THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1939 AMERICAN NEUTRALITY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23418, 7 August 1939, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1939 AMERICAN NEUTRALITY

Sir Hubert Ostler spoke truly when he said the thought uppermost in the minds of his countrymen when turned to the United States was that America should abandon neutrality and use her weight unequivocally on the side of democracy and the rule of law. He was addressing an American jurist of international reputation, Dr. Roscoe ,Pound, who contented himself by raising the constitutional aspect of a very wide question. He conceded that there were many sympathetic to Sir Hubert's proposition, that the United States could and should exercise a decisive influence for good in world affairs. He observed, however, that it was a domestic question as to where those powers should reside. What has happened in the United States is that the Legislature has tied the hands of the Executive Parliament has bound the Government, as we would say—to a policy of strict neutrality. The action of White House is confined within narrow limits by the provisions of the Neutrality Act. Efforts made in Congress in the session just ended to ease the constriction of the law have substantially failed. The Legislature was not prepared to give the President more room in which to manoeuvre in foreign affairs. Its attitude was dictated, not so much by lack of sympathy with the democracies or of detestation of the dictatorships, but by reluctance to forfeit or qualify its own powers, particularly when it came to decisions of peace or war. Indeed tho democratic ideal should leave such decisions with the representative body, although in the United States the Chief Executive is no less representative than the Legislature, both being elected by popular vote.

Dr. Pound settles this point by asserting that the American people have always believed that such powers should not be reposed in one man, the President, but shoidd belong to Congress. It would be idle to deny, however, that by his own Administration the man in question, Mr. Roosevelt, has caused Congress to guard its prerogatives and circumscribe his scope. That did not happen all'at once. For the first four or five years of his Government, Congress was more or less in the President's pocket. In order that he might cope with the economic crisis, it delegated the widest powers to him. When his use of them brought Mr. Roosevelt into conflict with the Supreme Court, he sought to override that last check on his authority. Widespread suspicions were at once aroused concerning Mr. Roosevelt's objective, whether he was not seeking to overcome the constitutional checks represented by Legislature and Judiciary and assert the supremacy of the Executive —of one man. The decline of his ascendancy dates from the attempt on the Supreme Court. Congress reacted to the popular feeling against even the shadow of a dictator at White House and, as a message published this morning shows, has proceeded to clip close the Presidential wings. It is true that the neutrality legislation was passed while Mr. Roosevelt was still at his political prime, but the international outlook has changed so profoundly since then that Congress might h ave been

willing to amend or repeal so limiting a measure in order to strengthen the diplomacy of a

President in whom it felt more trust or confidence. It is not only a question of empowering the President, but .also of empowering this particular President, who by many Americans is credited with a too

hearty appetite for power. This feeling combines with the American

tradition of isolation, a tradition

now 150 years old and born out of the revered advice of George Washington.

It is certainly tragic that in these

precarious times America is prevented from pulling her full weight on the aide of-democracy, freedom, world order and peace. Yet there is

a consideration in all this that should not be overlooked because desire and emergency conspire' to obscure it. In America their attitude amounts to this—they are asserting the supremacy of the Legislature or Parliament over the Executive or Government. In too many democracies to-day, Parliament is in eclipse to the Government. In some even the Judiciary is being set aside. On the pica pf defending freedom and democracy, both are being deeply compromised. The Unsted States is striving to retain the reality as well as the form of democratic institutions and to escape tho modern paradox of the sacrifice of freedom in defence of freedom. Unhappily her concorn over the domestic balance of power seriously affects the world balance of power. The case that Sir Hubert! Ostler makes for alignment with the forces of law and freedom troubles millions of good Americans. They see only too clearly that: "Your country is, or could bo, the deciding factor; in you resides the balance of power." How can that power be made effective on the side of right—the right side from our point of view—not to wage war but to avert war? Americans appreciate Sir Hubert's argument and in growing numbers are ready to concede it. They have still to agree on tho political method and time is fleeting. While Congress is in recess, the moment for a decisive stand may arrive and find tho Executive with its hands still : tied. The dilemma is as distracting as it is disturbing, but must be left Ito the Americana themselves to 1 determine,,