Kankakee Valley Post, Volume 9, Number 47, DeMotte, Jasper County, 12 October 1939 — Bruckart’s Washington Digest Repeal Bill Would Extend Credit To Belligerents Buying in U. S. [ARTICLE]

Bruckart’s Washington Digest Repeal Bill Would Extend Credit To Belligerents Buying in U. S.

Danger of Getting Into Same Mess Over War Debts That Followed World War; Added Authority Given President in Bill Carries Potential Danger.

By WILLIAM BRUCKART

WNU Service, National Press Bldg., Washington. D. C.

WASHINGTON.—As the lull dress debate of the so-called neutrality bill continues in the senate, numerous phases and angles and incidents have cropped up and demanded attention. It is easy for ono side to say that the thing must be accepted by the senate and the housd and the country, without so mudh as a crossed “t” or a dotted “i|” and it is equally easy for the oppositionists to say that we should have! none of it at all. The truth is neither side is completely correct, and Mr. John Q. Public must remember that in forming his own conclusions. | The bill that was reported by the senate committee on foreign relations, I believe, must be as a sincere effort. Sixteen of the twenty-three members of the corrimiitee believed it, or believed it should have a chance to be discussed fully and freely. There was no division along the lines o|f Democrats or Republicans; sev4n senators voted against sending the bill to the senate because they are opposed to repeal of the embargo against; shipments of arms to any belligerent powers, while President Roosevelt and the majority members of! the senate committee want to get rid of the embargo. i Publication of the text of the bill, however, shows some provisions that have gone far to load the guns of thosO who want to keep an arms embargo in force. Some iof the members of the group opposing repeal were sufficiently wrought up to accqse the administration —Mr. Roosevelt, Secretary of Staite Hull and others—of having misled the country in telling what theiy think ought to ba done, by way of legislation, to keep the country out of war. It is a condition of bad temper and it is likely to cause damage all around. Nevertheless, until the senate committee finished writing the bill, all of the discussion was whether to repeal the arms embargo; j since publication of the bill, it is shown that not only is repeal of the embargo sought, but permission would be given for extension of credit to those belligerent natrons that want to buy here. Many Object to Giving President Extreme Power Another section of the bill that was not well advertised in advance is a section giving President Roosevelt additional authority during threats of war It allows the President to define “combat areas,’’ and to forbid American ships and American citizens from going into those zones. That provision is highly provocative. For there are many who believe no Chief Executive ought to be clothed with such extreme power. I doubt that it ever will be rqisused or abused, yet it has that possible danger within it. Haying such potential danger, the section is being vigorously opposed by men just as anxious to keep the nation out of war as those who say that only repeal of the arms embargo will keep us from being embroiled in Europe’s mess. Debate has made it appear*, thus far at lyast, that the original “cash and carry” sections constitute a strong bulwark against our entanglement. But there.surely is ground for objection to that part which was added—that part which will give buying pations 90 days in which to pay. A buying nation can come to our shores, load down many ships and go pway with the cargoes within 90 days—and say at the end: “We have not the money to pay.” Of course, it will not be as raw as that. The purchasers did that during the World war. also, and We are still waiting for those nations to pay mdre than on those debts. I am the only Correspondent to report every one qf the conferences with foreign nations when the United States tried to get some tangible basis of payment worked out, and since that time I have had little faith in any of their promises. The “cash and carry” section <bf the current bill, with its 90-day provision, therefore, strikes me as nothing more nor less than a breaking down of the law that Senator Johpson of California forced through the congress some years ago. The Californian fought until he got a statute that barred any nation from getting new credit here if it still owed on its World war debt. So-Called Neutrality Bill Shows Mistakes Can Be Made It probably is an impossibility to “legislate” a nation into being neutral. It is hke legislating people into being good. If they want to be good, or if they want to be bad, they probably will be just that way, regardless of what kind of a law the brain trusters in a legislative body put together. And. in the instance at hand—the so-called neutrality bill—there is ample evidence of mistakes that can be, and are being, made. Friends of the program of em-

bargo repeal mistakenly assume that substitution of the cash and carry provisions will let us rest in peace. It is perfect, they say. Opposition sentiment can see only hosts of marching men and ships carrying warriors overseas if there is repeal. Therefore, neither side is giving really serious attention to perfecting the cash and carry provision, in event it shall be accepted, eventually, and the bill become law. That is a grave mistake. That lack of consideration of details of this phase is a great mistake can be proved by the shudders of business interests when sharp eyes and analytical minds discovered what the section, as written by the committee, would do to commerce in this part of the world. Protests filed by shipping and air transport companies serve as an example. Actually, as originally presented, the cash and carry sections would have kept many businesses from dealing further with British and French possessions in the Caribbean sea. They would have halted buying and.selling in some quarters of South America, like the Guianas; air lines from the United States could not have stopped there; regular North and South American ship schedules would have been disrupted. Well, the committee made hasty changes, but it remains to be seen whether even these will work in practice. The trouble is that no one man or group of men can visualize all of the possible contingencies and consequences of a piece of far-reaching and rigid legislation. None ought to claim that it has been done, but claims to that effect are being advanced and ballyhooed. Monroe Doctrine Must Be Given Consideration Now, it might be said that these phases of the problem are matters that concern only “business interests,” and big business interests, at that. Such, unfortunately, is not the case. Since every one of those points of difficulty lie in the western hemisphere, consideration must be given to the application of the Monroe Doctrine. Our trade with nations and possessions in the western hemisphere, therefore; is considerably different than with Great Britain and France, themselves. Yet, with all of the close commercial ties with those possessions, with due recollection of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine, there remains the fact that congress, under the urge of the administration, is seeking to legislate neutrality, a neutrality that works one way with the parent nation and another way with the colonies—the children—of the belligerent nation. It is quite evident, indeed, that whatever law is finally enacted will contain many imperfections, some loopholes and some dangerous principles. It should be said to President Roosevelt’s credit that, thus far, he has not openly put the pressure on his congressional leaders for passage of the bill without changes. Membership of the two parties in congress is widely splif. Perhaps that is why White House force cannot be used effectively. True, some of the anti-administration Democrats have predicted that the President will get both feet into the situation before action is had, but that has not happened, yet. Pan-American Conference Does a Worth-While Job While all of these things have been going on in Washington, the sessions of the conference at Panama City ought not be overlooked. The representatives of our own and our neighbor republics did a good arranging for co-operative action to keep the war away from our shores and in Europe, where it started. It always is possible for hest intentions to go haywire, but surely there is credit due. to Mr. Roosevelt and the department of state for the leadership exerted in getting all of the South and Central American folks around a single table. If nothing more happened than a free discussion of the potential dangers that exist, the meeting would have been worth while. More did happen, however, and the understandings that were reached, stripped of high-sounding words, mean that active governments in the western hemisphere are going to work and act together. Further, the conferences can. be said to have produced a feeling that none of the smaller republics and so-called republics need fear any of the others. In the meantime, however, it is distressing to witness newspapers everywhere relegating important domestic hews, facts about our home folks and home problems, to inside pages. One of the Washington papers the other day had seven columns of war news on its front pages. That seems to me to be bringing the war here when we don’t want it.