Peace Passion Hot

The air over the U. S. fairly flocked last week with the pigeons of peace. In St. Paul, onetime Secretary of State Frank Billings ("Nervous Nellie") Kellogg, outraged because war was going on in Ethiopia in spite of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, screwed up his face and shrilled into a microphone: "When Italy invaded Ethiopia . . . Italy violated a treaty with the U. S. and thus violated the supreme law of our land." In Washington President William Green of the American Federation of Labor puffed out his cheeks, bellowed over the air: "The passion for peace possessed by the workers of our country is all-embracing. . . . The workers demand peace. They cry for peace. They think in terms of peace. They are opposed to war. . . ."

Amid this universal peace passion, Franklin D. Roosevelt could not remain unmoved. Last month he had done all he was authorized to do under the Neutrality Resolution when he forbade exports to Italy and Ethiopia of arms, ammunition or implements of war, warned U. S. citizens that they traded with or traveled on ships of the belligerents at their risk (TIME, Oct. 14). Last week the President decided to go beyond the powers given him by Congress to use moral suasion. At a press conference he issued a delicately worded statement repeating what he had said before, with a difference:

"We have warned American citizens against transactions of any character with either of the belligerents [a significant pause], except at their risk.

"In the course of war, tempting trade opportunities may be offered to our people to supply materials which would prolong the war. I do not believe that the American people will wish for abnormal, increased profits that temporarily might be secured by greatly extending our trade in such materials; nor would they wish the struggles on the battlefield to be prolonged because of profits accruing to a comparatively small number of American citizens."

Then came one sentence of suasion:

"Accordingly, the American Government is keeping informed as to all shipments consigned for export to both belligerents."

What this sentence implied--publication of a list of profiteering exporters or a New Deal bill to crack down on them--hardly mattered. To bankers negotiating foreign loans a negative shake of the State Department's head has almost always been enough to squelch any deal. Though it is unthinkable that any administration should deliberately use laws enacted for other purposes to harass those who do defy its wishes, most businessmen know they would be foolhardy indeed to risk offending the eternal bureaucracy which at any time is able to do a number of unthinkable things.

Just how effective Presidential suasion may be was illustrated by a little anecdote that Franklin Roosevelt told his press conference. On Sept. 20 George F. Johnson, chairman of Endicott Johnson Corp. (shoes), lunching at Hyde Park, sounded out the President on whether his company should accept a large order for shoes from the Italian Government. Were they ladies' slippers? the President asked ironically. No, Mr. Johnson replied, they might be used for army boots. Thereupon the President advised Shoeman Johnson not to accept the order.

At that point in the story a naive newshawk piped up: "Was the order filled?"*

Amid a roar of derisive laughter, the President shook his head.

Significance. There are two mutually exclusive attitudes which a peace-loving bystander can take in case of a fight: 1) He can decide which of the combatants is the aggressor and attempt to put him in his place. That is the theory on which the League of Nations is now proceeding. 2) He can throw up his hands and refuse to have anything to do with either side for fear of becoming involved. That is the theory on which the U. S. Neutrality Resolution is based. In practice U. S. action to date under the Neutrality Resolution amounts only to cutting off munitions from Italy. The President's extra-legal ban on other trade is equally one-sided in effect. If it succeeds in preventing shipments of materials which will in all probability be used in war, it still follows the theory of the Neutrality Resolution in discouraging fighting. If it bans all trade, it amounts to a deliberate attempt to starve out Italy, thus joining the League in applying sanctions. The President's intimation that Italy might buy all the evening slippers she wanted implied that the ban applied only to materials for war use. He spoke only against "abnormal, increased profits" from Italian trade. Yet he admitted that among the exports to be watched were wheat and oil.

Before starting off for a week's rest at Pinehurst, Secretary of State Hull issued a statement in which he said without qualification that it was the Government's object to "discourage dealings" with the belligerents. That this "discouragement" had not yet been really effective was made plain last week when the State Department announced that reports received from the Treasury indicated rising exports to Italy. The Department of Commerce report on September exports showed that 234 trucks were shipped to Italian Africa, compared to two in September 1934; 61,708 barrels of oil to Italy, compared to none in September 1934; 40,432 tons of scrap iron compared to 21,066 tons in September 1934.

*Last week Mr. Johnson explained that negotiations had never reached the point of an order being placed: "Personally, I would not advise our company to accept or fill any such order. No such order has ever been received. Not one pair of shoes, not even a shoestring, has been shipped by this company to either of the belligerent countries. ''

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.