NEUTRALITY LAW

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19979, 3 July 1939, Page 5

NEUTRALITY LAW

REFUSAL OF REVISION BAN ON SALE OF ARMS BELLIGERENTS IN WAR SHIPPING RESTRICTIONS (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Reed. July 3, 9 a.m.) WASHINGTON, July 1. A rebellious House of Representatives last night hilled President Roosevelt’s hopes for the revision of the neutrality law at this session, when it adopted legislation virtually re-enacting the present law, including the Republican-sponsored provision for an embargo on the sale of arms from which American warplanes are excluded. The voting was 200 for, .and 188 against. The measure'will" now •go 'to ‘ the Senate, where an adamant isolationist bloc has threatened to prolong the session all the summer rather than to permit' the passage of the bill in the form the Administration desires it.

Defeated in its effort to prevent the inclusion of tne arms embargo, Administration leaders in the House narrowly escaped a complete rout. A motion to send the bill back to the Foreign Affairs Committee, iyhich would have had the effect of defeating the bill and continuing the existing neutrality law, was turned down by only two votes. Harried leaders fought desperately through an uproarious session, lasting far into the night, and made three attempts to remove the arms embargo. Both the speaker, Mr. William Bankhead, and the majority leader, Mr. Samuel Rawburn, stepped into the well of the House to plead personally for the defeat of Mr. Vory's arms embargo amendment, which was carried by 214 votes to 173.

Operation in War

The new bill will operate upon the President or Congress declaring the existence of a state of war, as follows: “It will be forbidden to sell arms or ammunition to a belligerent, to ship any commodities to a belligerent until the title is transferred to someone other than a United States citizen, to makie loans or credits to belligerents except ordinary commercial credits and shortterm obligations of not more than 90 days, and to solicit funds in the United States on behalf of a belligerent.” '

In addition, the President can deny the use of 'United States ports or territorial waters to submarines or armed merchantmen of a belligerent.

The major change from the present law is the elimination of the phrase “implements of war" from the embargo provision. •

Legislators said this would permit the sale to belligerents of aeroplanes, automobiles, oil and other commodities which are at present banned.

Possible Axis Mistake

The New York Times, in an editorial on the neutrality position, says: “.Rome and Berlin will make a mistake if they draw too confident a conclusion from the failure to abolish . the arms embargo. Several special circumstances must be kept in. mind in considering the House’s action. First, the vote against the repeal of the embargo provision was largely the result of purely domestic factors, and merely one phase in a general revolt against the Administration; secondly, it must be noted, even though the House has votled against (the repeal of this particular embargo, that it remains entirely legal under the terms of the bill passed to export to those nations which control the seas in time of war those materials which enter into making arms and ammunition; thirdly, the narrow margin whereby the repeal of the clause was defeated—a shift to three votes would have changed the results—shows how greatly opinion in the House has changed since the original embargo was adopted by an overwhelming vote in 1937. That change of sentiment carries its own warning to potential aggressors.”

Not Real Indication

The New York World-Telegram, in an editorial, says: “The House served notice on England and France that they need not look this way if the test comes and their defences are found wanting. The tragedy in this assurance to Herr Hitler is that it is no real indication of what Congress would say when the drums began to beat.” '

The New York Herald-Tribune blames the refusal of the House to repeal the embargo largely on President Roosevelt’s “stiff-neckedness.” The Herald-Tribune continues; “The President’s insistence upon the continuance of all his emergency monetary powers made it impossible to hope that reason would prevail with respect to unwise restraint on his control of foreign affairs. In the fight against stubbornness and wilfulness, fine distinctions could hardly be expected.”