"It may be urged that the provi sions of the United States Code and the quoted provisions of the Hague Convention ore declaratory of inter ational Jaw on the subjects mentioned and that to do the things contemplated by the proposed act would yonder us tin neutral, This would be largely true under ordinary eircumstances but we are not here dealing with an ordinary war situation Rather we are confronted with a.s1- nation Uiat is extraordinary indi acter.
"The rules relating to the rights id duties of neutrals and those re-Jating to the rights and duties of be igerents complement each other, that is to say belligerents are forbidden fo do certain things which infringe the rights of neutrals and neutrals are forbidden to do certain things which prejudice the rights of belligerents.
"For example the Hague Convention just referred to states in Article 1 that belligerents are bound to ree pect "the sovereign rights of neutral Powers.n? to abstain, in neutral ter. ritories or neutral waters, from any act which would, if knowingly per~ mitted by any power constitute a vioation of neutrality,' Belligerents are forbidden fo use neutral. ports and waters as a base of naval. warships Jand submarines against their adver-[saries. (Article 5.)
"Germany and Ialy have pald no [attention to such provisions which are representative of international law on the subject, but have at will and without notice occupied by force the territory of neutral countries and, having subjugated those countries, are Jusing their resources against their adversarles. One of these countries, namely Belgium, had a formal treaty signed May 31," 1639 with Germany by which it was agreed that in no ease would force be resorted to; another, namely Norway, had a formal assurance on September 3, 1999 from the German Government that under no circumstances would Germany In-Hterfefe with Norway's inviolability (Continueg. on page 151, col. 5%)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.