, however, that we go along on the basis of our existing law. What do you think would happen if a war started and England and France, reeling under successive waves of mass bombing which their own air fleets proved inadequate to prevent or avenge, pleaded for delivery of those planes they ordered here before the war started?

159258-39-2

Do you think Congress and the American people would shut their ears? We don't. We think Congress would repeal the neutrality act so fast it would make your head swim.

If that guess is a reasonable one, why hang on to the letter of the existing law now, when enactment of the Hull proposals might serve as a powerful deterrent to the war party in Berlin?

The bill embody ng the administration's neutrality views, dropped into the congressional hopper by Representative Bloom, acting chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has provoked a state

of criticism.

Typical in its exaggeration, its lack of consideration or statesmanly restraint, is the outcry of Representative Fish, ranking Republican member of this same committee, who rushed into print with the hysterical assertion that "The actual result of Secretary Hull's program, if carried into effect, would be to make the United States the slaughterhouse and arsenal for arms, ammunition, and implements of war for all nations, and particularly for Great Britain which controls the seas.

Mr. Fish and those who storm along with him must realize that no absolutely serene course can be charted these days, that danger is involved on every hand, and that the only prudent procedure is to provide a leeway and a discretion for meeting swirling, besetting conditions. What we have now, since expiration of the cash-andcarry statute April 30, is virtually no neutrality law; thus we are largely in the position which we occupied prior to our involvement in the World War. Congress' previous effort at drafting of a program hardly prevented American supplies and war materials from playing a major part in Japan's destruction of China. Thus we have two examples of a neutrality which has not worked.

The new proposals include precautions which have not heretofore been taken. American citizens would be barred on ships of belligerent nations. Title for goods for any warring country would have to be cleared before they left port and transportation would be only in that country's own bottoms. Solicitation and collection of funds for governments of nations at war would be prohibited. The Munitions Control Board would continue its supervision of sales and exports, and the President would be empowered to decree "areas of combat operations" and restrict movements of American citizens and American shipping therein. True, dealings in raw materials and other commodities which undoubtedly enter into the conduct of war would go on; but that must be unless the entire American economy is to be upset and that very autarchy which we have condemned in Germany promoted in all its paralyzing economic aspects. A ban in this connection would conceivably operate in the dictators' favor as they have developed their synthetic products and acquired huge war stores such as the antiaggression bloc does not have.

As for Honorable Fish's ringing contention that such a program would aid Great Britain, our own realistic reaction is, well, what of it and why not?

[From the Times-Picayune, New Orleans, La., June 2, 1939]
HULL NEUTRALITY PLAN

Widely divided on the questions involved, Congress seemingly has been tempted to put off enactment of a new neutrality law till next session. That prospect caused no special concern over the country at large, since there is more to be feared from an inflexible neutrality law operating in unpredictable situations than from no law at all. But unfortunately there remains on the books the Neutrality Act of 1937, which not only operates ineffectively but may be turned against our own interests by a designing belligerent.

Guided more by emotion, perhaps, than by common sense, Congress acted in 1937 on the assumption that it was dangerous to permit the Chief Executive and the State Department a free hand in shaping foreign policy, and that in its own wisdom it could adopt neutrality rules suited to any situation. Five months of debate about this have produced uncertainty and confusion that may prevent corrective action at this session.

Secretary Hull now has submitted a six-point neutrality program which provides a basis for statesmanlike consideration of a problem vital to national welfare. The Secretary urges repeal of the present law compelling embargoes on a specified group of war materials. Everybody knows that guns, ammunition, and the like constitute a mere fraction of the war materials in these days and that an effective embargo against war supplies means a prohibition against nearly everything shipped in commerce. The recent illegal searches of neutral ships by the Japanese have not been for guns and explosives alone, but for anything of value to Chinese defense. Moreover, the present embargo law operates unfairly against the belligerent which must import guns and ammunition rather than the materials from which they are made.

The Hull plan would authorize the President to establish combat zones from which all American ships, regardless of cargo, would be barred. In effect, this would make the United States, rather than a nation at war, the judge of what is combat territory. Under this provision the country could defend its rights to trade at large without weakening the evidence of its will for neutrality.

Other important points in the program include the continuance of licensing for munitions exports; a requirement that a belligerent take title to any goods bought in this country before they leave these shores and a prohibition against loans and credits to nations at war.

The program's primary objective, as we understand it, is to keep the country out of foreign embroilments. It cannot-nor can any other assure us absolutely against involvement in war. But this one does not abandon the freedom-of-the-seas principle nor the freedom to trade. Nor does it, according to our reading, contemplate any concession impairing national self-respect and prestige.