AMERICAN OPINION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23946, 23 October 1939, Page 8

AMERICAN OPINION

PRO-ALLY SENTIMENT MAXIMUM AID PROBLEM QUESTION OF BELLIGERENCY THE NEUTRALITY DEBATE NEW YORK, Oct. 21. (Received Oct 22, at 10 p.m.) The American Institute of Public Opinion, co-ordinating the results of the surveys announced on September 29, October 4. 5. 7, and 10, believes that the real issue before Americans has become the extent to which the United States can help Britain and France without becoming a belligerent. The institute suggests that the isolationists have not succeeded in convincing the majority of voters that the changing of the Neutrality Act would be tantamount to entering the war. The latest Institute returns show that 60 per cent, favour selling arms to the Allies, and that 62 per cent, affirmed that the United States should do everything possible to aid Britain and France to win except enter the war, but 66 per cent, believed that the aid should not be such as to risk involving the United States Debate Virtually Ended The neutrality debate is virtually ended, The leaders expect the amending stage to be reached on October 23 and the vote to be taken before adjourning for the week ended on October 28. The Administration amendments are believed to have obviated 75 per cent, of the changes which sena tors previously were expected to seek On the completion of the third week of the neutrality debate Senator Hiram Johnson (Republican) told reporters that the debate had at least achieved a declaration that almost every senator is opposed to sending American troops to France and had helped to rekindle anti-war feeling.

teftnf/CCrs J . ~ , . Senator Barbour, during the debate yesterday, said that the United States could not help Canada under the existing neutrality law. He contended that an attack on Canada would no only violate the Monroe Doctrine, but would force the United States into war. “Under the present law the United States can sell aeroplanes to Russia for resale to Germany, while they are barred to Canada, with whom we have lived in peace for a century, ne said. A „ "A Mad Dictator

Senator Ellenden violently attacked Hitler as “a mad dictator, and an insatiable despoiler of men and nations, and a violator of treaties.” He then asked: “ Why should America be afraid of offending him by doing what it wishes in the way of sales of munitions? ' „ . . . Senator Johnson (California), who opened the debate, labelled as idiotic the assumption that if Hitler were to conquer Europe “we will be next. He added: “Again England, in power politics, hasn’t an equal, and when this war is over she will be at the same old game at which snobbish Americans will still be trying their hand. The repeal of the embargo will place us in the shadow of walking down the bloody path of war.” Speaking against the arms embargo, Senator Reynolds, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, told the Senate that there is “strong circumstantial evidence that Russia sank the Athenia. The finger of guilt more clearly points to Russia than to any other nation, fantastic though it may seem.” Senator Reynolds discounted the German menace in the western hemisphere. He advocated spending 10,000.000.000 dollars on national defence as the cheapest and most efficient means of avoiding war. Mr Herbert Hoover, broadcasting, defended the proposals he made on October 10. He urged that the entry of the United States into the war would mean a dictatorship continuing afterwards for a generation if not tor ever ... Mr Hoover said: “My sympathies are pro-Ally, but I have the deepest conviction that America must keep out of the war.” SOUTH AMERICAN STATES PRO-ALLY SENTIMENT NEW YORK, Oct. 21. (Received Oct. 22, at 8 p.m.) A special correspondent of the Herald-Tribune, who has returned after six weeks in South America, states that an overwhelming majority in the Argentine and Brazil are against participation in war, but are strongly pro-Allies. The Russian-German pact has disillusioned military experts who had admired German military efficiency. The consensus of opinion is that a German victory would be a catastrophe for the world. REFUGEE PROBLEM PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S STATEMENT MISGIVINGS AROUSED NEW YORK, Oct. 22. (Received Oct. 22, at 10 p.m.) The Washington corresnondent of the New York Times says that it is reliably stated that the -British and French representatives are most concerned at President Roosevelt’s statement on the refugee problem, and declared in informal representations that one of the war objectives is the elimination of the doctrine of racial and religious bigotry, making it unnecessary fpr citizens to emigrate because of religion or race. President Roosevelt’s statement it is understood, discomfited Britain and Prance because they felt that it permits the assumption in Germany that the President endorses Hitler’s thesis that omieration may be forced. Officials privately suggest that the President’s remarks were misinterpreted if they were taken to support Hitler’s thesis.