The Dominion. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1939. THE UNITED STATES AND NEUTRALITY

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 112, 4 February 1939, Page 10

The Dominion. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1939. THE UNITED STATES AND NEUTRALITY

Members of the United States Senate who sought an explanation of negotiations over the sale of military aeroplanes to France leceived a pEr answer than they expected. Details o what, they were to d by P President Roosevelt are not officially known, but it is apparent that the President did not .mince words m declaring bis sympat y the European democracies and the necessity, from the point 0 of ultimate American security, of a tangible demonstration of that sympathy. Indeed, it is reported from Washington that in addressing the Senate’s Military Affairs Committee, Mr. Roosevelt made three points: First, that the United States would support the European democracies against the dictatorships “in every way short of war , > secondly, that in the event of war between the democracies and. die tatorship nations France'would be “the actual frontier of America , thirdly, P that American manufacturers should have unlimited fieedom to sell arms and munitions to Britain and France on a cash and carry basis.” Seemingly, Mr. Roosevelt has deemed it expedient to leave less room for doubt or misunderstanding—to reveal that the Administration has gone a great deal further along the road to co-operation with Britain and France than has been generally realized. “The Senators,” it is stated, “were impressed and many even surprised, at the closeness with which the United States seemed, to be working with Britain and France in its efforts to thwart totahtai ia.ii threats to democracy.” Nevertheless,, there has been plenty of evidence in recent months of the trend in that direction. Die United States policy at the Pan-American Conference in Lima and Mr. Coidell Hull’s outspoken speeches at that occasion; the depth of feeling on the Jewish question; the vigorous, almost provocative, cr ’ t,clsnis of German policy uttered in recent weeks by Mr. Sumner Welles, Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Ickes, Secretary of the. Interior, Senator Pittman, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator King, and others; the eagerness of the President himself to stress on every appropriate occasion the futility of isolationism. a these activities have suggested the adoption of a much more positive role in support of the democratic ideals for which the nation stands. The changeof sentiment, and to some extent of policy, brought about by events of the past year becomes apparent when. Mr. Roosevelt’s present-day attitude is compared with his viewpoint of three and a half years ago, when the Neutrality Bill was introduced. This Bill in its original form, empowered the. President to place an embargo on arms shipments, to forbid’American loans to belligei ents, to forbid belligerents using American ships, to close American ports to belligerent submarines, and to forbid American citizens to travel on ships belonging to belligerent nations. In signing it, Mr. Kooseveit said: The policy of the Government is definitely committed to the maintenance of peace and to the avoidance of any entanglements which would lead us into conflict. At the same time, it is the policy of the Government by every peaceful means, and without entanglement, to co-operate with other similarly-minded Governments to promote peace. In the following year when the extension of the Neutrality Act, which ■ had become law, was mooted, Congress was divided on the question as to whether a policy of “100 per cent, neutrality” should be adhered to, or the President some measure of discretion, in distinguishing between aggressor and victim nations. The minority opinion was that the Act should be provided with an escape clause., enabling victims of aggression to buy, pay for, and transport at their own risk such supplies—not actually munitions of war—which they might. need. This was the “cash and carry policy.” At that time it was rejected, ' for Congress amended the Act to prevent the shipment of war materials to either side in the Spanish civil war, thus upholding the doctrine of “100 per cent, neutrality.” Yet today the President, who kept silent during the debates on the extension of the Act, is reported to be not only favouring the “cash and carry ’ policy as proposed two years ago, but also its application in respect of arms, munitions and aeroplanes. • The neutrality of the United States to the extent provided for by .’aw remains, but the sentiment behind it seems beyond doubt to be on the wane. Even the Conservative Republican group, with ex-President Hoover as a mouthpiece, appears, at least for the time being, to have shelved its insolationist. principles. The trend is heartening and immeasurably strengthening to the democratic cause in Europe. And—what is of greater importance—it is a powerful factor in the preservation of world peace.