REPEAL OF NEUTRALITY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19884, 10 March 1939, Page 5

REPEAL OF NEUTRALITY

WASHINGTON MOVEMENT TOKIO TREATY QUERY. (Reed. Mar. 10 9 a.m.) WASHINGTON, Mar. 8. The movement for the repeal of the Neutrality Act gained headway when Senator Lewis introduced a measure negating the neutrality statutes of 1935, 1936, and 1937, and giving the President unlimited power to determine what action is necessary to enforce neutrality. The Senate Naval Affairs Committee agreed to ask the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, whether Japan had abided by the treaty obligations not to fortify the islands of the West Pacific. The American Neutrality Act was too rigid in its present form and should be revised along more flexible lines so as “to permit American foreign policy to be shaped by American rather than by foreign authorities,” a committee of experts on international law reported last month. The report, made after nine months of study, suggests four changes, chief of which is one that would authorise the President, with the approval of a majority of both Houses of Congress, to place an embargo against a State engaged in hostilities in violation of a treaty with the United States and to omit the embargo “in respect to any State engaged in hostilities not in violation of such treaty.” Adaptability to Circumstances “The most essential change required in the Act” the report said, "is that it should be made adaptable to the varying circumstances to which it must apply. In its present form, it has worked in favour of States whose policy the American people do not approve, and whose actions are contrary to our rights under our treaties and under international law.

"It is a fact beyond doubt,” the report added, “that whatever policy we adopted, and, however impartial we may strive to be, we shall aid one side more than the other in any foreign conflict

“It seems to us unwise, and even absurd, to have a Jaw that denies to our Government the right to hinder an aggressor, or to defend ourselves by measures short of war against a State which is doing injury to the United States in violation of treaty rights or of international law. If our action will in any case aid one party more than the other, we should be free to direct that action against the State which violates law and treaties, or does harm to us.” Cases of Civil Strife The report suggested that all references to civil strife be deleted from the Act because "civil war is a very difficult situation in international law and varies so widely that it would bo preferable to handle it through a special statute for each situation.” Substitution of the term “hostilities” for the term “war” is suggested “to enable the Act to cover situations that it could not cover under the term “war.” The report concludes with mention of the “desirability of co-operation with other States in situations intended to be covered by the Neutrality Act.”