NEUTRALITY IN U.S.A.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4808, 10 July 1939, Page 6

NEUTRALITY IN U.S.A.

MORE POWER FOR PRESIDENT. MR. ROOSEVELT'S BID. From Paris comes the interestingnews that the French Foreign Minister, M. Bonnet, is convinced that if the United States would declare that, in the event of war, it would be found on the side of Great Britain and France, then the threat of war would disappear from Europe, says a correspondent writing last month from the United States. M. Bonnet's hopes are unlikely to be gratified, and his speech has already had unfortunate reactions in increasing the suspicions of the isolationist group in Congress, which is about to have presented for its consideration a revision of the Neutrality Act, which was designed to keep America out of war. President Roosevelt suffered a severe rebuff in the House of Representatives at Washington, when, opposing the President's hopes for revision of the neutrality law, the House retained the existing restrictions against the export of arms and credits to belligerent nations, and defeated a proposal for a modified neutrality measure.

The most important aspect of the amending neutrality legislation as framed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives is that it would endow the President with fresh powers in the international field. It would be for him to decide the terms of the neutrality to be exercised by the United States in the event of a war between foreign nations. It is true that the new proposals if accepted by Congress, would create a National Munitions Control Board to issue licenses for the export of arms and munitions by American manufacturers, . but even this board would be composed only of Cabinet Ministers who, at the very least, would be in sympathy with the President.

But it would remain with the President to declare when a state of neutrality exists, and the proposed amendments to the present Neutrality Act give him almost unlimited powers in making his decision.

"Cash and Carry."

The old "cash and carry" clause, which forbids Americans to send munitions abroad for eventual payment by foreign purchasers, is retained, although the desired goods may be freely bought in the States, provided that they are transported overseas in non-American ships. Under the present law an arms embargo comes into force automatically on proclamation by the President that a state of war exists between two oimore countries.

Certain other provisions arc of minor importance, such as the matter of loans to the belligerents, which could be prevented by threats of a heavy fine, but it is interesting to note that the new provisions give the President power to control the movements of belligerent submarines or armed merchantmen, which may desire to enter or leave' American ports.

No surprise can be felt at the news that several Senators are pledging- themselves in a united battle against the proposal that em-

bargoes against shipments of arms shall be repealed from the present neutrality law. Senators Nye, Borah and Hiram Johnson* have long sought neutrality legislation which would bind the President hand and foot .immediately two or more Powers were at ' war.

Questionable Value

The existing American neutrality legislation contains a good deal of what critics do not hesitate to describe as pious humbug. Certainly, since the first neutrality legislation was introduced in 1935, the measure has been largely ineffective, and has done nothing to prevent belligerents from obtaining all the arms, munitions and fighting aeroplanes from American makers that they wished.

Its declared intention of keeping the United Stotes out of war has not yet been put to the test. It is inconceivable that any neutrality bill, however strictly drawn up, could achieve that end. A nation enters war on a wave of public enthusiasm, and, if the United States were confronted with a similar situation to that which carried the country into the last war in 1917, it is certain that the response by the American people would be the same, no matter what lay in the Statute Books. Senator Nye and his colleagues may be well meaning in their efforts to preserve their country in a state of "splendid isolation," but many of their fellow-countrymen assume that these legislative efforts will fall like a pack of cards before the reality of a threat to the United States, either from the Atlantic or the Pacific.

Best Left tp Events

M. Bonnet cannot expect to obtain from the United States a formal declaration of its intentions regarding a prospective war in Europe; he should be content to leave the problem to the future shaping of events. In the face of such a catastrophe as a second world conflagration in 25 years, American neutrality legislation would probably become a shadow. Even if the present proposals become law before Congress adjourns until next January, they still permit these nations holding command of the seas to buy extensively from America. And in the vanguard of these purchasers would be Great Britain. The Japanese, with their ''unwar-

ranted insults' to friendly Powers in China, are moving the American people to side with their President against totalitarian action in whatever part of the world it may declare itself, when such action is deliberately against the interests of peace-loving peoples. That Americans themselves regard the neutrality laws as largely abstract is proved by the small interest the average citizen displays in them. He knows that they can no more keep his country aloof from war than Kiung Canute could stay the advance of the waves by telling them to recede at his command.

But the American isolationists have stirred up a domestic problem, and this explains i part their determination to fight the new proposals that would give the President more power in foreign aairs than he now possesses. It is the old quarrel between the White House and the Capitol as to which should exercise most power in the international field.