The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1930. AN ACID TEST

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20040, 12 September 1939, Page 4

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1930. AN ACID TEST

It is important to note that President Roosevelt has decided to call a special session of Congress this week to re-eonsider the Neutrality Act. This measure, as is well known, absolutely forbids the sale of war materials by the United States to belligerents when an open declaration of war* has been made (as in the case of the renewed Conflict in Europe) but, strangely enough, it is not applicable in the case of a struggle (such as that which is now raging in China) in respect of which neither of the participants has made any such declaration. When Congress was in session in July, President Roosevelt—impelled, no doubt, by a strong belief that the ominouswar clouds hanging over Europe might coon burst—sought to have the muchdebated law drastically amended, or ended, straightaway. The reason why he displayed so much uneasiness on the matter is, of course, not far to seek. It had been hoped, when the law v/as enacted, that it would prove an effective means'of preventing the United States from becoming involved in another colossal war in. Europe. But it went a great deal further than that, seeing that it made certain that, if hostilities should be resumed there, the United States would find herself the only peace-loving neutral nation that would be in the embarrassing position of being debarred from selling war necessaries to the true and firm friends of the victims of HeriIlitler’s wicked policy of aggression. Little wonder that President Roosevelt, even before the war had become such a tragic reality, felt very uncomfortable. And it is safe to say that he is much more unhappy over the matter to-day. To his great credit, it was only very reluctantly that he accepted the advice of the Senate Menders which, in effect, was that a reexamination of the Act should he held over till the next session of Congress, then scheduled for January.

When the World War broke out in 1914, no other nation, it may be recalled, was more insistent on the right freely to trade in arms than the United States. Charged by Germany with violating the true spirit of neutrality, by permitting war materials to bo shipped to the Allies, the then executive head ,of the great republic (the late President Wilson) objected strongly to the nation’s good faith being impugned, “The exportation of arms to belligerents cannot be prohibited,” he replied. It will also not have been forgotten that, before Germany forced her into the struggle, the United States led a futile crusade against Britain for carrying on a naval blockade aimed at preventing contraband of war entering the ports of Germany and those of her accomplices. The only shipments of American raw materials useful in war that ever reached Germany direct were, of course, those that were conveyed on two voyages which the commercial submarine Deutschland made to and from Atlantic ports some months prior to the entry of the United States into (lie war. On both occasions, the submarine carried a cargo of chemicals and dyestuffs to the United States and was supplied, for the return journey, with a cargo of crude nickel and rubber. In a subsequent German campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare, however, scores of American vessels were sunk, even a number of which were engaged in peaceful trading with other neutral nations. If it had not been for the British Navy, American trade with Europe would have been paralysed. As matters now stand, Nazi Germany will be able to ciraw supplies of various necessaries from all her neutral neighbours, including some in the Baltic which are cut off from the Allied democracies. If the United States should prefer to retain her present Neutrality Act, only Britain and France would suffer, be-!

cause Germany cannot, - in any event, receive supplies from across the Atlantic. This would be Canada’s chance to develop her industrial plants, so that she might, in large measure, fill the breach.

Unthinkable, however, it is that either the Government or the people of the United States will be content to make no distinction between the Nazi disturbers of the people of Europe and Britain and France, which have gone to the rescue of the oppressed victims —so ruthless and so morally unjustified has been the aggression. It may, indeed, be felt in responsible American circles that the Nazis were, to some extent, encouraged to revive their struggle for domination in Europe by a belief that the United States neutrality law would not be altered or repealed and that, in consequence, Britain and France would not (as in the case of the World War) receive an enormous amount of help, in the shape of huge supplies of war materials, from across the Atlantic. Seemingly, the opposition to the reopening of the subject during the latest session of Congress was due, mainly, to a feeling that, if the law were repealed, President Roosevelt might not wisely use the powers he would then possess. But the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was by no means unanimous in arriving at a decision to recommend that the matter should again be temporarily shelved. In strict fact, it was hopelessly divided, the voting being: For the recommendation 12, against 11. That President Rosevelt was far from pleased with the committee’s attitude was shown when it appeared, at first, that he desired to lake a strong stand against Congress. It is clear that it will now be to his advantage that he waited until after Europe had again become the stage in connection with another terrific clash of arms. To-day, the general belief in the United States is that the Athenia w r as deliberately torpedoed without warning. Such a gross outrage must have settled for the American people the point that they c-annot afford to adopt a detached stand with reference to the terrible struggle that is being waged by Britain and France to free the small nations of Europe from Nazi oppression and degradation.