With a rapidity which was not expected the United States' House of Representatives have taken action in connection with the new proposed neutrality legislation, by completely repealing the arms embargo contained in the Neutrality Act which President Roosevelt has sought consistently to amend, and clearing the ground for the passage of a new Neutrality Bill, which it is expected will be passed in short order, It is interesting to note that the motion for repeal was one of three in the form of instructions directed to the joint committee of both Houses. The first of these, forbidding Federal agencies to extend credits to belligerents, was defeated by 228 votes to 196. The second favouring an embargo on arms, and ammunition, but not aeroplanes and other non-lethal instruments of war was rejected by 244 votes to 179, a complete reversal of the voting on a similar motion last June, when it was passed by 214 votes to 173. There now remains only one motion of instruction to the joint committee. That is for the repeal of the arms embargo, and President Roosevelt has won a victory in the bitter struggle against the isolationists who fought him step by step in the Senate, but apparently realized the futility of the struggle in the Lower House where a week's debating settled the matter out of hand. And so the United States regain that neutrality which was theirs until the passage of the enactment of last June, which was definitely non-neutral in character, and tending to give an advantage to Germany which that country ought not to have. A neutral has the right to sell to all belligerents, who can pay for what they want, and can manage to receive the goods which they buy. The fact that Germany is unable to secure transportation of war material from the United States because of the Allied command of the seas, is no reason whatever why the Allies who can pay for their requirements, and can transport them overseas should be deprived of whatever benefits can be derived from a state of complete neutrality on the part of the United States. It is consequently a sound argument that the provision which has now been repealed was unjust, and it was the American love of justice which eventually prevailed against the isolationists.
It needs to be remembered that the action of President Roosevelt in pressing for the repeal of the arms embargo, and the remodelling of American neutrality legislation, was not the outcome of the commencement of war, though this may ultimately have influenced the voting in Congress. It will be remembered that the great fight for change took place in June last, long before there was anything more than a suspicion—a suspicion which was not generally held by U. S. legislators—that there would be an early war. It was with the idea that there would not be that Congress adjourned, not ordinarily to meet until January next. War broke out, a special session of Congress was called, and in view of all that had happened the majority, which had rebelled against the President's proposals, was converted in their favour. That the outbreak of war probably did influence the legislators cannot be denied, but the fact is that the Administration had intended amendment before war broke out, and that this latest step is not designed so much to meet present exigencies as to remedy a state of affairs to which President Roosevelt was all along opposed. The position is that the Allies can now purchase war supplies from the United States as Germany can from the Soviet, when, and if the latter is ina position to provide them. Those parallels completely prove the correctness of the- modification which Congress has now voted, showing that Congress ensures the same degree of justice to the Allies vis-à-vis the United States, as Germany has in relation to Russia. It is of interest to note that, in the debate which preceded the vote, speakers pleaded the inapplicability of the neutrality act to both the European and Asiatic situations, and it is more than likely that the principles of all round equity did as much in influencing the ultimate vote, as the actions of Germany since the outbreak of war. There can, however, be little doubt that the bombing of Polish towns as reported by the U. S. Ambassador to Warsaw, the sinking of the s. Athenia and the recent seizure of the s. City of Flint had a certain effect upon those isolationists who were not prepared to advocate American aloofness at all costs, and though there is a very general, and, it may be said, proper determination to keep the United States out of the war, that does not necessarily mean that public opinion, which undoubtedly reacted upon the legislators, is likely to remain completely indifferent to what yet may happen.
Recent developments in the Baltic have not left that public opinion undisturbed. M. Molotov, Soviet Foreign Commissar, has aroused the indignation of the United States with his references to Finland in his recent speech, and the policy which Russia is adopting towards that country. That may not, and probably cannot lead to any active intervention by the United States in behalf of Finland, but M. Stalin, like Herr Hitler seems bent upon actions which can only serve to inflame considerable resentment against them, in a country where principle is still the criterion of the acts of individuals as well as of states. Thus the history of the past few weeks may have done more to influence Congress than all the arguments which the Administration has put forward, though that is vindicated in its belief last June that amendment was necessary in the light of the imminence of war. Delay in securing the repeal of the arms embargo has caused no serious harm. Fortunately the Allies' preparations permitted them to enter into hostilities well equipped for the struggle, and the postponement of the entry into large Scale fighting has served still more to strengthen their position. That does not, however, in any way discount the enormous advantage in having a source of supply of war materials of such importance as the United States available for the purpose of mending the wastage which fighting must inevitably cause. The increase in Allied potential by the repeal of the embargo is all the more important when it is remembered that Germany is obliged in the main to rely upon her own resources, and while some assistance may be afforded by neighbouring neutrals, the continuance of an efficient economic control at sea by the Allies considerably enhances by contrast with Germany, the benefits they are able to avail themselves of through the amended state of American legislation. The repeal is not a victory for the Allies, for they had no hand in it, but it does place them in a very advantageous position.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.