If the U. S. Congress eventually passes the Lewis Bill to repeal all the neutrality legislation on the Federal statute books, d there is every reason to believe that it will, it will have made a volte face which, on the face of it, is amazing. It was only on May 1, 1937 that the well-known Neutrality Act was approved, so that within about two years that measure will have been discarded as part of the general foreign policy of the United States. Senator Hiram Johnson does not appear to be quite correct when he alleges that the administration forced the Act down the legislators' throats, for in the controversy which raged over the matter in 1936 President Roosevelt kept his own counsel, though he was believed to be opposed, on principle, to a policy of "100 per cent, neutrality," where such a policy threatened the destruction of the democratic tates, It was the seeming imminence of war in 1936 which posed a difficult problem for American pacifism. A large part of the President's following favoured complete neutrality in the event of a war breaking out in Europe, with what would amount to practically a total embargo, not only on munitions, but on any materials potentially ful to the combatants. On this theory the victims of European aggression were to be treated exactly the same as the aggressors, but despite this, the supporters of the complete neutrality doctrine pressed for enact: ment of legislation which would completely tie the President's hands in the matter. Opposed to them was a much smaller body which argued that this was a harsh and short-sighted view of the nation's obligations, and that situations might arise—a war, say, between the totalitarian states and the democratic countries,—in which the latter could not, in decency, be abandoned to their fate. The active intervention of Germany and Italy, and the German Press campaigns against Soviet Russia and Czechoslovakia in 1936, and subsequently, strengthened the view that the President should be given some measure of discretion to permit victims of zegression to bu: for, and transport at their own risk such supplies, not actually munitions of war, which they might need,—other words the "cash and carry" policy.
That school of thought did not prevail. The Neutrality Law then in force was extended to May 1, 1937, but on the closing day of 1936 Congress amended it to prevent the shipment of war materials to either side in the Spanish Civil War, in effect a victory for the "one hundred percenters." That victory crowned the success of the isolationists, and so far as it could then be seen the United States was prepared to withdraw within itself and leave the rest of the world to its own devices. The events of the past two years appear to have changed all that. The threat of the totalitarian states to the democracies in Europe, the rape of Czechoslovakia, the civil war in Spain and the "China Incident" have all helped to convince public opinion in the United States that a very real problem has arisen from assistance in the solving of which the United States cannot refrain. Forces have been at work against which old ideas could not possibly prevail, and probably much against their wishes, large numbers of people. who would still prefer to remain isolationists, have been convinced that such a course is impossible, and that it has become the duty of the Americans to support the other democracies in any struggle which may be precipitated. That does not necessarily mean that public opinion in the United States has progressed to such a stage where it could contemplate with any degree of approval the despatch of fighting forces to Europe, though it is quite clear now that it is no longer prepared to follow a policy which would deny fellow democracies that material assistance of which they might stand in need, and for which they are able to pay.
It is in all probability due more to Japanese action in Asia than to anything else that it is for it is reported that the Lewis Bill is designed to give the Administration a free hand in planning retaliatory measures against nations discriminating against United States trade and interests. That is exactly what Japan is doing at the present moment.
The whole matter is an interesting example of the manner in which the divergent interests of the parties to the Rome-Berlin-
Tokyo axis are likely to interfere with the general success of the scheme. Japanese behaviour in Asia is leading towards a very big change in the attitude of the United States with regard to the supply of war materials to victims of totalitarian aggression, and should this Bill become law, that assistance which they anticipated would never be granted to the democracies. will again become available. A more valuable and influential contribution to the peace of the world it is difficult at the moment to conceive should the repeal Bill be passed, a very real setback to thos nations which contemplate a policy of aggression. Japan will thus be shown to have acted against the best interests of her partners in again making available that material assistance for the democracies which otherwise would have been denied them. Apart from the purely selfish satisfaction which will be felt in the democratic states, there is another potent reason why the Lewis Bill should be passed. President Roosevelt condemned the present Neutrality Act in no uncertain terms on Wednesday when he said that not only had it failed to promote peace. but had actually in some instances promoted war. The United States freed from the bonds placed upon them by the Neutrality Act will have a more powerful voice in the affairs of the world than was the case before, Until that measure is repealed it will be impossible for the United States to speak with that authority which belongs to so great a nation, and with the untrammelled entry of that country into international affairs, with the abandonment of the old creed of isolationism and the EAE a more liberal foreign outlook the position of those nations which refuse to regard war as a weapon in international policies will be strengthened in a manner which should encourage the greatest confidence with regard to the future peace of the world.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.