Mr Fish Forces the Issue

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23444, 26 September 1941, Page 6

Mr Fish Forces the Issue

Mr Hamilton Fish, an isolationist member of the United States House of Representatives, proposes to put before Congress next week a resolution that the United States should declare war on Germany, his expectation being that it will be heavily defeated. Many Americans who are not isolationists will have some sympathy with Mr Fish in his desire to bring the issue of peace or war to a head “ in the constitutional “ American way,” for in the last week or so United States policy, particularly as it relates to defence of the freedom of the seas, has become a mystery to which the Administration alone holds the key. Mr Roosevelt’s broadcast address on September 12 seemed to make that policy perfectly explicit. United States naval and air patrols, he said, had been charged with “ the duty of maintaining the American policy "of freedom of the seas,” and that meant, “ very simply and clearly,” that the patrols would protect ships of any flag engaged in commerce in “American defensive waters.” German or Italian war vessels entering those waters would do so “ at their own peril.” Subsequent developments have shown that this statement is not nearly as simple and clear as it sbunds. What, for instance, are “Ameri“can defensive waters”? The President did not explain the phrase in his speech; and it is still unexplained. Colonel Knox, the Secretary for the Navy, said a few days ago that the extent of these waters would depend partly on the activities of Axis war vessels. The position thus created is an extraordinary one. In effect, it means that the commanders of Axis war vessels do not know in what areas they may operate without risking attack by United States patrols. From the British point of view it is, of course, a highly satisfactory position, since the German Admiralty is kept guessing. A rigid definition of American defensive waters would enable Germany’s plan of sea warfare to be revised accordingly. It is understandable, however, that many Americans should be

dissatisfied with an arrangement which seems to leave the issue of peace and war in the hands of the Navy Department. / Some annoyance has also been created by the disclosure that the Administration has. evolved a devious method of getting round the provision in the Neutrality Act which forbids the arming of United States merchant vessels. It now appears that the Danish merchant vessels which were tied up in United States ports after the invasion of Denmark and were recently taken over by the United States Maritime Commission have been transferred to the registry of the republic of Panama in order to put them outside the restrictions of the Neutrality Act. A further extension of the executive power at the expense of the Neutrality Act is indicated in the State Department’s decision, based on an opinion by the Attorney-General, that United States merchant vessels may take war supplies to ports in the British Empire from which they were barred under previous interpretations of the act. Once again, the Administration has preferred not to be explicit; the inexact term “ British Empire ” has not been defined, and some American newspapers are predicting that United States vessels will soon be discharging munitions at the Isle of Man. Critics of the Administration have begun to complain that these shifts and subterfuges are unworthy of a Great Power. Mr Roosevelt, who is as good a political tactician as has occupied the White House, is probably well enough. pleased with this trend of opinion, since it will help him in the difficult task of persuading Congress to jettison the Neutrality Act.