NEUTRALITY ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23859, 13 July 1939, Page 11

NEUTRALITY ACT

THE AMERICAN MEASURE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COMMITTEE’S DECISION (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) WASHINGTON, July 11. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted by 12 to 11 to postpone until next session Congress consideration of the neutrality legislation. Postponement would be a serious blow to the Administration’s hope of obtaining a measure liftthe arms embargo. It is believed, however, that the Democratic leader, Senator Barkley, may seek to take the issue to the floor of the Senate, despite the committee’s action, or the President will call a special session of Congress immediately after the adjournment. Meanwhile, Senator Pittman disclosed that he had placed oefore the committee a joint resolution giving the President power to restrict

foreign commerce with any member of the Nine-Power Pact which discriminated against American nations. This is aimed specifically at stopping exports of war supplies to Japan.

A SENATE AMENDMENT PLAN BEING DEVISED WASHINGTON, July H. (Received July 12, at 11.55 p.m.) Beaten by one vote at the meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President Roosevelt tonight insisted that Congress remain in session until new neutrality legislation lifting the arms embargo is enacted. He issued a warning that the outbreak of war would make it extremely difficult to revise the Neutrality Act. The only way the Bill, approved by the House, can reach the Senate now is through a motion to discharge the committee from further consideration of it. However, while the Administration claims to have a Senate majority, the isolationist bloc threatens a filibuster. According to the New York Times. Mr Cordell Hull and Senators Barkley and Pittman are devising a plan which involves offering as a Senate amendment to the Bill a clause repealing all neutrality legislation. It is claimed that this would not force the House to register the original vote on the proposal, against which it once committed itself. It would offer the best chance of preventing a filibuster, and it would attract a large vote in the Senate from those who favour repeal and those who are dissatisfied with the present proposal for revision President Roosevelt declared that the committee’s vote was not a clearcut test of the Senate’s views. Two Democrats—Senators Gillette (Iowa) and George (Georgia)—whom the President attempted to purge at the last primaries, held the balance of power in the committee. They voted to postpone consideration of the Bill till next session.

Next Move Not Disclosed

President Roosevelt refused to tell the press his next move, but he reiterated that if the Congress adjourned without enacting legislation it would mean that nothing could be done before next spring. Meanwhile, all kinds of things might happen. He indicated that he does not intend to call a special session unless Europe is plunged into war. Mr Cordell Hull told the press that the interests of peace and security of the United States “ require that we continue to urge the adoption of our neutrality programmme.” The New York Herald-Tribune, in an editorial, says; “ The Presidents purge has come home to roost. It is the country’s loss that his wishes were not respected, but too many men in the committee had their own taste of presidential abuse of power and position. It is cold comfort when Republicans and Democrats alike feel that the world crisis makes it imperative for the President to have a free hand in the matter of neutrality. but it shows that even when a man is overwhelmingly popular, spite politics do not pay.” Senator Pittman’s proposal is a substitute for the Japanese embargo he introduced earlier. It would ban the export of arms, ammunition scrap, and other metals to Japan. He expressed the opinion that the matter could be kept clear from the question of neutrality revision because the United States was free to take retaliatory action against any nation which violated the open-door section of the nine-Power Pact.