Proposals to Congress By Mr Roosevelt

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22823, 23 September 1939, Page 14

Proposals to Congress By Mr Roosevelt

BAN ON WAR CREDITS TO BELLIGERENTS Maintenance of Neutrality As Guiding Principle (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION—COPYKIOHT.) (Received September 22, 10 a.m.) WASHINGTON, September 21. At the reopening of Congress Mr Roosevelt urged the repeal of the embargo provisions of the Neutrality Act aild a return to the principles pf international law in trading with belligerents. * He proposed that after the repeal there should be: (1) Authority to fix war zones in which American merchant ships may not enter. (2) Broader authority to prevent nationals from travelling in belligerent ships or danger zones. (3) Provision that belligerents purchasing commodities in the United States must take the title to them before shipment. (4) A ban on war credits to belligerents. “The result of the last two provisions would be that all purchases would be made by cash , and that cargoes would be carried at the purchaser’s risk in the purchaser’s ships,” said the President. He proposed that after the enactment of this programme, Congress should adjourn subject to recall in the event pf war or developments requiring attention. “These perilous days demand co-operation without a trace of partisanship. Acts must be guided by one single hard-headed thought—to keep America out of war,” declared Mr Roosevelt.

Mr Roosevelt said that first, second and third objectives' could be achieved either by an act of Congress • or. an “executive proclamation. The fourth could be achieved«by maintaining the existing provisions qr a proclamation notifying American citizens giving credit to belligerents that they would not be protected against- loss. He: added ; that / Congress should - make, its own choice of the method by Which -safeguards were to be attained. “Our Position has Altered” i “I cannot offer any hope that the shadow. wiR.. Pjss .swiftly,” he continued.' “A -darker period -may lie ahead. The disaster is not of bur rnaking. No act ofours has en- - gendered the. forces assaulting the foundations of civilisation, yjpt we •are affected to the core. The ciirrents of commerce are changing, and bur minds ajce filled with new problems. Our position in world affairs has altered.” ; The President declared that the present neutrality legislation had so altered the United States’ historic foreign policy that if had impaired . the country's peaceful relations with foreign' nations. He urged, that the > proposed amendment offered greater Sk^egdaif ds than' were'ribwrp'ossessed or were ever - possessed to- protect American lives and property. It was a positive safety programme, and-it-meant less, likelihood of incidents and controversies tending to draw the United States into war. In this lay, t the road fo peace., Bemadded that. Baying striven and failed to avert the war, he was not losing any time, in an effort to prevent the United States being involved. He predicted success in this direction. Act Regretted “I regret that Congress passed the neutrality Act, and X - regret equally that 1 signed, the act,” he declared. “I give you my deep and unalter- ■ able: conviction that by its repeal the United States will more- probably remain in peace than if the law remains. “Fate seems now to compel us to assume the task of helping to maintain in the Western World a citadel in which civilisation can be kept alive, regardless of party. The . mantle of- peace and patriotism is wide enough to cover ail. Let no group assume 1 the exclusive label of a peace bloc to which all belong.”

AMBASSADORS ABSENT

WASHINGTON. September 21

-✓The absence of the German, Italian, and ■ Japanese ambassadors from the' diplomatic gallery during Mr Roosevelt’s speech to Congress is commented. upon.

He said that the neutrality law did more than merely reverse the United States' traditional policy. It had put land Powers on the same footing as naval Powers as far as seaborne commerce was concerned. A land Power threatening war was thus assured in advance that its prospective sea Power antagonist would .‘ be Weakened through the denial of the ancient right to buy anything anywhere. This gave the advantage -to one .belligerent, not because of his own strength or geographic position, but through affirmative actiori by the United States. . “Real Neutrality” The removal of the embargo merely reverted to the sounder international practice of pursuing in war. time as in peace time ordinary; trade policies. It, would put the United States back on a solid footing of real traditional neutrality. The President urged those seeking to retain the embargo to be consistent and seek legislation to pre-

Received September 22, 7.5 p.iri.)

The German, and Italian embassies explained that the ambassadors had luncheon engagements. The Japanese Embassy explained that tlie ambassador was “Very, very busy.”

vent the sale of copper, meat, wheat, cloth, and a thousand other articles to belligerents. • ~ Recalling his January speech, the President declared that the essentials for American peace had not changed since. Therefore he asked for a reexamination of legislative action. in respect of that was inconsistent with ancient precepts, because he believed -.that they were vitally dangerous to American peace, neutrality and security. Mr Roosevelt’s speech was largely a-repetition- of. warnings and arguments and an examination of the historical and traditional aspects that had served the United States well for 150 years, except during the disastrous interlude of the Embargo and Non-intercourse Acts. Ten Republican - Senators, four Democrats, two Farm Labour Senators, and one Progressive Senator met before the session to organise opposition to Mr Roosevelt. They included Senator la Follette, Senator Borah,‘and Senator Vandenburg. The Secretary of State (Mr Cordell Hull) said that the lifting of the arms embargo would not be unneutral. On- the -contrary, it would constitute a return to the neutral position under international law from the unneutral position in which the Neutrality Act had placed the United States. He asserted that the United States had the right to change its neutrality policies regardless of the attitude of belligerents. HIGHER FOOD COSTS 1 : /in u.s: . ■ ’ : 1 WASHINGTON, September 21. ; . Tlie, United.; States Secretary for Labour (Miss -. Frances Perkins) stated that food costs. Had increased 2 per cent, for the week ended September -19. v w-.-;- -