AMERICAN VIEWS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 91, 14 October 1935, Page 9

AMERICAN VIEWS

'PRESIDENT'S EMBARGO

EXAMPLE TO LEAGUE

NEW YORK, October 11.

Officials at Washington and the-pub-lic generally are closely following developments at Geneva, and note with particular interest how, the League sanctions correspond with the action President Roosevelt has taken in the neutrality proclamations issued, while the President's arms embargo appeared to set an example that is being followed by the League. It is a foregone conclusion that America will. not continue • comparable action and raise the embargo on Ethiopia, as the law sufficiently commands the President to effect it equally against all belligerents. It is pointed out that the President s embargo is limited to "implements" of warfare instead of "munitidns." The reason powder and the other explosives were not included was because it was found that these were not in practical export from this country in bulk, but only cartridge shells, upon which an embargo was placed. It is generally felt at Washington that all has been done by the Government that can be done and that the nation's moral influence for peace has been exerted through the proclamations and statements of the President GENERAL PRAISE FOR LEAGUE.

The Press of the nation generally praises the League action. For example, the "New York Times," in a leader, declares that sanctions leave "the Italian Government in a position of almost intolerable moral isolation. Virtually the whole world has pronounced it guilty. It is true that Signor Mussolini maintains a brazen front against the verdict of civilised nations, which must also be the verdict of history, but even he must see that prolonged resistance by Italy to this deliberate and crushing judgment of the League would be a form of national suicide." • The "Herald-Tribune," on the other hand, takes a more sceptical view. It | admits that "if words have any mean-i ing, Italy is a flagrant violator of pledges and under the Covenant no) lesser verdict could be returned," but adds: "Why in this case should the League reassert principles which were forgotten or evaded in the Vilna case, in the disarmament problem, in the rape of Manchuria, and in virtually every significant question with which it has wrestled since its foundation?" It concludes: "Despite protestations of British statesmen of the disinterestd I character of their motives, the fact remains that the crisis has actually shaped itself as a clash between Italian imperialism and British Im-, penalism." ,