AMERICAN LEADERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 18, 21 July 1939, Page 9

AMERICAN LEADERS

NEUTRALITY POSTPONEMENT

"INVITATION TO WAR"

(By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright.)

WASHINGTON, July 20.

In the conference at the White House between the President and the leaders of the Democrat and Republican Parties at which Mr. Roosevelt finally agreed to abandon his pressure for amendment of the neutrality law in the present session of Congress, the discussions became extremely heated, especially exchanges between Senator Borah and the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull. Senator Borah apparently challenged the authenticity or candour of "confidential reports" of which Mr. Hull and Mr. Roosevelt spoke so much, as showing a threat of a further crisis in Europe. Senator Borah said he considered, his own sources of information just as reliable as those of the Department of State, whereupon Mr. Hull took offence, and everybody, including the President, spoke at once. The Vice-President, Mr. Garner, stopped the useless discussion by asking whether there were enough votes to force the Neutrality Bill to the floor of the Senate, and everybody, was compelled to agree that there were not, whereupon the President laughed and everybody regained his good humour. ■ The meeting broke tip in-a most friendly way, Mr. Garner seeing to it that Senator Borah and Mr. Hull shook hands cordially before parting. "INVITATION TO WAR." The "New York Times," in a leader, labels the postponement as "an invitation to war and calls the step a stunning defeat for the Administration and a hard blow for all those who believe that the best hope of keeping the United States at peace lies in a policy of concerted action to make the outbreak of a general war less likely. In blunt terms, this is an, invitation to aggressor nations to use war or a threat x>t war to achieve their conquests. There is no use in attempting to disguise the fact that the result in Congress will bring satisfaction in Berlin and Eome. ; It will be i-ead there as evidence that American foreign policy is still uncertain and confused and still working at cross purposes to the great disadvantage of "our real national interests; but they must doubt whether this result represents the final consideration of the question on its merits, and they must; note the strong belief on this side of the Atlantic that in any war which they may start the United States will ultimately play a part. DEFENCE OF AMERICANISM. "No Neutrality Act can prevent the American people from favouring their natural allies in any ultimate test of strength between democracy and dictatorship," the "New York Times" continues. "Good will and moral support and, in the long run, it is more than likely, the physical power of the United States will be found on the side of those nations defending the way of life which is our own way of life and the only way of life which Americans believe to be worth living."

The leader, which is probably the strongest expression of opinion from any American newspaper relative to the present neutrality situation, occupies two columns.