Debate over Neutrality Act

Today was an exciting day on Capital Hill. Senate Joint Resolution No. 173 was debated by both chambers of Congress and later voted on. This controversial legislature was finally passed.

There of course was criticism of Roosevelt and this course of action. Senator Tom Connally, Democrat from Texas went on Congressional record on the saying

Is it an expression of neutrality to say to two warring nations, one of which has ambitions for territorial conquest, the other unprepared, the other weak, the other trying to pursue its own destiny—is it neutral to say to those nations, "We shall give arms to neither of you," thereby insuring the triumph of the prepared nation, the covetous nation, the ambitious nation, the nation which seeks by force of arms to impose its will on a weaker and defenseless nation?

Mr. President, that is not neutrality; that is a form of unneutrality. That is a form of declaration which announces that the United States will take the side of the strong and powerful against the weak, the unprepared, and the defenseless. Why not leave that determination to the President of the United States when and if, in his conduct of our foreign relations, it becomes a sound American policy for him to take a position in a crisis of that kind?

We cannot now put the United States into an international strait jacket and thereby keep out of war. We cannot by an act of Congress put the United States into a concrete cast internationally which will fit all future occasions and solve all future problems

Across the Atlantic Ocean in Great Britain there has also been critics. Liberal member David Marshall Mason remarked that the Neutrality Act was pre-emptive. He said "No act of war so far has been committed by Italy against Ethiopia, therefore the resolution is premature."

Later, he seemed to go back on this statement when he said "...it is a direct encouragement to Italy to proceed with her war of aggression against Ethiopia by proclaiming to the world that in such an event the United States intends to remain neutral. I trust the powers composing the League will carry out the resolutions of the League and that powers outside the League, such as Germany and Japan, will act sympathetically."

Mister Mason continued his statement with a conditional: "Should the powers stand up to the their covenant, I pray and trust peace will be preserved, and such a decision does not rule out the possibility of still meeting the just aspirations of Italy for an honorable settlement."

It's a provocative statement on the times but the fate of a sovereign nation is still within the hands of those duly elected to serve it. The League has not the power to force a nation to create war when it wishes not to.