NEUTRALITY ACT

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 October 1939, Page 8

NEUTRALITY ACT

DEBATE NEARING END [BY GABLE —PRESB ASSN. COPYRIGHT.] WASHINGTON, October 18. There are increasing signs that the general debate on neutrality in the United States Senate is drawing to a close. The Administration leaders are so certain that this is so that they allowed the Senate to go into recess an hour earlier than usual. Both sides predict, that the neutrality resolution will reach the amendment stage at least early next week.

CONTROVERSY NARROWED. REPEAL NOW ONLY ISSUE. (Recd. October 20, 1.40 p.m.) WASHINGTON, October 19. A final agreement to permit American vessels to carry non-armaments to some of the belligerents’ ports was reached by Democratic members of the Foreign Relations Committee. American aircraft could operate in all parts of the Western Hemisphere. An amendment excising credit to private nationals was also approved. This has narrowed the controversy on neutrality to the principal issue of repeal of the arms embargo. The majorty leader, Senatoi' Barkley, vigorously attacked! Senator Borah, asserting he engaged in “a fantastic resort to imagination when he warned that American arms factories could be attacked,’ ’and sarcastically noted Senator Borah’s claims to a better knowledge of Europe than Mr Cordell Hull. “It would be as logical to say that they could destroy our wheat-fields, and poison our livestock, because our bread and meat might find its way to Britain and France,’ he added'. Senators Wheeler and Lundeen, embargo supporters, urged Mr Roosevelt to try immediately to arrange a European peace conference. Senator Norris opposed this, declaring that, unless Herr Hitler returned Poland and Czecho-Slovakia “to their people,” the offer would be useless. Senator Johnson said he was afraid the opportunity for the President had already passed. Senator McCarran declared that, it the embargo were repealed, Mr Roosevelt would disqualify himself as an intermediary in Europe.

“ALLIED VICTORY NECESSARY.” (Recd. Oct. 20, 1.30 p.m.). WASHINGTON, October 19. Senator Austin said it was necessary for the Allies to win. “What does the Senator mean by win?” demanded Senator Borah. “Something that would satisfy the United States, or would* satisfy Britain?” Senator Austin replied: An Allied victory, which is necessary for the purpose of promoting the peace and security of the United States.” Senator Vandenberg chimed in: “Pursuing that logic, it would be necessary for the United States to send soldiers to Europe.” Several Senators then clamoured for Senator Austin to define an Allied victory. He obliged as follows: “Stopping aggression, stopping the penetration of our country with ideas that undermine our Government, stopping events that might lead to the occupation of Canada, the islands off the coast, and Latin-America, by totalitarians engaged in efforts to dominate the world.”

BAN ON SUBMARINES

WASHINGTON, .October 18

Eighteen Latin-American Governments are expected to issue similar proclamations to that of Mr. Roosevelt, barring belligerent submarines from American ports and territorial waters, the exceptions being Argentina and Uruguay, who are understood to feel that submarines should be treated identically with other warships. Mr. Roosevelt’s action applied only to the three-mile limit and not to the 300-mile safety zone. The former is considered sufficient, because of the difficulty of fuelling. Mr. Roosevelt exempted the Panama Canal Zone. Evidently his theory was that it is a waterway kept open for all nations. He named the belligerents as France, Germany, the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and Poland. The Mexican Government has rejected a plea to have the guards removed from the German liner Columbus, which is sheltering in a Mexican port. The Government held the view that the guards were essential to prevent the Columbus violating Mexican neutrality.

“TERRITORIAL” WATERS. WASHINGTON, October 19. Mr.. Cordell Hull, in a. statement, said that the United States is now also considering the problem of armed merchantmen in American territorial waters, in the same way as submarines. Mr. Hull clarified the term “territorial” as being three miles.