ARMS EMBARGO

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 October 1939, Page 8

ARMS EMBARGO

U.S SENATE DEBATE COMPROMISE POSSIBILITIES [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYBIGHT.] WASHINGTON, October 14. As the Senate draws near the end of the general debate on the neutra - itv proposals, Administration leaders are confident that Mr. Roosevelt’s objectives will be accomplished very soon. There is every disposition towards a compromise on the shipping and credit clauses. The Washington correspondent 01 the “New York Times” says that the amendment effort is complicated by division of- opinion on whether United States ships should carry munitions to belligerents from Pacific ports. It is felt that a formula can be found to free these ships from restrictions, but the problem is more acute than any other at present. The removal of the Azores from the danger zone is also urged, enabling the maintenance of the trans-Atlantic air service. Administration leaders have been canvassing the possibilities of a compromise in the shipping and shortterm credit provisions as a means of hastening the final vote. They me following the advice of the VicePresident (Mr. J. N. Garner) to grant any necessary concessions short of surrendering the repeal proposal in order to conclude the controveisy quickly. Mr. Garner is reported to have joined the movement to secuie the modification of the shipping restrictions. His prestige is said to be helping in this direction. The Washington correspondent of the “New York Times” states that the final vote on the embargo will indicate definitely the people’s desires towards war. ’ The American people, Congress, and the administrators, are settled on only one thing—that is, their purpose to stay out of the war. The Administration believes that the'United States’ best role is a dynamic weighting of the scales as much as possible towards a just peace. It hopes and prays that England and France will win, from the standpoint both of justice and of United States national defence. In pursuance of the latter, if not of the former, it might, if permitted, resort to numerous means short of war to aid an Allied victory. On the contrary, Congress, even if it repeals the embargo, does not .thereby subscribe to the executive’s policy. Unless sentiment changes materially the price of repeal will be substantial restraint of the executive. ) The majority of the people obviously hope for an Allied victory and desire repeal, but are more determined to stay out of the war than it was believed in political circles.

. “FIRST STEP TO PEACE.” Senator Tom Connally closed the second week of the neutrality debate, contending that repeal of the arms embargo would be the first step to peace. Previously Senator L. J. Frazier and Senator E. Lundeen had attacked repeal on the ground that it was likely to involve the United States in war. Senator Frazier declared, that Britain and France were at present “stalling” on the Western Front, .awaiting the outcome of the neutrality controversy. He added: “Our warlords’. desire is to push us into an insane European war in order to try out our war paraphernalia.” Senator Lundeen, referring to debts, declared that the word of Britain and France was no better than Herr Hitler’s. “I do not believe any of these foreign diplomats,” he said. “The claim that the retention of the embargo means peace is wholly baseless and not supported. It would probably mean war.” Senator Lundeen suggested that the United States seize British West .Indies possessions in payment of war debts because they would be useful to the United States as naval and air bases. Senator Claude Pepper, in a statement to the Press urging the establishment of inter-American naval forces to sink belligerent submarines and warships entering the safety zone, said: “The warring Powers should be shown that we mean business.” Senator Robert A. Taft suggested that waters within 300 miles of Europe, including the Scandinavian and Mediterranean countries, should bo declared a war zone from which American ships should be barred.

ISOLATION ADVOCATED. BROADCAST BY LINDBERGH. WASHINGTON, October 13. Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, broadcasting to the nation, urged the maintenace of the arms embargo and virtually demanded that Britain and other European Powers get out of the Western Hemisphere lest they drag the United States into war. “We desire the utmost friendship with the people of Canada,” he said. “If ever they are attacked our navy will be defending their seas, our soldiers will fight on their battlefields and our airmen will die in their skies. But have they the right to draw this hemisphere into a European war simply because they prefer the Crown of England to American independence? “Sooner or later we must demand the freedom of this continent and the surrounding islands from the dictates of European power. American history clearly indicates this need. So long as the European Powers maintain influence in our hemisphere we are likely to find ourselves involved in their troubles and they will lose no opportunity to involve us. “This is a war over the balance of power in Europe,” declared Colonel Lindbergh. “Our bond' with Europe is the bond of race, not of political ideology. It is tho European race that we must preserve. Political progress will follow. If the white race is ever seriously threatened it may then be time to take sides with the British, French or Germans, but not with one against the others for our mutual destruction.” Colonel Lindbergh advocated the isolationist programme, but said that he would permit the unrestricted sale of purely defensive armaments. OUT OF HIS ELEMENT. NEW YORK, October 14. The reaction to Colonel Lindbergh’s broadcast showed that the-group fav-

curing repeal of the arms embargo mostly criticised it, and the opponents of embargo repeal mostly praised it. Senator Pittman, in a very bitter attack, said: “Colonel Lindbergh's statement encourages the ideology of totalitarians on the subject of construction. He approves of their brutal co?iquests. I admire Colonel Lindbergh’s accomplishments in the air, but history has not disclosed that he has had the same experience of statesmanship or military affairs.” CANADIAN CRITICISM. OTTAWA. 'October 14. Ministers here took the stand that Colonel Lindbergh’s statement is not a matter for Government consideration, since he is a private citizen. The “Toronto Daily Star,” in a leader, under the title “Offensive Lindbergh Address,” says: The speech was presumptuous and offensive in some references to Canada. Fortunately it does not represent the attitude of the vast majority of our good neighbours to the South. Colonel Lindbergh would detach Canada from the British connection, and refuse it the right to prefer the Crown of England to American independence. It is pure Hitlerism in doctrine —that a stronger country should override the liberty and wishes of a weaker. It is not representative of United States opinion. The United States has no more right to say. whether Canada should now go to war than Canada has to say whether the United States should go to war many years ago with Spain. KEY WEST NAVAL STATION. WASHINGTON, October 14. The Navy Department has announced the reopening on November 1 of the Key West naval station, which was closed in 1930. The department declined to explain the reason for this, but it is presumed to be designed to strengthen neutrality patrol operations off the south-eastern seaboard and also in the Caribbean area. BELGIAN ARMY PURCHASES. BRUSSELS, October 13. A Belgian military mission will leave fey the United States to-dny. They are to buy aeroplanes and army equipment to the value of C 1,500,000. POLISH WAR DEBT. ' WASHINGTON, October 13. *

, The Secretary of State (Mr. Cordell Hull) said the Treasury was considering the application to Poland of countervailing duties and German immigration quotas, and also whether to demand that Germany assume responsibility for the Polish war debt to the United States. Early decisions could not be expected.