ARMS EMBARGO

Wairarapa Times-Age, 10 July 1939, Page 5

ARMS EMBARGO

SENATE GROUP OPPOSES REMOVAL

ROOSEVELT POLICY ENDANGERED

COMPROMISE SUGGESTED

REPEAL OF NEUTRALITY LAW

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright WASHINGTON. July 8. A declai*:i 1 ion I hat bl senators are lighting- to a iiiiislt the attempt to lift the arms embargo Ims dealt Mr Gooseveil "s campaign to revise the Neutrality Act this session a stunning- and perhaps a fatal blow.

The opposing camp has refused to give the names of the senators, and the Administration is suggesting that it is perhaps "exaggerating,” but, ti is admitted that half that number could stage a prolonged filibuster.

Meanwhile, it is not certain Ilia l . (he Bill will even be reported down, as the Senate Foreign Affairs Commit tee is reported to be split in (he proportion of ten to ten. The chairman. Senator Pittman, postponed tomorrow's decisive meeting till Tuesday, indicating that the Administration is still trying to win over the opposition. The Administration states that a majority of the committee undoubtedly opposes the arms embargo, but cannot agree on a means to get rid of it.

The "New York Times" and the New York "Herald-Tribune" are both advocating getting.rid of the embargo by repealing the entire Neutrality Act instead of making another attempt to agree upon a satisfactory amendment. They suggest that such action might offer an acceptable basis for compromise.

-It is increasingly clear,” says the "New York Times” in an editorial, that the best hope of keeping the United States at peace does not lie in a policy of attempting to isolate us from the consequences of a general war, but in a policy of making the outbreak of war less likely. “If potential warmakers were told — as they would be by the repeal of the Neutrality Act —that American supplies will be available to the nations fighting them in self-defence, while the same supplies will be beyond their reach because they do not control the seas, they will have an additional and highly-important reason for avoiding war. In this sense, repeal of the law would be a peace and not a war measure. It would throw the United States's influence where it ought to be for our safety as well . as our selfrespect—on the side of international law and order.”